1964-07-30

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Recently the right hon. gentleman the member for Woodford, Sir Winston Churchill, announced his retirement from the British House of Commons. As the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said at Westminster this week, this is an occasion both of sadness and of grandeur; sadness, because the greatest parliamentary career of our time is coming to an end; grandeur, because of the honour and lustre which that career has brought to the institution of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this house would wish to put on record the unbounded admiration and gratitude of the Canadian House of Commons for Sir Winston's services to freedom and to free men everywhere. We shall remain forever in his debt for the inspiration and the achievements of his life and his work; above all for his leadership in the struggle against what he once described as "the foulest and most soul destroying tyranny which had ever darkened and stained the pages of history."
The sweep of Sir Winston's career across our history is still so close to us that we can only view with awe the part he has played in this turbulent twentieth century. We are so close to him that it is difficult to pay adequate tribute to, or even to keep in any proper perspective, one who always matched, and often dominated, the events of his age.
He is the heroic war leader; the transcendent politician, parliamentarian and statesman; the adventurer, soldier, orator, historian; the most human of human beings; the man who never knew fear, never admitted defeat, never confused victory with peace, never let prejudice confound progress. He was a manysided genius, the Renaissance man 400 years after the Renaissance.
Though our most cherished and most vivid recollection of him is as the war leader, indomitable, vast, inspiring with his voice 20220-390J
alone millions of men around the world, this day, in this chamber, in this daughter of the mother of parliaments, we pay tribute to the man of the House of Commons in which he served as a member for 64 years. He is the last of a great generation of parliamentary leaders whose skill in parliamentary debate was equalled only by his love of it. No house of commons will see his like again.
We recall, Mr. Speaker, with affection the occasion when his presence and the nobility of his spirit enriched this chamber. We are, I am sure, as one today in acknowledging the immeasurable debt that all free men and the parliaments by which they are served owe to this man. So we wish him and Lady Churchill, a fitting helpmate for such a man, further good years ahead to enjoy the esteem and affection of their millions and millions of friends in every corner of the world.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the right hon. Prime Minister in his tribute to Sir Winston Churchill. We have a double interest, the Prime Minister and I, being members of the imperial privy council, as all privy councillors in Canada have an additional interest in that Sir Winston Churchill is a member of the privy council of our country.
I saw him first almost 48 years ago from the gallery of the House of Commons in Westminster when, following the tribulations of Gallipoli, he was in disgrace. His career, they said, was over. They have said it several times since, and in every case have been wrong. I recall him then, in the uniform of a lieutenant colonel, rising to speak in the British house and that house emptying, as it does when the members desire not to hear the member who is speaking. He was indomitable, courageous, fearless.
I saw him again in the 1930's and again he was the Cassandra of British public men when he foresaw the fear of the shadow of Hitler over Europe. I met him during the early days of war. I said to him "I saw you first when you were in disgrace, Mr. Prime Minister". His reply was "Which time was that?"
He has a sense of humour, a knowledge of history unparalleled in public men. From

Sir Winston Churchill Retirement his earliest days, as the Prime Minister has said, he was a child of the House of Commons. When one goes back to 1896, as his regiment was about to leave for India he recorded these words, "The Churchills peg out early, so I am going to make sure of my innings".
He came into parliament when Sir Wilfrid Laurier had been prime minister for about four years. Queen Victoria was on the throne. He lived through the greatest events in modern history, if not in all history. As the Prime Minister has said, he was orator, warrior, writer, painter; a statesman who has held more positions than any other leader in all the cabinets of the United Kingdom. He is immortal while yet he lives.
In all his greatness, sir, what stands out is that he was always a House of Commons man. His sense of humour, his ability in the thrust and cut of debate, devastating at times, was never wounding. Many examples of his wit are known to members, but the one which particularly appeals to me was in response to an interruption he received from a member whose legs were very short and who from time to time interrupted him. Sir Winston was in the midst of a speech, and his response was "The hon. member should not be so ready to hop down off his perch". That was Churchill. Some of his replies are immortal. None caused more than the temporary disillusionment of those who were the recipients thereof, because he never sought to destroy those with whom he disagreed.
One often hears it said that it must have been wonderful to live in some other age, in the golden ages of the past. We who have lived in the lifetime of Sir Winston Churchill could not ask for more. In the last war, as in the first world war, he was the embodiment of the determination of the British people. When freedom was challenged there were strong men who were filled with fear. One will never forget, as the Prime Minister has said, those words of his during the last war when he took his fellow men from the valley of fear to the heights of Everest. His words are immortal. The music of his language carries a bell tone sincerity cast in the mould of Gibbons and Macaulay. He moved men.
I think of him in a personal sense. I have visited him in his home on several occasions. He is the embodiment of those virtues that have meant so much to Britain's leadership.
The Prime Minister mentioned Lady Churchill. No man can achieve greatness without a wife with the capacity to understand and at the same time be critical in the best
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
sense of the word. Sir Winston has been blessed with such a wife for more than 57 years. She has been his constant companion, his devoted adviser and the inspiration of his life.
We are not here to speak in the manner of a requiem. We are here as Canadians in the parliament of this country, believing in freedom and knowing what Churchill's contribution has been. May he, as the Prime Minister said, continue for whatever time lies ahead to have the knowledge that wherever freedom lives the name of Churchill will also be revered.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it is altogether fitting that this House of Commons should pay tribute to the greatest parliamentarian of our time, Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill. His parliamentary career spans a period of 64 years, with the exception of one short interval of two years. He has occupied his seat in the British House of Commons for the last time. The House of Commons will be a poorer place for his leaving.
However, it is not the length of his service but rather its quality for which he will be remembered for many years with affection and gratitude. Whether as a member of the opposition, a minister of the crown or as prime minister of his country, he brought his great gifts as a parliamentarian and orator to the service of his native land.
History will undoubtedly judge him as the greatest Englishman of this century, and probably one of the greatest of all time. It is astonishing that one man should have crowded so much experience into a single lifetime. It is hard to realize that this man rode with the Lancers at Omdurman; was captured by General Botha in the Boer war; was first lord of the admiralty in world war I and returned to that post at the outbreak of world war II.
However, he will be remembered most for his leadership of Britain and the commonwealth when Hitler's legions were at the gate and we stood almost alone. It was then that his dauntless courage and his matchless oratory came into their own. Someone has said he mobilized the English language and sent it marching into battle in defence of freedom. Mr. Speaker, he did a great deal more. He instilled in others something of his own indomitable spirit and bulldog tenacity. That was not only Britain's finest hour, but no matter how much we may disagree

with him on other matters, that was Churchill's finest hour. No one can take it from him.
He will go down in history as a great war leader who rallied Britain and the commonwealth in their darkest hour to resist nazi aggression and restore peace to a war torn world.
In a very real sense we cannot honour this great man; his deeds have brought him honour far beyond our power to augment by words we may utter. He has won for himself a place among the great figures of history. We can here today, and we do, pay tribute to the great service he has rendered to Britain and the commonwealth, the great contribution he has made to the defence of freedom, and to what he has done for the enhancement of parliamentary institutions.
The members of the New Democratic party join, as I am sure all members of this house and all Canadians do, in expressing to Sir Winston Churchill our deepseated gratitude for a lifetime of devoted service. We express to Sir Winston and Lady Churchill the hope that they may have much health and happiness in the years that lie ahead.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in place of our leader, the hon. member for Red Deer, who unfortunately is not able to be present. We in the Social Credit party wish to associate ourselves with those who today are paying tribute to one of the greatest statesmen of all time, Sir Winston Churchill, on the occasion of his retirement from active political life.
I do not intend to repeat what has been said by those who have preceded me, but I would say that the service of this great statesman to his own country and to the free world has never been equalled in the annals of history, nor is it likely to be eclipsed in any future period of time. The memory of those challenges with which he inspired courage, fortitude and the will and determination to triumph over the forces of aggression still thrills the hearts of free men everywhere. His service in various capacities, both in and outside the House of Commons, in times of peace has been an inspiration to all those who strive to fulfil the responsibilities of true and useful citizenship. I wish to read a very brief quotation from an editorial which appeared in the Calgary Albertan:
The one quality which separates great men from failures could be defined as "bounce". In the 30's Churchill was utterly defeated, ridiculed, and cast out of politics. He for a time retired to his home, took out a card as a union member, and laid bricks. Finally his moment of justification
30, 1964
Sir Winston Churchill Retirement
came and his country called him. In his old age he rose to supreme greatness.
May I say that greatness has always been his constant companion. On this occasion we extend our best wishes on his retirement from active political life, and trust that his remaining years will be brightened by the satisfaction of having served with such distinction the cause of peace and justice.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: I wish to join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, other party leaders and all members of the house, I am sure, to pay tribute to that great statesman, Sir Winston Churchill.
This man was prominent in many spheres and he distinguished himself in several fields, while devoting his life to the defence of two great principles he cherished: the British Empire and above all, democracy.
I think that Sir Winston had only one shortcoming, the same as the Leader of the Opposition, in this house, in that he was a Conservative all through his life.
This man was proud of his origin, of his country, of his country's institutions and he fought with courage, often against great odds, to heighten the prestige of Great Britain throughout the world.
And when, in 1939, hell broke loose in Europe, it was Sir Winston Churchill who picked up the torch of freedom and democracy to lead the whole western world into battle against Hitler's domination.
He aroused one and all to greater determination and effort until, after countless sacrifices, freedom and democracy stood triumphant.
Mr. Speaker, as any other man in public life Sir Winston Churchill may have made mistakes, taken questionable stands, but there can be no doubt in my mind that he is retiring today with a heavy balance on the credit side. He remains the symbol of the statesman standing ever upright and on guard. We of the Ralliement Creditiste are happy to associate ourselves with the tribute paid by the previous speakers and to support the motion just brought forward.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege and in the interests of historical accuracy, perhaps I may be permitted to point out that Sir Winston Churchill, like the
present Leader of the Opposition, was at one stage a Liberal.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the right hon. Prime Minister that he was at one time a Conservative.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether Sir Winston Churchill was at one time a member of the Social Credit party?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, his ambitions did not reach those heights.
Mr. Speaker, 1 move, seconded by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition:
That the tributes expressed in the house this day on the occasion of the Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill's announced retirement from parliament be transmitted to the right honourable gentleman as a sign of the high esteem in which he is held by the Canadian people.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-114, to approve the ex gratia payment of compensation to persons injured by aiding and assisting the Governor General to preserve and maintain the public peace and order and to dependants of persons killed thereby.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker, since it is the duty of all citizens to assist the law enforcing authorities to maintain order, those persons who are injured in the discharge of this duty are entitled to remuneration, as are the dependants of those who are killed. This bill affirms the principle that the government has a duty to award compensation to those injured, or to the dependants of those killed, in attempting to put down crime; and it provides the procedure whereby applicants may petition the government for grace and favour compensation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has been


in touch with the board of maritime trustees relative to the suggestion made by various members of the opposition that the board should give an accounting of its stewardship before parliament or a committee of parliament.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday of this week I had a meeting here in Ottawa with the chairman of the board, Mr. Justice Dryer, and I conveyed to him the wishes expressed in the house that the board of trustees meet with a parliamentary committee. I added to the requests made by hon. gentlemen my own request, and Mr. Justice Dryer undertook to meet with his colleagues this week and to let me know later on what they might be able to do. I am quite hopeful that a satisfactory arrangement will be forthcoming.


John George Diefenbaker: Does what the minister say mean that it was agreed that they would meet, and it is only a question of the fixing of the date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Dryer wished to meet with his two colleagues and give me definite word later on in the week. I have not heard from him yet, but as soon as I receive definite word I will inform the house as to the reaction. In the meantime I am hopeful of a satisfactory arrangement.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: As
a supplementary question, is the minister in a position to read another page from Canada's most popular detective story "The Disappearance of Harold Banks"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question is too subtle for me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I rephrase my supplementary question in simple language. Can the minister give the house any information as to the whereabouts of Mr. Harold Banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. gentleman for his clarification. I have no idea where this gentleman is.



C.N.R. EMPLOYEES CROSSING PICKET LINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Early this week a question was asked in his absence regarding the threat of the Canadian National Railways management to dismiss certain of their employees for refusing to cross a legal picket

line, and in the minister's absence his parliamentary secretary promised that a reply would be made. I am wondering if any reply is forthcoming; because I understand since that time some of these employees have been disciplined and received 20 demerit marks because they refused to cross a legal picket line. This seems a strange attitude for a crown corporation to take in a legal labour dispute.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will consult Hansard he will see that I replied to the question the following day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I take it from the Minister of Transport that the Canadian Pacific Railway is going to continue this policy of threatening its employees for refusing to cross a legal picket line?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest the hon. member should read the answer I gave. I think it referred to the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Does the hon. gentleman agree that the Department of Transport is too big for one man?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the hon. member to ask whether I agreed with Mr. Hees that the department was too big for one man? I thought that remark was a reflection of that native modesty of his which we all miss so much in this house.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
seamen's strike
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask if he has anything to report on the dispute affecting the Northland Transportation system. Have the parties come closer together or are they still at arm's length? If so, what is being done to bring them together?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The latest information I have is that the national vice president of the C.B.R.T. is convening meetings in Vancouver on Friday and over the week end in an effort to reach a settlement of this issue.
d.e.w. line-threatened walk-out of



EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Labour if he would have his officials immediately look into the imminent walkout of some 500 employees of the distant early warning line as the result of a breakdown of negotiations; and is the minister aware that this would have the effect of closing out the distant early warning line, which is a pretty essential part of our North American defence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to do what my hon. friend suggests, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
preservation of u.s. market for groundfish products
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that Japan is now an exporter to the United States of ground-fish products taken from the northwest Atlantic and processed at St. Pierre, what effort is the government making to assist the Canadian fishing industry in maintaining its traditional United States market as well as to conserve, through international agreement, our rapidly depleting deep sea groundfish stocks?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: I wish to assure the hon. member that this government is making every effort to assist Canadian fishermen to retain the good market they have with our neighbours to the south.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Is any effort being made at the international level to carry on consultations with Japan on the conservation of groundfish stocks?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member is well aware that we have a convention which takes care of the fishing operation in the north Atlantic, and that Japan is mainly concerned with operations on the Pacific side of this country. But if the time should come when the interest of Japanese fishermen in the Atlantic is such that further negotiation or agreement is required, then it may be considered that they should take part in the international commission northwest Atlantic fisheries.



JAPANESE PROCESSING OF FISH IN ALASKA WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Pritlie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I sent notice of this question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Fisheries yesterday. Is the minister aware that the state of Alaska has permitted Japanese cannery ships to buy and process fish in Prince William sound, Alaska? If so, does the minister plan to make representations to the United States government about this action, which is against the intent of the north Pacific fisheries convention?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in reply I wish to inform the hon. member that we are aware of the situation and have been studying the matter with a view to determining whether such action is against the intent of the north Pacific fisheries convention. We have come to the conclusion, however, that the United States action is not contrary to the intent of the north Pacific fisheries convention, as the fish are caught by United States fishermen in accordance with the terms specified in article 9, paragraph 1, subsection (a) of the convention.



ABSENCE ON HOLIDAY OF MINISTER OF FORESTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielfe-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct to the Prime Minister a question I consider very important?
Why is the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) holidaying in Europe with his family at a time when we are discussing the estimates of his department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are not discussing, as I understand it, the estimates of this department. We are discussing interim supply.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Does the Prime Minister not feel that instead of travelling in Europe it would be better for the Minister of Forestry to visit the farmers of eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces, in order to get better acquainted with their problems when agriculture is in danger-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


I demand an answer from the Prime Minister, because agriculture is going bankrupt while the Minister of Forestry is travelling in Europe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the standing orders as well as the Chair.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question, since it concerns the economic situation of a great number of Canadians, while the minister is travelling in Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: All questions asked here, I am quite sure, are very important.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Take your responsibilities.
Stay here. Same old bunch.



Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct an important question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell the house whether at the present time, the Minister of Forestry is resting and bathing on the island of Capri, in the Mediterranean, instead of solving the problems of the eastern farmers? Is the minister aware of that?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague is engaged in some serious matter, in the interest of the country.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY OPPOSITION LEADER RESPECTING ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, in Toronto, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) said that he was convinced that we would have a general election before the fall. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether he has given information to the Leader of the Opposition as regards his statement in Toronto yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

and I are continually in touch with each other on this and other matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders oi the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: In the absence of the Minister of Public Works and the sudden disappearance of the Postmaster General, I have an urgent question for whoever is acting minister of public works. Will immediate action be taken concerning serious complaints about working conditions in the Winnipeg post office due to ineffective ventilation and the lack of air conditioning, which has caused the illness of some of the post office employees?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I was just about to suggest the same thing. Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, a question placed on the order paper may stay there from April 27 to the present day. There are 20 questions on the order paper which were placed there in April, May and June, and which are so far unanswered. My question is serious and of urgent importance, because post office employees in Winnipeg on the fourth floor are working in an average temperature of 100 degrees, and some of them have fallen ill. Surely some action can be taken to deal with these conditions, and surely this question is of urgency and importance to the people of this country.
{Later:]
I should like to ask the Prime Minister who is acting minister of public works in the absence of the minister?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I can advise the hon. member that I am acting for the Minister of Public Works.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then may I ask the Acting Minister of Public Works if he will take action in accordance with the terms of the question I have asked concerning the serious situation in the Winnipeg post office.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The matter will be brought to the attention of the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



REPORT ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the recent report prepared for the Atlantic provinces research board by Professor T. Wilson of the University of Glasgow and released within the last day or so, in reference to regional development in the Atlantic provinces, been brought to the attention of the minister? If so, would he care to comment on this report?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am sure I do not need to remind the hon. member of the interest of the government and of myself in the prosperity and welfare of the people of the Atlantic area. This report has not yet been brought to my attention, but I will secure a copy; and if I have any comments to make I will be glad to make them after I have read it.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER AT OLYMPIC TRIAL GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it the intention of the hon. lady to attend the opening of the Olympic trial games sponsored by the Canadian Legion, branch 68, St. Lambert, Quebec, to be held in St. Lambert on August 7?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is the government ready to introduce a bill to permit groups of farmers to obtain joint loans from the government to pay for special equipment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into this matter, which involves a question of government policy. If and when a decision is taken it will be announced, of course, in the commons.
6164	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: That is why I asked this question. I did so because it was announced by the Minister of Agriculture in Charlottetown to a meeting of the Liberal association there on July 22. The minister announced that a bill along the lines I have indicated would soon be introduced in the House of Commons, possibly on July 24. It would be called the farm machinery syndicate bill. I have asked a question about it, and the Prime Minister has said government policy will be announced in due course, but here we have the peregrinating minister announcing this decision to a party meeting in Prince Edward Island. Now the Prime Minister says the announcement will be made in this house.



INQUIRY CONCERNING NUMBER OF PROJECTS IN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry, but in his absence perhaps the Prime Minister could answer it. Is it true that out of 368 projects approved for aid under ARDA, only 21 are in Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: This surely is a question for the order paper, because it requires a detailed answer.



STATEMENT AS TO QUOTA AND DELIVERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on July 28 the hon. member for Lisgar asked me some questions about oats quotas. I can advise the house that the wheat board has advised that the quota for oats will not be raised during the remaining two days of the current crop year. The Canadian Wheat Board Act provides that only grain delivered during a crop year may be accepted into the pool account for that year. In view of this provision it is not possible for the board to allow grain delivered after July 31 next to apply against the account for the current crop year.
I might, however, add this. The wheat board has already announced that the regular unit quota will come into effect at all stations in the designated area on August 1, and producers may deliver oats under this quota if they so wish. The wheat board will be giving preference to shipments from country points of low grade wheat, feed oats and feed barley to ensure adequate supplies for market requirements.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary question to the minister. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the unit quota for oats will again be 100 bushels.


Mitchell William Sharp: I believe so, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is any special consideration being given to those delivery points which were not successful in delivering all their quota in the present crop year?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The wheat board has never been able to give this special consideration. It does its best to try to level up quotas at the end of the crop year. It appears to me that the marketing outlook this coming year is such that farmers should be able to deliver all their crop which will be grown in the coming crop year, and perhaps take off some of the small surplus remaining on farms on July 31.



RECOMMENDATIONS OF REPORT ON P.F.A.A. ADMINISTRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister how soon the government will be in a position to make a statement concerning the recommendations of the inquiry into the prairie farm assistance administration, the report of which inquiry was recently received?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that report was tabled yesterday.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Then since it is impossible during the interim supply debate to discuss agricultural matters, I wonder whether the government will open up any possible discussion of this particular matter by leading off and giving its views on it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to have been any limitation so far imposed on the debate on interim supply.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister yet determined what the priorities will be in

Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX
regard to the report of the Hall commission, in bringing it into legislative form?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Of course not. It has been said a number of times, the department is dealing with the Hall commission report and it will be a matter of some months before this study is completed and a proposal formulated.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the constitutional amendment has now been passed by the British parliament, can the right hon. gentleman give us some fairly specific idea when we shall receive copies of the white paper on the Canada pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just as soon as we can make it available. There was a meeting, as the hon. gentleman knows, only a few days ago between officials of the provinces and the federal government which gave a sort of third reading to the principles of the draft legislation. Certain changes were suggested and those changes have been, or are being, incorporated in the white paper. They are not changes of great substance. It will just take them a little time; then as soon as the white paper can be reprinted it will be made available to the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there some hope that we will have the white paper at least during the month of August?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, yes; I hope within a week.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the right hon. Prime Minister I wish to ask him a further supplementary question. Since the white paper will be available within a week, will not the Prime Minister consider placing the pension bill before parliament before the flag debate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I think we should adhere to the procedure already laid down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



VILLENEUVE CONSTITUENCY, QUE.-REDUCTIONS IN CLAIMS FOR CHARITABLE DONATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue who is in charge of the most important federal government. Is he aware that the riding of Villeneuve seems to have been chosen for tests in French about receipts for charitable donations? Everyone seems to have suffered cuts and claims were reduced to $100, which is the amount allowed all Canadian taxpayers. Moreover, it seems that this situation exists in particular in the riding of Villeneuve. Can the minister explain the reason for such action in my riding?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the taxpayers in his riding are not being treated differently from the taxpayers in the whole of Canada. However, since he has raised the specific question I will have the matter looked into by the officials of my department and will be pleased to communicate with the hon. member as soon as possible.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning a very essential part of this House of Commons. It is based on a headline story of the Globe and Mail of this morning. The headline says, "Delaying tactics cause deep rift among the P.C.'s". Would the Prime Minister arrange or attempt to arrange a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition to work out some kind of program in an attempt to avert any further deterioration in this essential part of parliament, namely Her Majesty's loyal opposition?


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice as leader of the house. My question refers to an article published in the Globe and Mail this morning.
Has the leader of the house been notified that four other Social Credit members would join the Conservative party, since the article

Inquiries of the Ministry states that there are 14 Conservative members from Quebec in this house?


David Réal Caouette: Who are they?


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the cabinet never discuss legislation in regard to agriculture but that this is left to the Minister of Agriculture to work out as best he can for himself?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is it the intention of the minister's department to resettle Indian people when no economic basis for the existence of a reserve can be found?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take this question as notice and inform the house as to this problem as soon as possible.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Grey-Bruce asked a question regarding the itinerary of Her Majesty during the royal visit to Canada in October. Perhaps I could answer that question by reading a very short press release which is being issued at 3 p.m. eastern daylight time from Government house and Buckingham palace in London. It is as follows:
It is announced today.. .that, during the recent commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London, when the Prime Minister of Canada had an audience with the Queen, he discussed with Her Majesty her forthcoming visits to Charlottetown on October 6 and 7 (arrival on the evening of October 5) and to Quebec on October 10 and 11.
At the time, it was decided that it would be fitting for the Queen and His Royal Highness to visit the capital and Her Majesty stated she would be happy to extend her stay in Canada briefly for this purpose.
Although details of her engagements in Ottawa have still to be settled, it is planned that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness will arrive in Ottawa on the evening of October 11. Her Majesty will leave by air for London on the morning of

October 13, while His Royal Highness will rejoin the royal yacht for visits to other countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: If the house will permit me, Mr. Speaker, as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition I should like to express the deep pleasure that I know is in the hearts and minds of all Canadians that this has been arranged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should apologize for not making this statement on motions, but as the release time was 3 p.m. I felt I was not in a position to make the statement until that time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I suppose the hon. member for Lotbiniere will join the Queen.



HAMILTON FALLS.-PRESSURE ON QUEBEC FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, we are working on it. First of all we have to get the definitions clear, but we will soon have the figures.']
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any further information in regard to the question asked yesterday concerning federal interest in the Hamilton Falls project? The question yesterday concerned federal cabinet interest in the Brinco deal, and the Prime Minister said he would investigate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I was asked yesterday whether there had been any pressure brought to bear by the federal government on the provincial government concerned, and my answer was no. That remains the answer; there has been no such pressure.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the Prime Minister also indicate, in regard to the same matter, government disfavour with this project in view of the fact that the government has already indicated an interest in the tidal development at Fundy, which would be directly competitive with this project, as well as other developments in the Atlantic provinces?



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is now ready

to give an answer to the question I asked on Tuesday concerning the total cost of the peace keeping force in Cyprus, which he said would be the gross cost plus the net cost. Has he got that figure ready yet?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are working on it. First of all we have to get the definitions clear, but we will soon have the figures.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 29, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. La-moureux in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $696,010,791.01, being the aggregate of-
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $658,598,418.50;
(b)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of transport items 15 and 25, (schedule A) of the said main estimates, $7,044,425;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 60, fisheries item 20, justice item 1, legislation item 20, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 25, 45 and 60, national film board item 1, national health and welfare item 15, northern affairs and national resources items 15 and 35, privy council item 25, transport item 1, loans, investments and advances item L10 (schedule B) of the said main estimates, $9,525,758.34;
(d)	two twelfths of all the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A) laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, loans, investments and advances items L17a and L37a, for which no proportion will be granted, $20,840,372.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of justice item 12a (schedule C) of the said supplementary estimates (A), $1,806.67;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965.
Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to participate this afternoon in the perusal of the interim supply estimates, although I feel my inadequacy to do so. I notice that the subject estimates amount at the present time to almost $700 million, so we must agree that it is the duty of all members of parliament, above all the government itself and the Queen's loyal opposition, to remain here and deal with these vital matters pertaining to the economy of our country; and when that is done and other matters have been looked after, possibly we will deserve a short interval of leisure.
It is also a pleasure to speak this afternoon on another matter of which I have given hon. members notice through the mail. If
Interim Supply
hon. members would bear with me for a minute I should like to invite them to the Lennox and Addington-Napanee centennial, which will begin on Friday of this week and run through to August 8. We are proud that His Honour Mr. Speaker, who so ably presides over this chamber, will be our honoured guest. The county town of Napanee, which is the place of his birth, and the county of Lennox and Addington will welcome him. We are proud of him and hope his visit will be an occasion for the renewing of old acquaintances, and giving him the honour he so richly deserves.
The first day, Friday July 31, is the day of the queen's coronation ball. Saturday, August 1 is homecoming day. Sunday, August
2,	will be dedication day. Monday, August
3,	will be civic day; Tuesday, old fashioned day, followed by youth day, ladies day, agriculture and industry day, terminating with the day on which the county and town look to the future, Saturday, August 8. All hon. members are cordially invited to come down and help us celebrate our 100th anniversary. May I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other hon. members for bearing with me in regard to this announcement.
On coming to the subject of forestry, water resources and rural development, may I say that the forest industry was well described and its activities ably portrayed yesterday by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, who was the first minister of that department and whom I congratulate in that regard. He has well laid out the position which the forest industry occupies today in our country.
I have before me, Mr. Chairman, one of our government of Canada pencils. On it appear the words "Misuse is abuse". That is a very good truism. Misuse is abuse, and this government has abused the forest industry by the misuse of the government's powers of taxation. One of the great errors committed by the government lies in the fact that it is slowly but surely crippling the forest industry, the lumbering industry and the pulp and paper industry. Our forest products industry, one of the original activities of our country, is even older than agriculture because of the necessity for first clearing land of timber before the first crops could be grown. Down through the years this industry has played a mighty part in the development of Canada. Our timber, both softwood and hardwood, has been the best in the world and has always commanded a ready sale at premium prices in the markets of the world. You can see, Mr. Chairman,

Interim Supply
how vital the continued prosperity of that industry is to every person in this country, even those who are not active in it. It, along with the great pulp and paper industry, its forest partner, has been the largest contributor toward balancing our international trade.
This government, under the system of taxation it is practising, is imposing an unjust tax on the machinery of production for this industry, as well as an 11 per cent tax on the products of the industry. This is grossly unfair, Mr. Chairman, not only to the industry itself but to the men who have worked in it and who would like to continue working in it. It is unfair also to the people who have invested their capital in the lumber industry. I believe I know whereof I speak, because I have spent 20 years in the various facets of this industry.
The taxes imposed by this government are unfair to the provincial governments of the country which are operating their respective forestry departments according to economic laws. These provincial governments are protecting public stands of timber from fire. They are practising the arts of conservation, reforestation and silviculture in all their phases. These provincial governments depend upon the controlled sale of stumpage and timber licences by public tender. If this government in Ottawa is going to continue to impose this current load of taxation on the forest industry, then those in that industry are going to cease to bid on standing timber. They are going to cease to be interested in the production of lumber, timber and other forest products.
If this situation occurs, more people will be out of work. It will sharply reduce the revenues of the provinces as well and, as is being demonstrated right now, it will markedly increase the cost of housing to the general public. This is especially burdensome to those young men and women who are starting out in life to raise a family, and who require decent accommodation in which to do so.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another great economic field that this tax on building materials and lumber affects adversely, and that is the real estate business. I am not referring to the few people or companies who take part in the real estate business across our country. Nearly all our people are owners of some form of real estate. Under our municipal system real estate is a security for all obligations. In other words, taxable real estate is the security for raising the money a municipality needs. This undue, unjust and heavy taxation of one of the most important 
components of a house does not encourage the real estate or building industry.
At the present time the building industry is the leading factor in the production of our national wealth, and is a very great contributor to municipal revenues. I leave you with this question, Mr. Chairman. Is this government, by these measures, going to injure both the provincial and municipal economies of this country? By their misuse of the powers of taxation, which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, are they going to dry up the springs of economic incentives upon which Canada could always rely in the past for her national development? I leave you with that question, Mr. Chairman.
I should like now to deal with water resources. The people of my county have always followed water conservation practices. The reason for the settlement of these communities along the rivers of our province lay in water power. In fact, the first industry in the town of Napanee, the ancient site of which is marked by a historic plaque, was a mill erected by the British government to keep the loyalist settlement from starving to death in 1788. I, Mr. Chairman, have had some experience in conservation, having helped to build the second Depot lake dam, which is 30 miles up river from the town of Napanee. This dam was completed in 1958 and the federal government of the day was a partner with the provincial government in the completion of that project.
With regard to the need for water resources, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from a clipping from the Family Herald of July 16, 1964. The headline reads "Needed, Men Who Know."
Sixty years ago President Theodore Roosevelt was preparing to call a world conference on conservation. Among things he wanted it to do were these:
1.	Prepare a general plan for an inventory of the world's resources.
2.	Recommend ways of preventing waste, and of replenishing and developing resources.
3.	Recommend that the countries of the world co-operate to safeguard and improve the basic means of their support.
4.	Draw attention to the lessons of the past regarding the wise use of resources.
I will not read all the article, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to quote this part about Canada:
It would be unfair to leave the impression that Canada has been a vacuum over these years. We have done considerable good work under prairie farm rehabilitation administration, maritime marshland reclamation association and numerous provincial conservation plans.

I note, Mr. Chairman, that the plans mentioned originated during the regime of the former government as part of their sound policy for the conservation of our water resources. I note also that there is a reference to the need for the conservation and use of our continental waters. The North American water and power alliance is prominently mentioned as the instrument for harnessing these waters for irrigation purposes across parts of our Canadian prairies. Of course the scheme includes a large amount of United States territory. In so far as acre feet are concerned, by U.S. estimates, Canada compares with the United States on the basis of approximately 10,000 to 40,000, in proposed water benefit. The United States claims about four times the water supply that can be utilized by this North American water and power alliance.
This is a vast plan that would supply the scarce parts of the two countries in so far as water is concerned. But the ratio of benefit should not be in that preponderance, for most of the water rises in Canada.
I see now the wisdom exercised by my colleague from Rosetown-Biggar, who some time ago opposed the complete utilization of Rocky mountain water under the Columbia river treaty. I can see now the wisdom of retaining some of those waters for use in the dry areas of our central plains.
Also along the line of forest conservation I should like to point out the great merit in conservation of our timber and in particular the great need for combating Dutch elm disease which is so rampant and so damaging to the elm trees of our country. In my research with regard to this matter I found that on December 10, 1962 the following question was asked by the hon. member for Cumberland, as found on page 2476 of Hansard:
1.	Has the Department of Forestry undertaken a study of the prevalence of Dutch elm disease in Canada and, if so, what is the result of such study?
2.	What is the federal government doing to eradicate Dutch elm disease?
His question was answered by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, then minister of the department, as follows:
1. The Department of Forestry has undertaken a comprehensive program of surveys and research on the Dutch elm disease and definite procedures are recommended to reduce the destructiveness of this serious disease.
It has been demonstrated that control measures involving the removal of diseased and dead trees and spraying of healthy trees with insecticides can keep losses to tolerable levels. Where these measures are not implemented, however, the disease
Interim. Supply
is expected to continue to kill elms for many years in areas where it now occurs, namely, western New Brunswick and southern Quebec and Ontario, and to spread to other areas-
It is spreading, Mr. Chairman.
-but it is unlikely that it will eliminate elms from our landscape.
Intensive research is in progress to determine how the disease develops in infected trees and on chemotherapy to find improved measures of control. Co-operative studies with Department of Agriculture scientists have resulted in the development of elms apparently resistant to the disease. These trees are presently being critically tested to determine the degree of resistance.
2. It is unlikely that the Dutch elm disease can be completely eradicated. The disease is now well established over extensive areas of Canada and the United States and under these conditions it is impossible to remove all sources of infection. The present program in many cities and park regions is one of sanitation which calls for early detection and removal of infected trees. In cities where these programs have been rigidly applied losses have been reduced to tolerable levels.
Fredericton, New Brunswick, is given as an example. Hon. members will recall that Fredericton is a beautiful city whose streets are lined with stately elms.
The federal government is assisting in control programs by providing technical assistance and guidance in methods and procedures of disease control. Extensive continuing surveys are carried out to define the limits and seriousness of the disease and to provide other information essential for timely control operations.
I ask the present government what they are doing to continue the fight to protect and preserve the elm, one of our most stately trees and of great value to the economy of the country. A good example was set by the former administration, and the people of Canada expect the present government to continue to wage war against Dutch elm disease wherever it appears in our country.
Much has been said in the past about low water, and I should like to draw attention to some of the problems in my riding. Last fall the level of lake Ontario was down in our area by approximately 40 inches or almost four feet. It has risen some this summer, but the level is still far below normal. I claim that dredging is the only answer to low water in our harbours. We are in a low water cycle at the present time, and if the water level is going to remain low for a long time dredging is the only answer in order that we may make full use of the navigation facilities in our harbours, large and small. The government should alleviate this situation by providing more money for dredging, as we are in a low water cycle and the level is not apt to rise appreciably for at least two or three years.

Interim Supply
Picton harbour in my constituency badly needs dredging. I remind hon. members that the port of Picton is the second ranking port in Ontario in tonnage because of the large shipments of iron ore and cement. I ask the government to look into the dredging of this old, useful and valuable harbour immediately because it is the key point of water shipment in our constituency and the main harbour of the county of Prince Edward.
I have one more matter to raise concerning rural development. According to the response by speakers on the government benches yesterday, it seems to be taboo to mention ARDA here, but I wish to protest the sad neglect of the government to implement the provisions of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. It seems to me that activity in this regard has reached a very low ebb. No action is being taken by the government.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could raise a point of order at this time. The objection taken yesterday to the discussion of ARDA matters was that these items had already been dealt with by the committee of supply and a decision taken on them. That was the objection taken. If the hon. member will check the record I think he will find that on or about July 10 these items were approved by the committee of supply and a decision taken on them. There is no objection to the other part of his remarks relating to the administration of the Department of Forestry.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to venture an observation in connection with the point raised by the President of the Privy Council. I submit it to you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member who has the floor is speaking about the minister and his activities. Part of the activities of the minister is the administration of the Department of Forestry. I submit that as long as the hon. member is speaking of the activities by the minister he is perfectly in order, even though part of those activities were dealt with in a previous vote.


George James McIlraith: I am afraid the former minister did not get my remarks. I made it clear I had not taken objection to discussion of the ministry of forestry. I only had reason to take objection when the hon. member started to discuss the ARDA program in a particular, detailed way. It was at that point I rose.
As to the other point raised by the former minister, he will of course realize it is not usual to discuss the details of the estimates on interim supply. On a supply motion it is usual to discuss general grievances. What is asked for here is not the voting of a particular item, but permission to the government to have so much of the year's appropriations spent for a certain limited period of time.
As a protection to hon. members it is usual to give an undertaking at the start of interim supply proceedings, protecting the rights of hon. members to discuss the detail of the estimates which have not heretofore been considered.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I think the minister will agree it is not all the fault of the opposition for the confusion facing us. The government has so many ministers confused with one thing or another that it is pretty hard to decide what is the subject matter before the committee.


George James McIlraith: It is in an interim supply bill that the traditional permission is given to the government to carry on until the estimates can be brought before parliament and voted. It is quite clear when one studies the record of business this year that the estimates could not be brought before the house on the supply days because the opposition has taken the time on interim supply that should have been spent on main estimates. The opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot prevent the estimates coming before the house by discussing interim supply, taking up days and days of time, and then claim the time allotted to supply by the government has not been used to discuss main estimates. In past years, except where there was some grievance against the government for a particular failure, to deliver a budget or something of that sort, interim supply has usually taken about 15 minutes.


The Chairman:: To my mind the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox to this point have been perfectly relevant, and I am quite satisfied he can continue.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With due respect to the minister on the front bench opposite who has just interrupted, I estimate that he has been taking up the time of the committee for the last five minutes on nothing but partisan observations. It is our duty to point out the shortcomings of the government. If we do not do that then we are not doing our duty to our constituents nor to the country as a whole.

The government has announced a tew instances of activity under ARDA, and I give the ministry credit for establishing a community pasture in Algoma West at Dunns valley, only about three or four miles from where I was born. I was pleased to see some activity there, although we do not seem to be able to obtain any similar action in my constituency; but these few narrow activities are not conducive to the original, broad, permanent benefits envisaged by the act. For example, the concept of rural development has been totally forgotten. The over-all broad returns, socially and economically, that should be the accrued result of ARDA, are not being obtained by the government.
Yesterday evening hon. members paid a visit to the Laurentian hills, to Kingsmere, and we all wish to thank Mr. Speaker for his hospitality. Driving through the Gatineau park I noted the great results achieved by the national capital commission, and to that commission and its members a lot of credit should be given. Something is shown in Gatineau park of the way ARDA should function. There is the road development, to get into and out of it. The lakes and streams are in a high state of development and protection. Grazing lands are maintained for whatever use may be made of them. Then there is the recreational angle, all showing what ARDA could achieve if it were properly administered.
I have endeavoured to point out a few things as I see them and I hope that in doing so I shall have accomplished something in getting the government back on the track to administer these matters for the benefit of the country as a whole.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, since yesterday I have wanted to draw the attention of the house, as I now have the opportunity to do, to some protests I received with regard to the Department of National Revenue.
At midday today, I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) whether the county of Villeneuve had been singled out for special treatment or if orders for special inspection had been given. The minister stated that everything was taking place exactly as in other ridings.
Mr. Chairman, I have here a large file of letters from people who made certain claims at their district taxation office with regard to charitable donations. Some federal employees decided to cut down those claims.
For instance, someone claimed on the basis of attached receipts-as it should be pointed
Interim Supply
out-an amount of $300 for charitable donations. But the federal employees decided that $100 was enough. Now, everybody can claim $100 in Canada; that is the law. We certainly do not need a taxation office employee to cut down the claims of Canadian taxpayers.
I have here the case of Miss Marie-Ange Demers, from Fabre in the county of Pontiac-Temiscamingue. Instead of making her payment to the Department of National Revenue, she sends me an envelope addressed in this way:
Taxation Data Centre-Centre des donnees fis-eales-Box 475, Ottawa 2, Ontario.
A money order for $22.05 was enclosed to remit what the Department of National Revenue had claimed.
On July 21 last, that is, nine days ago, the Department of National Revenue sent her the following letter:
The amount owed is overdue. This is the last notice of payment in your case. If we do not hear from you within two weeks, legal proceedings will be instituted without further notice.
That is the way they write to a taxpayer.
The taxpayer in this case answered the Department of National Revenue quite rightly:
Sir,
X am sending you an amount of $22.05, mind you. I do not owe this amount, but my pride is worth more than that to me. What I paid on behalf of my niece exceeded $800, and, of course, I could hardly keep her with me to do her classical course, she was at school at the convent-
Miss Demers paid for her, but the taxation division does not take this into account.
Nevertheless, your conduct proves to many that you are unfair, and we shall remember this in due course.
This was written by a Canadian lady taxpayer.
Had I brought the matter before a court, I would not have been worried at all, but I am not as heartless as you are.
She is right on this point.
You are not worth our taking legal action, with such consciences as you have. I shall not allow myself to be brought before the court for so little, but what you owe me, your damned soul will not take it in eternal bliss, if you believe in the hereafter.
Mr. Chairman, this was a letter from a Canadian lady taxpayer.
On several occasions, for five or six months, we have drawn the attention of the Department of National Revenue on the fact that Canadian taxpayers are abused.

Interim Supply
I have here a letter from the deputy minister:
Following my letter dated July 6, I wish to acknowledge receipt of your subsequent letter dated July 10, concerning Miss Marie-Ange Demers, of Fabre, Temiscamingue county, province of Quebec. Miss Demers' claims for exemption concerning maintenance of her niece was carefully studied. Although an unmarried person who kept a household and has really maintained an entirely dependant person, a relative by blood, marriage, or adoption, may get an exemption of $1,000, it would seem-
The fact is not sure: "it would seem."
-that Miss Demers does not meet the above-mentioned requirements since information at hand indicates that the household was not kept in order to keep Miss Demers' niece.
Have you ever heard such a silly argument? The little girl being in the convent, Miss Demers could not at the same time have her niece both in her home and at the convent. But the deputy minister understands nothing of the sort.
And the letter goes on to say:
You do not meet the terms or the requirements of the department; therefore, you owe us $22.05.
I have this amount of $22.05 here, Mr. Chairman. The addressed envelope bears a 5 cent stamp, although a stamp was not even necessary.
I shall continue reading Mr. McIntosh's letter-
I see that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) is smiling; he must find this funny.
I continue to read Mr. McIntosh's letter:
I can only inform you that, in other circumstances, the Income Tax Act does not provide any exemption for the maintenance of a niece.
In other circumstances-


Mr. Pepin:: I rise on a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I must point out to the hon.
member that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was smiling, not because of what he was saying, but because of what I was telling him.


Mr. Rondeau:: We did not hear a word.


David Réal Caouette: Could the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport repeat what he just said?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was smiling at what I was telling him and not at the speech the hon. member for Villeneuve was making.


David Réal Caouette: I thought so and that is why I did not continue in that vein. I really thought that the minister found it funny to look at the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is funny, very funny.


David Réal Caouette: It is funny, is it not?
Mr. Chairman, let us come back to serious matters. I do not understand why the Minister of National Revenue tolerates such action in his department.
And that is not all. The signature of a parish priest or a recognized charitable organization is questioned, and then those suspicions are spread, not only in one area but throughout Canada.
I have here a letter from the deputy minister, which is the notice of assessment for $22.05:
Your exemption for uncle, aunt, nephew and niece has been set aside, because those persons are not recognized as dependants. Revised total of personal exemptions: $1,000. You are given the benefit of the most favourable amount between a uniform deduction of $100 or the total medical expenses: revised taxable income, $1,562.
An error has been corrected in the total of the federal tax payable.
Revised amount of the federal tax payable: $204.
As a part of this amount has already been paid, the balance claimed is $22.05.
And Miss Demers stated her case. She wrote to the member of parliament, to the minister and to the deputy minister. She always received the same answer: You provide for the maintenance of your niece, very well but it is not sufficient, there are other points, other sections in the act-


Jean Robert Beaulé: She will have to be killed.


David Réal Caouette: She will have to be killed, very likely.
On July 6, the deputy minister wrote this to me:
I acknowledge your letter dated June 25-
It is not very recent, June 25-
-but since the records of the above-mentioned taxpayer are kept at the taxation office in Rouyn county, we have written to them to have it forwarded. As soon as it is received and considered, I shall be in touch with you again.
When they got in touch with me, it was to tell me that the decision of the Rouyn inspector was being maintained.
As I have said fairly often, I believe that efforts are made to recuperate money which does not belong to the government. Taxpayers are being frightened into paying money so as to make up the government's deficit of $700 or $800 million for this year.

The taxpayer who is afraid necessarily sends in his cheque, just like Miss Demers under the circumstances. When this works, it brings in that much for the Department of National Revenue.
I would say to all taxpayers who have been wronged-indeed, I would advise them-to let the Department of National Revenue sue them, because I am sure the court will rely just as much on a receipt given by a parish priest as on the arbitrary word of a government or national revenue official.
There is a limit to being treated like we are at the present time by those young puppies who visit our ridings and terrorize Canadian taxpayers.
The example I have just given is only one out of many. I have another one here. You will see how logical those people are.
Here is a letter addressed to Mr. Jules E. Pouliot, 61 Mercier ave., Rouyn. When I read it, you will see how logical it is. The one who signed the letter was not even able to type out the full name. The letter is dated July 7, 1964.
Dear Sir,
I acknowledge receipt of your letters of May 11 and June 15-
June, July, and we will be soon in August. That means three months.
-concerning your charitable donations for the year 1963.
X would point out to you that a taxpayer who wants to put in a claim for a reduction for income tax purposes is subject to the requirements of the Income Tax Act.
It is elementary; it is not difficult to understand that paragraph. We must comply with the requirements of the Income Tax Act. Receipts for charitable donations are required with the T-4 report. We naturally rely on requirements. The said requirements are simple and it is stated in the letter.
Requirements are simple. The charitable organization should keep adequate records-
Adequate records.
-so that inspectors may be able to check the genuineness of receipts, or the taxpayer-
Or the taxpayer.
-must give proof of his donations, cleared cheques, postal money orders, etc.
Suppose that I give $10, $25 or $100 to a certain parish, not by means of a cheque, but in cash; now someone from the income tax division calls for the certified cheque, the cleared cheque or a postal money order etc.-
He goes on:
Estimated receipts are not acceptable.
Interim Supply
Estimated receipts are not acceptable.
If the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) gives $10 to his parish priest and gets a receipt, this receipt is an estimated receipt. That does not count in the income tax report.
And please note this, Mr. Chairman:
A sworn statement does not meet the requirements of section 27 (1)	(a) of the act.
The income tax officials have even doubts about an oath. The oath is no longer valid. They no longer accept the word of a parish priest, an assistant or an honest person. Those people, the income tax officials, do not even take the oath under consideration any more. However, they take the liberty of terrorizing everybody.
A while ago I said that I advised those who had charitable receipts rejected to let the Department of National Revenue sue them before the court.
I am convinced that no official, not even the income tax district manager, would dare force a parish priest or the president of a charitable organization to go into court.
That is why I stated earlier that all those claims are arbitrary and were conceived by a few officials in order to make up for the deficit of this government, which will range between $700 million and $800 million this year.
Here is another case. I have a whole file of them and I might talk for hours about those income tax cases.
Mr. Chairman, even in your own riding you have probably received complaints along these lines.
Here is a case from Val d'Or. The person involved is Mr. Berchmans Veilleux, 365 12th street, Val d'Or.
Dear Mr. Caouette:
Herewith is a correspondence exchanged between myself and the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, Rouyn branch-
That is where Mr. Merleau is manager. He refers to their letter of July 3, 1964, where those gentlemen claimed that "estimated" receipts, as they call them, are not acceptable.
If I produce a $100 receipt, it is not acceptable; it comes from a parish priest. It is amazing, Mr. Chairman, that in the case of mine workers, of labourers, businessmen, outside parliament, it is said arbitrarily that "estimated" receipts are not recognized.
Recently, I had a personal experience. I received a letter from the deputy minister of national revenue where he asked me whether my receipts for the past year, totalling $1,030, could be accounted for. I gave an affirmative

Interim Supply
answer and in his reply the deputy minister stated that the receipts were accepted, that they seemed warranted.
Our electors, our Canadian taxpayers do not all have the same privilege and the deputy minister does not send them a letter to ask them whether they have really given such and such an amount to a charitable institution or to a parish.
This is another rank injustice. I see that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is smiling; so he admits that this is true.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, may I say something on this matter?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Does the hon. member rise on a point of order or on a question of privilege? The hon. member for Villeneuve has now the floor and cannot be interrupted.


David Réal Caouette: Do you have a question to ask?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Chairman. I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Villeneuve said I was smiling. I merely want to explain why.
It is merely because I am in the same situation, since my own charitable receipts were cut, and I realize that the hon. member for Villeneuve was successful in obtaining justice for himself. Consequently I am very grateful to him for telling me the right procedure.


David Réal Caouette: It is easy to understand; it is because the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was not so frank as the member for Villeneuve in his income tax return. That is probably why the return of the member for Villeneuve was accepted while the return of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was rejected.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I received an answer only yesterday. I intend to follow the advice of the hon. member for Villeneuve and I imagine that my intentions are as pure as his.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska should have started following the advice of the member for Villeneuve many years ago, but, under the circumstances, I shall be only too glad to help him get his charitable receipts respected and recognized by the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In this case, as in so many others, I can do without the services of the hon. member for Villeneuve.


An hon. Member:: It is all very well for the hon. member for Villeneuve to offer his

services, but he was not even accepted by the Quebec bar.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, if the bar of
the province of Quebec was only made up of persons like the one who just stood up, it surely would not be worth much.
Mr. Chairman, to continue with this letter sent to me from Val d'Or, and I quote:
-Referring to their letter of July 3, 1964, those gentlemen maintain that "estimated" receipts (as they call them) are not acceptable.. .You will agree with me that it is impossible for a parish to have each individual person and each one of his or her offerings at Sunday mass entered in its books.
Where is this country heading for if the government questions the word of the clergy?
I want that to be put on record.
Where is this country heading for if the government questions the word of the clergy?
Not only the word of the Roman Catholic clergy, but that of every welfare or charitable organization.
Referring to their letter of May 6, 1964, they quote the last paragraph of a set of instructions issued by the deputy minister (taxation) in 1962. This paragraph is very clear but they do not seem to understand it. The receipt is genuine because it was given to me by the parish; in consequence, the donation is authentic whatever its nature.
Would you be kind enough to look into that matter and, if possible, send a word to these people at the Rouyn office?
Thanking you for the consideration you will give my letter and hoping to read you soon. I remain.
Yours truly,
Berchmans Veilleux
In that case, Mr. Veilleux was claiming $381 in charitable donations.
He was told "Your receipts are not allowable. In consequence, we reduced your claim to $100." Since April letters had been exchanged with Mr. Veilleux.
I now quote a letter from the director of taxation in Rouyn, dated May 6, 1964:
We regret to tell you that your receipt for charitable donations cannot be accepted by the Department of National Revenue because your parish does not maintain proper records.
According to these people, every parish should maintain an accountancy office, and the parish priest should engage an accountant, if he does not have one now, to record the donations of 50 cents, $1 and $2 which the parishioners may give to their parish.
We take the liberty of referring you to the instruction issued by the deputy minister (taxation) in 1962 which explained the legislation on this point for the information of charitable organizations issuing receipts to donors for income tax purposes. The last paragraph reads as follows:

Those are the instructions issued by the deputy minister in 1962.
The charitable organizations issuing receipts for income tax purposes must keep adequate records enabling inspectors to check the authenticity of the receipts and the nature of the gift.
Here are the instructions given by the deputy minister in 1962 at the request of whom? At the request of the government. In 1962 we had a Conservative government.
We will be pleased to make the necessary corrections on production of any supplementary evidence which you may have to justify your charitable donations.
Mr. Chairman, there is an endless list of misuses of authority, as far as this manifest discrimination against Canadian taxpayers is concerned.
This is the reason why I asked a question of the hon. minister at noon, in order to know whether this discrimination only applies to the Villeneuve constituency so that the Department of National Revenue may determine the results and they try afterwards to extend this same discrimination to every Canadian constituency.
It seems to me that it is worth thinking over, that this is food for thought for the Minister of National Revenue.
I wish to call his attention to this matter, since an opportunity is afforded us during the debate on interim supply.
Before concluding my remarks I should like to raise another point. After saying what I had to say concerning income tax and discrimination against Canadian taxpayers, I urge the minister to accept his responsibilities and to instruct his officials to be more lenient and more human towards Canadian taxpayers.
Yesterday I received from a federal civil servant a letter which read as follows:
Do you not think, Mr. Caouette, that a committee of house members should be set up in order to look into and to improve the working conditions of federal civil servants? At present, I think this is left to higher officials who seem to look after their own interests more than after those of the humble servants of the state.
Let us examine together the working hours of employees in various departments.
Then, it is shown, with supporting figures, that federal civil servants are treated more badly than any provincial employees anywhere in Canada.
-I am not referring here to municipalities where working hours range from 31 to 35 hours.
In the past, salaries paid by the federal civil service were envied by everyone. Today, the federal government comes in third place after provincial governments and municipalities, as far as salaries and working conditions are concerned.
Interim, Supply
Clerk grade 1 $2,100 to $2,820 federal government Clerk grade 2 $2,950 to $3,420	"	"Clerk grade 3 $3,600 to $4,200	"	"
Clerk grade 4 $4,260 to $4,710
In Quebec, firemen (education required:	7th
grade) with four years service: $4,836 exclusive of uniform.
They earn more than a clerk grade 4 in the federal government and accident risks are greatly reduced on account of the modem equipment that is being used in serious fires.
-As their working hours are more and more reduced, they can have side lines-
As it is often the case with federal employees.

thus greatly increasing their income.
In Montreal, the wages of an inexperienced fireman amount to $5,000 a year.
While a grade 4 clerk working for the federal government has no more than $4,710.
You will find hereafter impressive statistics concerning the salaries of federal employees.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of the ministers and the hon. members to the following:
On September 30, 1963, 524 civil servants were earning less than $2,000 a year; 51,044 between $2,001 and $4,000 a year-less than $4,000; 63,633 between $4,001 and $6,000 a year; 12,470 between $6,001 and $8,000 a year; 5,110 were earning between $8,001 and $10,000 a year and 3,358 more than $10,000 a year.
Is it conceivable that in 1964, while we are getting the same revenues as in 1963, the salaries of most federal civil servants are so low? Starvation salaries.
Contribution to retirement fund is as follows: federal, 61%; provincial, 5%; municipal, 5%.
Provincial and municipal employees are contributing less to their retirement fund than federal employees while salaries of federal employees are lower than those of provincial and municipal employees.
Upon reaching retirement age, federal employees will not draw a larger pension than retired provincial or municipal employees.
Why is this state of affairs prevailing Mr. Chairman, when we know that the federal retirement fund reserves exceed $1,600 million and that the interest alone covers the cost of the pensions.
I continue:
The equipment these employees are using is shabby (typewriters and adding machines).
Mr. Chairman, we are aware of the difficulties which we come up against when we want to have machines in our own offices. I continue to quote:
The furniture in most of the offices can be classified as obsolete.

Interim Supply
It is now your turn to speak.
A federal civil servant.
This civil servant made the following comments at the end of his letter:
N.B. Quebec firemen's wages for 1965-66. (In Montreal, they are even higher) 1st year, $3,692; 2nd year, $4,056; 3rd year, $4,264 ; 4th year, $4,680; 5th year, $5,200.
I know you will make a serious comparison and thorough study-


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it would only take me two seconds to finish my comments. Will the house bear with me?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to all hon. members for this opportunity to speak two seconds longer.
And I continue:
I know you will make a serious comparison and thorough study of the situation in which ordinary civil servants find themselves. We can barely manage, and we would like to live a little and do some of the things other people are doing.
Mr. Chairman, that letter was sent to me by a federal civil servant, and I should like to draw the government's attention to the fact that it ought not to think only of raising the salary of deputy ministers and higher officials, but also that of ordinary federal government employees, stenographers and messengers, the little people or workers, in short, that of all working classes, so the federal government cannot be said to be cheap and mean to people, to the plain everyday workingman.
On the contrary, the federal government should set an example for the provinces, municipalities and school boards. And it is only to the extent that the federal government will take its responsibilities and decisions in keeping with the dignity of man that we may, some day, find the situation improved and, more particularly, that Canada is a good place in which to live.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but like all other members, I was surprised to learn that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) is now on holidays in Europe with his family. I cannot understand how during the session a minister of the crown can take holidays in Europe-while we are sitting-when there are important problems to be solved, more especially concerning agriculture in eastern Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to deal with problems in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes.
In my opinion, it is inexcusable that the Minister of Forestry is not in the house to answer the questions which we want to ask him.
In my opinion, the minister takes an arrogant stand. It seems to me that a minister whose emoluments amount to $40,000 a year, paid with the farmers' and the labourers' money, should be in the House of Commons to fulfil his duty, especially when one knows that the Minister of Forestry has also the responsibility to seek a solution to the problems of eastern farmers. The eastern farmers would like to obtain cheaper feed grain. Why then put off this measure till next fall or next year?
In reply to a question directed to him last week, the minister stated that the study of that measure would be put off until fall. It was undoubtedly because he wanted to take holidays in Europe with his family.
Mr. Chairman, I think this attitude is disgraceful and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) should, as soon as possible, warn our embassies in Europe in order to get in touch with the Minister of Forestry and urge him to come back to Ottawa and tell us what is his intention concerning the settlement of certain problems facing eastern farmers.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member allow me to put a question on the matter he is now raising?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The point of order is not justified.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) wants to take part in the debate, he will have the opportunity to do so shortly.
I am surprised to see how silent are the members for Longueuil (Mr. Cote), Levis (Mr. Guay), Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin), as well as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith).
What is the minister doing? Why has he not the courage to defend his colleague? It must be that he himself condemns the attitude of the Minister of Forestry. In fact, there is no major reason for the Minister of Forestry to be on holidays.


George James McIlraith: I may answer the question posed by the hon. member by telling him I

make such decisions after careful consideration of the source from which the accusations come.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, would you please call the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche to order?
I suggest that the hon. member should study the standing rules of the house before rising and interrupting. I know that he is a newcomer, and someone should send him the works of Beauchesne, Bourinot and others on parliamentary procedure so that he can study the rules.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Sit down.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege, and I must say to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm that I thoroughly studied the rules of the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member goes on interrupting me; this is defiance.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche wishes to rise on a question of privilege, and I feel that we should listen and find out what is his question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: My question of privilege is this, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm accused me of not knowing the rules. Now, for his information, it is because I do know the rules of the house that I asked him if he would allow me a question.
Moreover, another indication that I know the rules is that I do not utter stupidities in this house as he does now. I must remind him that when he was secretary to the Quebec minister of labour he was absent for almost two years.


Lucien Lamoureux: Would the hon. member resume his seat. I feel there is no question of privilege in what the hon. member just said.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has the floor and should not be interrupted without permission.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend you for your very wise ruling; it confirms what I was saying a moment ago,
Interim Supply
that the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche has everything to learn about parliamentary procedure; he does not know anything about it, he has just proved it. If he has any courage, he will take the floor when I am through-


Lucien Lamoureux: I now suggest to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, now that the question of privilege has been settled, to come back to the matter under consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased if the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), who is not here at the moment, and the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), who is not here either, would speak in defence of their distinguished colleague, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve).
Why are they afraid? By their silence, they condemn the Minister of Forestry.
You should convince the right hon. Prime Minister to call back the Minister of Forestry as soon as possible, as he did 15 days ago for instance when the Minister of Forestry was in Rome, again having a holiday.
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian people will have a very poor opinion of the government and of certain ministers who are taking advantage of their privileges, for example, to make free trips to Europe aboard government-owned aircraft.


David Réal Caouette: He should resign.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is a shame, Mr. Chairman, and since you have a great deal of authority 1 would ask you to convince the government to call back the Minister of Forestry and have him explain to the house the reasons of his trip.


David Réal Caouette: He should resign.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Precisely, Mr. Chairman; he should hand in his resignation.
That man draws a salary of $40,000 a year at a time when there is a slump in our economy. The province of Quebec holds the record in the field of unemployment and agriculture is a failure. Still, instead of taking his responsibilities and trying to solve the problems which face eastern Canada and the country in general, the Minister of Forestry chooses to go and relax in the sun in Europe. He should try to find an answer to the feed grain problem so as to increase the income of eastern farmers.

Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, Maclean's magazine has published an article on the extreme hardship of Quebec farmers.
There is also the "Report of the Eastern Canada Farm Survey 1963". While I am on the subject, I should like to point out the illogical attitude of the government in that respect. I am sure you agree with me, Mr. Chairman.
On the one hand, the government sets up a royal commission on biculturalism and, on the other, it publishes in one language only a report on the state of agriculture in eastern Canada. That is how logical this government is.
I see the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote). I should like to know what he thinks of that. Does he approve the government publishing in only one language a report on the state of eastern agriculture?
I am sure that the hon. member for Drummond- Arthabaska agrees with me, as you do, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I want to point out to the hon. member-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is out of order. Would you name him please-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche has risen on a point of order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm accused the government of producing a unilingual report. I want to tell him, as he seems ill informed, that the said report is now being printed and will be distributed in French.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, this report is being printed now? To think that this is supposed to be bilingualism in the government.
The government spent half a million of the Canadian people's money to date for a royal inquiry on biculturalism. But this government is not consistent and we have the proof here: a unilingual report.
The same is true with regard to the Canada Year Book. We have been waiting for the French text for six or seven months now.
You might at least be consistent. Why not stop throwing a veil over existing problems in Canada by setting up a royal inquiry commission to make fun of the Canadian people. Try to be consistent.
For instance, Mr. Chairman, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) finds it inconsistent to have full bilingualism

in the armed services, as far as notices on vehicles and crown properties are concerned.
We have bilingual cheques, we have bilingual bank notes. Why make an inquiry on biculturalism, if the government refuses to assume its responsibilities and publish reports in both languages at the same time, and not with a delay of eight or nine months? Indeed, a report published in French is absolutely useless by then because the English version is already known.
Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister has made many promises. Do you know what he said when he came to Joliette on March 13, 1963? I shall quote him in English:

The Liberal party calls for both a minister of agriculture and an associate minister to be concerned with the problems of farmers in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces.

Mr. Chairman, I have just quoted the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada in the city of Joliette on March 13,
1963.
Why has not the government followed up this formal promise? Was it made by the Prime Minister in the city of Joliette with the sole purpose of trying to defeat the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm?
The Prime Minister deceived the population of the province of Quebec. Such a political platform was aimed at deluding the people, to lure them, and then the promises were not carried out.
Mr. Chairman, the report on the farm situation in eastern Canada is a condemnation of the present policy of the government, which refuses to assume its responsibilities. The Minister of Agriculture is not in the house; we hardly see him once a week. The Minister of Forestry is visiting Europe.
The farmers' problems worsen from day to day and half the farmers earn less than $1,400 per annum.
Thousands of farmers marched on the parliament of the province of Quebec and should the Minister of Forestry as well as the Minister of Agriculture continue neglecting their problems I urge them strongly to march on Ottawa. I encourage the U.C.C. and farming organizations to march on Ottawa. They will get the support of trustworthy and conscientious members of the House of Commons.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the government thinks ARDA will settle all problems? ARDA is an excellent piece of legislation, which will have long term effects in 15 or 20 years.

If the government refuses to take its responsibilities in fulfilling the formal promises it made, from sea to sea, to give some hope to farmers, you should not be surprised to see a separatist movement in Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: A Creditiste movement.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the government refuses to bridge the gaps which exist in the economic field, the province of Quebec will turn towards another ideal, in the hope of settling its problems.
Mr. Chairman, this year the farming situation, more particularly in eastern Canada, is a disaster. Farm income decreases steadily while costs increase constantly. Moreover, considerable damage has been caused by drought, hailstorms and wind. In the district of Joliette damages amounting to half a million dollars have been caused by wind and hailstorms to tobacco plantations.
The fruit growers association of the province of Quebec sent a letter to several members of the house asking the federal government to help Quebec farmers.
I even know that there are farmers in Ontario and in the western provinces who are faced with a drought that is going to destroy all their hopes and endanger the future of agriculture this year.
I can only express the wish that the government of the province of Quebec will make, as soon as possible, an official request to the federal Department of Agriculture so that those farmers can be compensated accordingly.
The government of the province of Quebec is largely responsible, but it refuses to take its responsibilities.
Why do we not have a crop insurance scheme in the province of Quebec? The farmers want such a plan and are looking forward to it. 1 know that the federal government passed a really worth-while piece of legislation on that matter and is awaiting the cooperation of the province of Quebec.
There were many more questions I wished to direct to the Minister of Forestry, but since he is absent, what can we do?


Mr. Guay:: Do you think he gave his resignation?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Levis would like to make a speech?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I should like to ask the hon. member if he knows the whereabouts of the former minister of agriculture (Mr. Hamilton)?
Interim Supply


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, that is the contribution just made by the hon. member for Levis. That is his maiden speech and you can see-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I want to commend the hon. member for his courage.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I shall reply to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that I am in the house just as often as he is and that since I have been here, I made six or seven speeches and nobody thought I was ridiculous, like the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, you just heard another intelligent contribution by the hon. member from Levis.
The Lauzon dockyards are now facing serious problems. The workers are blaming their representative because he refuses to ask the house or the government whether the Lauzon dockyards will get contracts to give jobs to the workers of that area. Try and rise a little more often and take your responsibilities to assist your workers.
What does the hon. member for Levis do to have the 11 per cent tax on building materials abolished? Is the hon. member for Levis in favour of that tax or not? I give you an opportunity to reply. Are you in favour of that 11 per cent tax on building materials? That tax, condemned by all Canadian people, is the cause of numerous bankruptcies.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the matter I was dealing with a little earlier. There was a little digression; the hon. member for Levis was very nice.
I ask the Minister of Forestry-I thought he had come back, but he is not here yet- to note of this article written by Mr. Jacques Guay in the February 1964 issue of Maclean's magazine, which I want to read to the house:
Another kind of quiet revolution is under way. It is waged by the development board of eastern Quebec in Mont Joli, where a group of young economists, sociologists and other experts are commissioned to study, on the spot the problems of the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe peninsula.
The development board was set up under ARDA, the federal Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
The great obstacle in the way of public education undertaken by the Mont Joli group is the canker of Liberal patronage. How is it possible to educate the people when, to take part in some wood clearing or reforestation projects sponsored

Interim Supply
by ARDA, the region's unemployed have to register with the Liberal federation?
I met in St. Joachim de Tourelle, a young man of 18 who had had to give $2 to the Liberal dispenser of patronage to set foot in an ARDA camp. "If you are not hired, you will get your money back", he was told.
That article was written by Mr. Jacques Guay of Maclean's magazine, issue of February, 1964.
If the Minister of Forestry were in the house, we would like him to tell us whether or not he supports the type of policy which exists at the present time under ARDA and whether he is prepared to denounce this kind of blackmail or patronage. Provided this article, written by a responsible newspaperman, is absolutely true, I want to add this: if such a situation really prevails at the present time in the province of Quebec, it would be quite logical for the Minister of Forestry to denounce it so as to put an end to this outrageous patronage.


Mr. Choquetie:: As usual, the hon. member is exaggerating.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere tell us whether he agrees that the Minister of Forestry-


Auguste Choquette: Would you like to hear me now? I am ready.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: When I have completed my remarks, I shall listen to you with pleasure.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm always says: I should like to hear this one, I should like to hear that one, and the electors who receive Hansard wonder every time why we did not answer at that particular time. It is impossible for them to know that the rules of the house do not allow us to speak then. In my opinion, it is intellectually dishonest for the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to act as he does when he says: I would like to know what this one or that one thinks about such and such a thing. It is unfair and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has no right to do that.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: He never answers any question we put to him.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Since the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is accusing everyone, in turn I would inform the house that, for several years, the hon. mem-

ber was in the employ of a minister in the Quebec cabinet, and he was not discharging his duties while receiving his salary, just the same.
When his minister was absent-


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to point out to the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche that we are not in the Quebec legislature, but in the House of Commons.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Sit down and learn the standing orders of the house.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I had the floor when I was interrupted. Although the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should know this, I want to say to the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) that the man I was referring to was the hon. Mr. Barrette, member of the Quebec legislative assembly. During the two years he was in his employ, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was not fulfilling his duties.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think I should advise the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche that if he wishes to make any comments on the point of privilege now before the committee he should confine these comments to the resolution before us.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When somebody wants to speak, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm objects.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I do not want in any way to prevent the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche from speaking, but we are surprised to notice that he finds it difficult to learn the standing orders of the house. He may have a complex. I wonder how he was able to pass his bar examinations.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think the committee would do a whole lot better work if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm would confine his remarks to the resolution before the committee.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not wish to miss this opportunity in the house of answering the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche and telling him that it is a fact that I was private

secretary to Hon. Antonio Barrette, minister of labour in the Quebec legislature, who was an excellent minister of labour as well as a remarkable premier, who, for 25 years dedicated himself to the well-being of all social classes in the province of Quebec.
I dare the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche to make such assertions in the Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm riding.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Do sit down when the chairman is standing. You, too, should learn the standing orders of the house.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I am afraid the Chair cannot allow the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to discuss matters which are not the responsibility of the House of Commons.


Mr. Skoreyko:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it was not the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who brought up this question. The remark initially came from the other side.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The point which the hon. member makes is well taken, but he will remember I have already admonished the hon. gentleman on the other side that he should confine his remarks to the resolution before the committee.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has asked me how I managed to pass the bar examinations.
I can tell him I had no trouble doing so. He should be more responsible and stop making dishonest insinuations. I became a lawyer when I was quite young and it was not hard for me to qualify.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche on being so successful at the bar examinations. We realize that he is still very young and that in a few years from now he will probably be more serious and more familiar with standing orders. Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will be the first to congratulate him for his understanding of standing orders and for his record of attendance because, at present, he is very often absent from the house. In fact, he is away more often than other members.


Auguste Choquette: I would suggest to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to be absent from the house more often and we would then make more progress.
20220-391J
Interim, Supply


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman-


Auguste Choquette: I ask about agriculture.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman-


Auguste Choquette: Quit making personal remarks and talk about agriculture.

The Depuly Chairman: I wonder whether the hon. member for Lotbiniere would allow the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to continue his remarks?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman. On this side of the house we are ready to co-operate with you but we ask you to get more co-operation from the hon. member for Lotbiniere who is often absent from the house. He should be a little more assiduous.
I would ask the ministers who are now present in the house-

The Depuly Chairman: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has had plenty of opportunities to return to the resolution before the committee. I would ask him again if he would confine his remarks to that resolution.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I ask the ministers who are here, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) as well as the others and also the few government members now present, to convince the Prime Minister to take the necessary steps so that the Minister of Forestry will be back in the house as soon as possible, so that he may answer the questions we asked him and put forward his solutions to solve the problem of agriculture in eastern Canada, which is heading for a failure.
With a Liberal government in Quebec and a Liberal government in Ottawa, we want to know what the Minister of Forestry intends to do to solve the problems of Canadian agriculture. We should like to know what the Minister of Agriculture intends to do, and we would like to have the views of the hon. members for Drummond-Arthabaska, Levis, St. Maurice-Lafleche and Lotbiniere, who are silent on this question and refuse to look after the interests of farmers in their own ridings.
It is a lack of courage on the part of the Minister of Forestry to refuse to take his responsibilities and visit Europe at the country's expense when he earns $40,000 a year

Interim Supply
and his wife at least $20,000 a year as am employee of a crown corporation, namely the C.B.C.
This is a great mistake on the part of the Minister of Forestry, and I am convinced that all government members support me on this matter, for none of them rose to defend him.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must again interrupt the hon. gentleman, this time to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could I have a few minutes more-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Chatterton:: I have been waiting for many months for an opportunity to make certain remarks with regard to the Department of Forestry and to pass on to the government certain suggestions which have been put to me by residents in my riding and by private companies in the forest industry.
Since February 18, when this parliament convened, I have not had a chance to make these points or to examine the estimates of the Department of Forestry. I also have points I wish to raise with respect to other departments, for example the Department of Public Works. I have had representations made to me by a group of mariners in my riding but I have not had an opportunity to make representations to the government with regard to them because only a day has been given by the government in which to discuss the estimates of the Department of Public Works. This is the 116th day of the present session and so far only nine days have been allotted by the government for the discussion of estimates.


Mitchell William Sharp: How many have been taken up by interim supply?


George Louis Chatterton: I have had no explanation why this government has denied the house an opportunity to fulfil one of its most important functions, namely the examining of the spending program of the government. Normally in non-election years, between one half and one third of the time of hon. members at this point in the session has been devoted to examining the program of expenditure proposed by the government. But this government has allowed us only nine days in which to fulfil this important function of parliament.
It is for this reason I am rising to make a few remarks with regard to the Department of Forestry. Incidentally there seems some

question whether we shall have a recess or not. I wish to tell the government that as far as we are concerned we are prepared to stay here right through the summer, right through till Christmas-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Louis Chatterton: Members opposite are applauding a little too soon. They did not hear the proviso. I was about to say this-provided the government allows us to deal with important business of the country, not with issues which are unimportant. We are not anxious to have a recess just for the sake of having a holiday. As far as I am concerned, a recess is not a holiday, although it is enjoyable. I go back to my riding and I enjoy meeting my constituents again. What is important is that members of parliament should be able to spend more time in their ridings with their constituents. This government, through its bad management of the affairs of this house, has not given us an opportunity to get back to our ridings and find out what the problems are at the grass roots. We live here almost in a separate world, when we sit in this house for such a long time. The government should take account of the situation and so organize parliamentary business that all members have an opportunity to retain contacts with their ridings. I am not talking about visiting Europe for a holiday, as the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is doing-he has been there for three weeks now, not on government business. I mean that members should have an opportunity to go back to their ridings, meet the people and find out what their problems are.
I wish now to make one or two suggestions to the government with regard to the Department of Forestry. I do not claim the first of these as being my own idea. In fact the suggestion was made to me by the Victoria and island publicity bureau. A few months ago the former minister of forestry, the present Postmaster General, laid the cornerstone of a forest research laboratory in my area. This will cost something like $2J million. The man who was responsible for this project is, of course, my hon. friend from Victoria-Carle-ton who, when he was minister of forestry in the Conservative administration saw the need for this development, approved it, and provided the money necessary in the estimates. However, by coincidence the next minister of forestry was the one who laid the cornerstone.
I wish to pass on to the minister the suggestion that in conjunction with this forest

research laboratory there should be a forestry museum. I am sure the two members from British Columbia whom I see on the other side of the chamber will support such a project. I do not think the cost would be significant but I am sure that leadership on the part of the government is required before such a museum could be established. The provincial government will, I am sure, cooperate-I have had an indication to that effect-and certainly the forest industry of British Columbia will co-operate and contribute toward the establishment of such a forestry museum.
This will not only serve as a record of the history of forestry but will provide a tourist attraction and serve certain educational and research purposes.
The next, and main, point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, concerns the question of research in forestry. Forestry is one of the most important industries of Canada. This is signified by the fact that in 1962 the export of forest products amounted to $1.7 billion out of a total of a little over $6 billion. In British Columbia, for instance, in 1963 the net value of the forest products was $850 million. Let us refer to the main estimates for the current year, 1964-65. What do we see there? With regard to this important industry which, as I said, provided exports to the value of $1.7 billion in 1962, we find for forest research $2,642 million, plus some $50,000 in the supplementary estimates. I suggest that the main point upon which the Department of Forestry should concentrate in so far as this research is concerned is the forest fire protection service. This year the federal government is providing some $8 million, for the whole of Canada, toward not only fire protection but reforestation-only $8 million for this important industry.
Representations have been made to me by the forest industry of British Columbia in this regard. I realize full well of course that forestry is a resource and therefore belongs to the province; but the federal government should take the leadership and give guidance with respect to research in forest fire protection. The federal government needs to give leadership to the development, organization and control of a forest fire protection service adequate for the needs of Canada. I break down my point in this regard into two or three categories. The first matter to be considered is what the force requirements should be for such a research program. First of all there is the question of reconnaissance and lookout by aircraft in the event of fire, such
Interim Supply
aircraft to control water bombers if they are assigned to dealing with the fire. Today the only research that has been carried out by the federal government is by way of an assignment to the national research council to determine the efficacy of firefighting by means of aircraft. This merely establishes how ineffective are the present means at our disposal. What the government needs to do is institute a program to find better methods of fire protection. This would be one answer at least to the main problem concerning fire protection.
The latest figure I could find was for 1962, when in Canada the loss of value through fire was $70 million. This does not include the damage to soil, to stream flow, wildlife, recreational and tourist facilities. In that year there was a loss in value of $70 million through fire; yet what does the government do? It allocates $8 million in the current budget for research in fire protection, including reforestation.
I know that the previous minister in the Conservative government, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, was very sympathetic to and aware of this problem, and I would urge the present Minister of Forestry, if he can get back from his holidays in Europe, to consider this question and advise the government to do something about it. I see the hon. member for Kootenay West smiling-


Mr. Byrne:: "East".


George Louis Chatterton: Yes, Kootenay East. He is here, but perhaps he wishes he was somewhere else. But I am sure that, being one of the three members from British Columbia in the house today, he will support me in urging the Minister of Forestry to provide more adequate provision for research in fire protection for our forest industry.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege; I think the hon. member just remarked that there were only three members from British Columbia in the chamber. I think he had better count again.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I have a sincere apology to make. I did not see the hon. member for Fraser Valley, who is one of the faithful attenders of the house-which they are not on the other side.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up a few minutes of the time of the committee to deal with a subject which, I believe, is very important and which has been discussed some time ago, when I was absent,

Interim Supply
because I had to go to the funeral of one of my good friends. On that occasion, the hon. member for Lotbinifere (Mr. Choquette) pointed out that I was not in the house to discuss ARDA.
I am not used to mentioning members by name, when I say that members are away from a committee or the house. I will not mention names today, but I must say that out of 46 members from Quebec there are only two Liberal members in the house at the present time. I will not name those who are absent, but I will say that the two members present are those for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) and for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin). If I was not here for the debate the other day, well, I think-I beg your pardon, there is a third one which I see in the back- the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie (Mr. Watson).


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must tell the hon. member that it is not fair either for the members of the government or of the opposition, to comment on members who are in the house at the present time or who are absent at times. I understand that the hon. member is defending himself now, having been attacked along the same line but it seems to me it is a bad habit to take and that one should not refer to the fact that certain colleagues left the house or were present in the house in certain circumstances. Moreover, I must tell the hon. member that the matter he discusses now has no relation whatsoever with the resolution under consideration. I suggest that he keep within the limits of the matter before the committee, that is interim supply.
Now, as it is five o'clock-


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, a very short question of privilege. I would like to point out to the house, before calling it five o'clock, that today is the birthday of Mr. Speaker and of the Clerk of the House. I would like my colleagues to join with me in expressing our best wishes on this occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair so that the house may consider private members' business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills; notices of motions (papers); public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-37, respecting the Guarantee Company of North America.-Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie).

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the fourth time that this bill has been before the house. It is, on the face of it, a simple bill. It increases the number of directors, or gives the company authority to increase the number of directors, from 15 to 20. The company has had authority for some years to have 20 directors. In the year 1927 it brought its directorate up to 15 in number, but since then the company has felt that it is in its own interests to have a greater range of representation on the board from different parts of the country, consisting of men with experience. The debate so far has been protracted and has taken a form not anticipated at the beginning, in spite of a rather lengthy debate before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which gave detailed consideration to the matters at issue on July 27.
I want to touch on three basic points which have been made in this debate. The last time this committee considered the matter, on July 23, the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm put on the record the names and biographies of all of the directors of the company. His purpose in doing so, I inferred from reading the record, was to establish two things. First of all he cited the business associations of the directors, and somehow appeared to be criticizing the company for leaning too heavily on business experience, suggesting that this was perhaps a conspiracy of some kind. It is rather novel to criticize a private company for having men of business experience of this standard. Perhaps they are too competent, or something; I am not quite sure what was the inference to be drawn.
The second criticism of the hon. gentleman was that he felt there was inadequate representation on the board of directors of persons whose mother tongue was French. The company intends to do what it can

Private Bills
to deal with this second criticism. The president of the company is a man whose mother tongue is French, Mr. Marcel Vincent. I think the company has tried carefully and assiduously to follow a satisfactory program of public relations and do what is fair and proper in this matter.
I am very much concerned at the form of the debate, which has taken a demagogic turn. Some of the things which have been said simply are not true. I remember at one point I rose in protest at what I considered to be unfair and improper treatment of the company, and I was surprised by some interjections from some hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Victoria, (Ont.), who asked whether or not I had shares in the company. I should like to make my motives for objecting quite clear at this point; they do not spring from any private ownership of shares or interest in the company.
I have another reason for objecting, one of which I am not ashamed, and that is that in my riding there is a fairly substantial operation conducted by the Northern Electric Company, a subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company. The relationship between Northern Electric and Bell has been debated before the committee. There are those who would move quickly in this matter and adopt the very simple solution of nationalization. I am not one who believes that there are not situations where public operations are not very useful or efficient, and I do not agree with my colleague from Jacques Cartier-Lasalle in some of his denunciations of crown corporations and his comment that they are always losing money. They are not. Many of them are proper operations of which we have every reason to be proud.
Those who have a simple answer to the problem of communications, namely the nationalization of industry, I think are deluding themselves. In my own riding I have visited the installation of the research and development branch of Northern Electric. They run an export business, including exports to the United States, amounting to something like $8 million a year. They are a company which a couple of months ago had an export order for an item of equipment to the United States of America amounting to $400,000. They make video installations and communications systems which they sell to all parts of the United States. The major market which they are developing is one which leans towards the relatively low volume, long distance type of problem, which is peculiarly a Canadian problem. The research which is developed and oriented in this direction makes it a very important arm of participation in certain types of export business. Its export business is its bread and butter and provides jobs to many of the people I represent.
I have a serious doubt in my mind whether the abrupt nationalization of this organization would be at all beneficial. There is a pattern sharing arrangement involved in which 1 per cent of gross revenue is contributed and the benefits of broad research are shared. I think that disruption of such an operation would do a great deal of damage, and a great deal of the very intensive concentration upon exports in a highly competitive field might be jeopardized. I appreciate there are certain members on the other side of the house, for whom I have great respect, who think they have found a simple, routine, monopolistic formula, that of nationalization, which seems to be somewhat doctrinaire. However, the province from which most of the members of that group come has had recent cause to discover the benefits of private enterprise.
The Bell Telephone Company is contributing to a field of research which is part of an over-all agreement on specialization and research and is doing a good job and employing many people in my riding. It pays good wages, conducts a good operation and has good relations with its employees. As far as I am concerned I find a great deal to commend in this.
Many other things, Mr. Chairman, have been said loosely. For example the charge is made that the rates are high. There is a board of transport commissioners in Canada. There is an Ontario and Quebec schedule, a schedule of the national system of eight major participating telephone companies, and the board of transport commissioners has a responsibility to look at those rates. Rates even with the United States are regulated by the federal communications commission and the board of transport commissioners. I submit it is not the function of this committee at this time and place to review the operations of the board of transport commissioners. It may be that we need to do something about them. Perhaps the job is not done as effectively as it might be, and if that is the case there is another item of business for the house to consider.
There are one or two fundamental matters in connection with the scale of charges. The same issue is raised in communications as in many other operations of public utilities. This

Private Bills
company paid $63 million by way of income tax last year. According to the 1963 annual report, total taxes were something of the order of $84 million. Income tax on each main telephone in a private home amounted to $22.50; that is without considering extensions. It is superficially easy to say that if a company is nationalized this type of income tax ceases to be a charge on the company, that the consumer gets more of a break, and what a grand thing it is.
We have to face the broader problem of the incidence of taxation. How is this parliament going to raise the money to conduct its operations? If you do not get the money here, you will have to get it somewhere else. If taxes are not collected in this way, they will be levied in another way. The problem is the broader problem of the incidence of taxation. The question of how as a matter of policy to deal with the effect of the incidence in regard to the taxation of a public utility of this nature is a very broad problem; it is not easily or superficially solved.
It is easy to be demagogic, Mr. Chairman. It is easy to denounce this company. It is easy to denounce as inhumane treatment its policy of not allowing its subscribers to run up a bill. It is easy to find instances of alleged bureaucratic treatment of its subscribers which are not justified by standards of humanity, as mentioned by one hon. member opposite. This company, Mr. Chairman, in its operations has had a record in this country of progressive and vigorous investment in the extension of its services. Telephone services in Canada are being extended at a much greater rate than the rate of increase in the population. In the last five years over a billion dollars has been expended by the Bell Telephone Company itself in the extension of its facilities. Whatever are its faults, it represents the type of industry, the type of development, which I feel has an honourable place in most Canadian communities.
This company comes to this chamber to ask permission to add five more members to its board of directors. I feel that such a measure should be passed by the house. I should like to make one other observation. I do not believe that hon. members opposite, and I am looking at the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, are doing a great service by demagogically attacking this company. If they wish to continue that attack, if they wish to nationalize the company within the province of Quebec, it is their privilege to do so. They are perfectly

within their rights to introduce the necessary legislation in the provincial legislature.
I would say to this company: My riding is proud of the jobs you have created; bring your head office to Ottawa and it will be very welcome. You will not be subjected to the same harassment as you are in the place in which you have chosen to locate. Come to this community and bring those jobs, bring the establishment here and, I can assure you, you will get a welcome. You will receive treatment which will be in accordance with those traditions of fair play which I feel are best for Canadian development.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I respect the views just expressed by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) even if I do not agree with them unreservedly.
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada has been a great success and is giving very good service to the Canadian people. That is a fact. But what is helping this company to a great extent is that, in the city of Montreal, for instance, there is no competition whatsoever. Now, when a company has no competitors, it is much easier to operate and make profits.
Still better, Mr. Chairman, when the federal government needs the services of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, when crown corporations like the C.B.C. and the telecommunication board or the Department of National Defence want it for the D.E.W. or Pine Tree lines, no public tender is asked, and the government and the crown corporations have to accept the price set by the Bell Telephone Company.
Another matter I should like to point out to the hon. member for Carleton is that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is the owner of the Northern Electric Company. Approximately 65 per cent of all material it buys, whether it be cables, wires or appliances, are purchased from its subsidiary, the Northern Electric Company, and not by means of public tender. When the Bell Telephone Company of Canada appears before the board of transport commissioners to ask permission to increase its rates, its representatives say to the commissioners: "Well, this year, this appliance is costing us 50 cents more than last year." However, the company did not ask for public tenders. The president of a large Canadian company in the province of Ontario came to see me recently to call my attention to this anomaly.

Private Bills
Since telephone is a public utility, why does the Bell Telephone Company of Canada not call public tenders for the supply of all its equipment? The Northern Electric Company could then submit a tender along with its competitors. What I find most unfair is that when the company asks for a rate increase, it claims that it had to pay more for its units and equipment. Yet, in most cases, no public tenders are called.
Another point, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Before the hon. member proceeds to discuss his next point, I take the liberty of reminding him, as I did at a previous sitting of the committee, that the bill under consideration deals solely with an increase in the number of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
In fact, I advise the hon. member to refer to the explanatory notes outlining the principle and the purpose of the bill; in my opinion, the members of the committee should keep to, not depart as far as possible from, the principle of the bill under consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carleton has had considerable freedom a while ago when he answered my arguments of last week.
Anyhow, my comments will be very short.
Mr. Chairman, the house is requested to increase the number of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. Now, some time ago, the directors of the company appointed Mr. Marcel Vincent as president and chief executive of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
In this connection, I have three questions to ask.
How is it that in the province of Quebec the French Canadians do not hold even 1 per cent of the important posts in the management of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada?
How is it that in the province of Quebec the directors of the company oblige the French Canadians to write their reports in English? Why not leave the matter to the choice of the French Canadian employees, since both languages are official in the province of Quebec? Why then compel the French-Canadian employees to write their reports in English?
Why is it that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada refuses promotions to some French Canadians, several of whom are qualified and experienced? Those employees are presently at the bottom of the scale while they deserve some promotions?
It is a fine thing that Mr. Marcel Vincent was named president and director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, but why is discrimination to a certain extent practised against French Canadians and why does the company refuse to give them important positions in its offices?
Mr. Chairman, those were the comments I wanted to make.
I believe it would be in the public interest for the government to set up a joint Senate and Commons committee to revise the charter of the Bell Telephone Company, in order to prevent the nationalization of the said company, something about which some hon. members do not want to hear.
No Canadian company, Mr. Chairman, has so little competition in its field of activity as this one. As I said a while ago, in the city of Montreal, it controls everything, it has no competition.
But if the Bell Telephone Company of Canada wants to win the public's sympathy and the government wants to prevent its nationalization, a joint Senate and Commons committee must be set up as soon as possible, to revise the charter of the company and adapt it to circumstances. I am convinced that the company would not feel any worse for it and that the Canadian people would be happier, as well as the other companies.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that in the course of a normal session many similar bills are brought before the house for our approval. Since this bill is a very simple one it would be approved in a relatively short time under normal circumstances. However that is not exactly the case with this bill, which is being discussed for the fourth time because it involves the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, a company which in the eyes of some members over the last few sessions is guilty of something.
I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I have sat here rather innocently with no particular axe to grind listening to the debate in the last three weeks. I am not a shareholder of the Bell Telephone Company nor do I ever intend to be. But I did take the trouble to read the debate in Hansard to find out precisely why the Bell Telephone Company in Canada is being singled out for treatment of this type and for the retardation of what seems on the surface to be a very normal request.
I am sure that all hon. members of the house are aware of the fact that the Bell Telephone Company is asking for an increase in the

Private Bills
number of directors from 15 to 20. Bills of this type appear before us quite often as companies try to reorganize their internal structures to meet the ever increasing demands of business, and I think the reasons behind the request for the increase were very well explained by the Bell spokesmen when the bill was considered by a committee. But I did manage to summarize as briefly as I could the reasons why the Bell Telephone Company has been singled out for particular scrutiny, particularly by my good friend, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. He has repeated quite often that the Bell Telephone Company is guilty of being a big company and of making big profits.


An hon. Member:: He is a little man.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He has said it is guilty of being monopolistic, and guilty of giving inadequate opportunities for promotion to French Canadians. He repeated the last charge a few moments ago. It was not my intention to deal with it first, but in view of the fact that he has repeated it I should like to deal with it now.
Whenever on rare occasions I have spoken in this house, I have never hesitated to express my admiration, indeed my affection, for the people of French Canada. This is natural since, as I have said on many occasions, I come from that province and in certain milieus I am considered more French than English. But I hate the type of generalization engaged in by speaker after speaker from the province of Quebec when they get up and say this company or that company is denying French Canadians their rights, and then do not document their charges. This is very unfair not only to the company concerned but, what is more dangerous, it is very unfair to French Canadians, because it is creating an illusion among people who read the daily papers or who read Hansard and follow the proceedings of the house that everyone in French Canada is placing the blame for his normal failures-we all have them, English or French-strictly at the feet of big companies, big enterprises, when I happen to know this is not the fact. It might possibly be the fact in a particular case, but when the hon. member gets up and says that the Bell Telephone Company-I tried to take note of his words-denies promotion to people within the company simply because they are French Canadians, I challenge the hon. member to prove it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Ask the employees of the company.
tMr. Mackasey.]


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would point out to the hon. member who has just interrupted me that this is one private company in Canada which is certainly not guilty of what he has suggested on many occasions in the house, not giving French Canadians the opportunity to lead and direct big business. The gentleman who is the president of the Bell Telephone Company happens to be a French Canadian, but instead of expressing pride in his accomplishments the hon. member indirectly accuses him of discrimination against his own people in the company he leads. What kind of charge is that to make against such a man?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: One question, Mr. Chairman.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When I am finished.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: One short question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I notice you are fidgeting, Mr. Chairman, and no doubt about to remind me that maybe I am off the subject. Perhaps I am, but it is only in retaliation to remarks that have been made by previous speakers. In case the hon. member thinks that I alone hold these views and having in mind that the hon. member, who looks after his interests so very well in his riding, comes from a farming area, I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Rural Co-Operator of July 21 last, a newspaper which is published by the Ontario federation of agriculture. They have this to say in part:
We never thought the day would come when we would feel it necessary to defend a large private enterprise corporation. But then, we never thought the day would come when an allegedly Conservative member of parliament would demand the nationalization of that same corporation.
I am too fair a member, Mr. Chairman, to assume that because one member expresses these views he represents the views of his party. I have full respect for the Conservative party. Indeed I have full respect for the party which openly preaches socialism and nationalization. This newspaper obviously has great respect for the Conservative party because in the editorial the word "allegedly" is used in reference to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. The editorial is fairly lengthy and I will not read further from it. It makes the same accusation I have made, that when the hon. member constantly speaks about the plight of French Canada he consciously and intentionally or unintentionally fails to document his case.
If I thought that discrimination was being practised against Canadians because they

were French or English, I would be the first member of the house to stand up, whether I was in order or out of order, and express my opinion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: One question, Mr. Chairman.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I feel that such spokesmen as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm would be able to do more for the wonderful people of the province of Quebec by being factual and intelligent about these matters.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I address a short question to the hon. member?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Verdun has the floor. I should like to remind him that he should confine his remarks to the principle of the bill before us. As long as he speaks about members of the company who are directors I suppose he is within the ambit of the bill, but he should try to keep that in mind.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member referred to an editorial concerning the Bell Telephone Company. I want to say that I spoke in my own name, according to my own conscience, as if there was no problem in Canada at the present time, and I ask a question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why do we have a royal commission on bilingualism if we do not face a problem?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This is not a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I would be very happy at any time to discuss and debate the plight of French Canadians and the question of bilingualism and biculturalism with the hon. member, in public, because I fully believe in the two official languages of this country and I have been consistent in my support of that position. But I repeat what I have already said twice, that constant attacks of the type engaged in by the hon. member and of the type which members in the far corner made in the debate last week do no credit to the people of Quebec and are very unfair to French Canadians. I would say that people like Elliott Trudeau are people who represent Quebec properly and adequately, and you can take a lesson from them.
Private Bills
One of the other accusations made by the hon. member concerns the exorbitant profit Bell Telephone Company makes. What is this profit? It is $68 million, a very impressive sum of money. Like a big financier, which I am not, I may be out a million or two, but what happens to this $68 million? It is redistributed to the people of Canada in the form of dividends, not people outside the country, because over 93 per cent of the shareholders of the Bell company are residents of Canada.
What more do we want out of a big company in a country that prides itself on free enterprise? Many companies make profits like this and the problem is to keep those profits in this country; but we do not have that problem with the Bell company.
If anybody wants to take the trouble to look at their annual report he will find that just a little over 6 per cent is the relation between its profit and invested capital. Anybody who knows a little about private industry, about the stock market, about the indices we regard as measures of success or failure, knows 6 per cent is not adequate, and even the student of the most elementary economics or accounting knows there must be these types of benevolent monopolies in certain fields, and Bell telephone is admittedly such a monopoly-


Mr. Peiers:: One of the biggest.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: But there are still hundreds of small companies around the country. I respect the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted me. He did not come into the House of Commons under false pretences. He came here as a socialist and he will go out of here as a socialist, and if his party is ever in power it will nationalize this company. This is not a question of deception. He presented himself to the people of his riding in precisely those terms and they chose to elect him. I respect that; but when members from the Conservative party and the Liberal party come here as champions of private enterprise and they preach something different in this chamber, then I say they are the ones who are the hypocrites, not myself or the members in the far corner. I respect the hon. gentleman's opinion and I am sure we will hear from him in a standing position very shortly.
If by some disaster Bell were converted into a crown corporation it would remedy none of the problems mentioned by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. It would be just as big as it is now. It would be making profits, but perhaps not as many because it would not be efficiently operated.

Private Bills
It would have to be monopolistic, and we must remember that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm rises almost daily in this chamber to criticize the C.B.C., the C.N.R. and other government organizations as being anti-French, and if this company were converted into a crown corporation it would still be the subject of such criticism by the hon. member.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) was dishonest with me in his observations and I would ask him to quote one reference where I made such specific remarks concerning the use of both languages.
I am in favour of the use of both languages, but I am also in favour of seeing the French Canadians in the province of Quebec, owning their share of the company-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not think this is a question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I will not be lectured by the hon. member for Verdun.


Lucien Lamoureux: If I may-

I should take this occasion to remind the hon. member for Verdun that we are discussing a bill that refers to an increase in the number of directors.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, you did not have to change from French to English for my benefit. I am bilingual and I uphold the theory that as a Canadian I have the right to speak my language, and that a French Canadian has the right to speak his, and that as a parliamentarian it is my duty to understand him, as it is his to understand me. This is what is to be expected in this modern day and age.
In order not to be accused of speaking too long, and perhaps in the vain hope that this bill may be discussed on its merits, I express the hope that the committee may be as fair to the Bell company as it is to all other companies that come before us with this type of request. As was pointed out by a Bell spokesman in the committee, the purpose of increasing the board of directors is to give the various vice presidents of this vast enterprise an opportunity to sit on the board of directors and spend some time there in order that they may become more fully aware of the operating of such a wonderful tribute to Canadian endeavour. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: I am very interested to note that each of these five additional directors is to do a specific job, and on this basis I presume the whole matter of the Bell Telephone Company is wide open. But the reason for increasing the directorate of the company escapes me and it probably escapes everyone else, so far as the government of Canada is concerned. However, so far as Bell is concerned it probably means they are going to take over another company or two. It is quite normal when you take over a company that you make a new director and you allow him some status because of his newly acquired shares. This might allow me to spend the next 20 minutes discussing the Osgoode Telephone Company which, according to the local newspaper, has been the subject of some lengthy discussion. In fact the new director may be the President of the Privy Council of Canada.
If this is true, and knowing the fact that the hon. gentleman sat in this house when the late C. D. Howe was the dominant factor in the business world, and knowing the Liberal government, which does not believe in the nationalization process, which is a champion of free enterprise, which believes that $68 million derived from a public utility is a normal, reasonable and acceptable thing, then I would imagine that the 113 crown corporations which previously existed under a Liberal government may be added to by the inclusion of the Bell Telephone Company through the devious method of taking over the Osgoode rural telephone exchange and making its principal owner a director. In this way the whole Bell Telephone Company may be nationalized. If my reasoning were that round about I would think this was a good idea and we would hope there would be a nationalization of the Bell company in the very near future.
This is not just another company. We are not being asked for just another five directors. When appointing directors to a company obviously you are designing what the policy of the company will be. When you ask to increase the number of directors of a corporation you are really saying there has to be some change in the control of that corporation.
I think this is true of the Bell Telephone Company. I do not believe the Osgoode Telephone Exchange will make much difference to them. I know they have taken over many small outfits across the country in the past and I think it is a fact that after their purchase of these small exchanges they have added or dropped a director for this purpose.

But, in the main, they have brought good service and we are not condemning the company in this respect.
I think it is true to say that Trans-Canada Air Lines provided a very good service for the Canadian people in a field of public monopoly, even though the monopoly is not total. Of course, the Bell Telephone Company does not operate in a complete monopoly field, either. Consideration has been given by the directors to many of the problems of modernization and expansion. But what have these directors really done in terms of satisfying the needs of the Canadian people? Here is a field in which we should show some interest. I would like one of the new directors to be given responsibility for handling a problem which is becoming increasingly apparent to me and to everyone concerned. In my view, the type of automation which has been put into effect by the company has prevented the individual subscriber from dealing effectively with anyone in authority in the company. If one of these directors is to be made responsible for liaison between the subscriber and the company, I think it constitutes a very good amendment. I do not know whether the sponsor can say that this is to be the case. I do know that according to the normal process of law anyone having a complaint against the Bell Telephone Company should have certain rights. I may say this is hypothetical in my own case because I seldom use the services of this company. I have a credit card with a company which operates in northern Ontario and northern Quebec. It operates efficiently and, I may say at once, it has a monopoly in that area, so I do not exclude it from the generality of the remarks I am making. I think they, too, might be included in a monopoly under a crown corporation if we could persuade the majority of members of parliament that this would be in the best interests of subscribers and Canadians generally and, yes, even of the shareholders. However, as I say, I have not been told whether one of these directors-he could be French, or English, or from Timbuktu if he wishes- would act as a liaison officer and give subscribers the right to have their views heard.
If a subscriber wishing to complain about a charge, or about a long distance call which had not been placed, could get in effective touch with someone in authority about it, or use some reasonable organizational method of having the grievance redressed, I would feel there might be some justification for increasing the size of the board of directors.
Private Bills
What is the position now? One can go to the board of transport commissioners. I am familiar with the case of a secretary here in the House of Commons who shared an apartment with another girl. When the other girl left, she gave to this girl who remained a sum of money which, she said, should cover the long distance calls. It subsequently turned out that the money was not enough. The company cut the telephone off and proceeded to collect from the girl who did not incur the charge in the first place and to whom the telephone was not registered. She complained to the board of transport commissioners in 1962, and the case has not yet been settled. The board said it was a very interesting case. The lawyers from the Bell Telephone Company said they would have to have time to consider it further. I could read the record of the whole case, but I would have the trouble of putting "the board of directors" in every few minutes so as to remain in order, and for this reason I will forgo this delightful exercise. But in view of the length of that procedure, if one of these directors would take over this particular function of the board by dealing genuinely with grievances, we might be getting some place.
As I began to explain a few minutes ago, normally if a member of the public has reason to complain against the service or charges of a public utility he is able to go to court and plead his case. He is also able to obtain a writ obliging the utility concerned to provide him with service while awaiting the result of the litigation. But the Bell Telephone Company is so autocratic and distant from its subscribers that the telephone is buzzed off and on, in accordance with an order from Montreal operated by a computer system without any reference to the situation locally. I do not deny that the system is a modern one, further advanced than that used by most of the other telephone companies in North America and, no doubt, much more modern than the equipment used by crown corporations which operate telephone systems in England and other countries abroad. Nevertheless its use has eliminated many things which we believe are our right, and one of these is the right to litigation without loss of service.
When a subscriber complains to a telephone company about being charged for a long distance call he is not saying he will not pay the charge; he is saying he did not make it, and therefore should not pay for it, or he is advancing some similar argument.

Private Bills
I do not think service should be discontinued until the case has been disposed of. At present, if a subscriber eventually proves his case all that happens is that he is charged another $5 and the service is buzzed back on.
I have been to meetings of boards of directors on several occasions and found that they knew as little about the operation of the business as I did. I can assure hon. members, of course, that they knew a great deal more about the financial aspects than I did, but they did not know anything more about the actual operations of the company. At one time, when I was negotiating with a mining company, I had the notion to buy a few shares so that I could attend directors' meetings. Someone said: You do not have to do that; you can attend those meetings anyway. Well, I attended one of those meetings and I came away knowing less about the actual operation of the company, after I had listened to all the financial gobbledygook, than when I entered. This is often the case with company directors. In this instance we have not been told why they are required.


Mr. Brown:: Could the hon. member not have attended the meeting on railways, canals and telegraph lines and asked these interesting questions when the officials were present?


William Arnold Peters: I am sure they do not know themselves, or in any case they would not tell you.


James Elisha Brown: The hon. member could have been present and asked those questions when the officials were there, available to him. I wish he had done that.


William Arnold Peters: In a very nice way I could ask the sponsor of the bill to tell me these things. Obviously he should know, or he would not come before parliament to ask that it be passed. But I do not wish to embarrass him because I am sure he has not been told these things and I am sure the officials would not tell me or anyone else about them.
There is another matter I wish to raise and it was touched upon by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. Unlike the previous speaker, I do not give a hoot why he has changed his mind. I am aware he represents a certain element of the province of Quebec which now believes that some of the things which were formerly done by private enterprise might be done as well, or better, by a public utility. I do not wish to enter upon a discussion of what the province of Quebec may, or may not do, but it seems to me the province got into the field of public

utilities when a crown corporation was set up to take over the hydro operation. Many people in the province held the view that the hydro operation was being conducted efficiently at a considerable profit. It may be that the board of directors was working most efficiently. However, there were many others in the province who believed that a crown corporation should be established to develop hydro as a public utility. An election was fought on this issue, and the majority decided that the better way of operating hydro was through the establishment of an agency of government.
So there may be a change in the thinking of the people of Quebec, which I am very happy to see. I am not going to question why the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm may have had this change of heart, but I welcome it. One hon. gentleman has said that we should document some of the things we have. I have before me a letter that went to a Liberal member, the hon. member for Welland, from the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers. I am sure this matter involves the board of directors because it is directly concerned with the operation of the Bell Telephone Company. This letter was written for a very good reason and I think every member should know about it and learn what the union has to say about this matter. The letter reads in part:
It has recently been brought to the attention of members of our union who are employed in maintaining and operating the Welland ship canal that the present telephone system for inter-office, inter-structure communication, which is owned and operated by the St. Lawrence seaway authority is to be contracted out to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
It goes on:
We wish to protest in the strongest possible manner the contracting out of work which has always been done, and is still being done by employees of the seaway authority on the Welland ship canal.
We also wish to raise several questions which we believe to be pertinent at this time. The first is, "whether it is the policy of the government to encourage, assist and support the development of monopolies".
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the five new directors of this company believe in the free enterprise system and the nonmonopoly system which goes hand in hand with free enterprise. They do not ask for subsidies in closed corporations and one-industry monopolies but, of course, enjoy the free enterprise system which means, as I understand it, a competitive system, dog eat dog. This letter goes on:

The Bell Telephone Company enjoys an almost complete monopoly in the field of telephone communication in Ontario, and in many other places, it is in fact one of the, if not the largest monopoly in any service industry. The second is, "was Bell Telephone Company the only company invited to submit a bid, or was the proposed change put out for bids and any other company interested in the communication field invited to bid?"
It goes on to state why the seaway authority established their own system of telephone communication. This letter was sent to a Liberal member. I should be very interested to know-I should point out that I received a copy of it from the brotherhood- what his reply was to the brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; I wonder just what this document and the reply of the hon. member for Welland has to do with an increase in the number of directors of Bell Telephone.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman; this is a very important matter, in my opinion, concerning the philosophy of the Bell Telephone Company. We are now being asked to approve an increase in the number of directors of this company, the appointment of five more directors, making the board comprise 20 directors instead of 15. I am wondering whether this new board of directors is going to change the philosophy of the company, which has resulted in the government co-operating with the Bell Telephone to eliminate the need for bids, or whether this means a change of policy. I believe I am perfectly in order in discussing this matter until we are informed whether the new additions to the board of directors will indicate a change in the desire for a service monopoly in the telephone field. I submit this is in order because of the fact that the sponsor of the bill has not really indicated what the new directors are going to present in the way of policy, and so on. I submit these points on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member just has another minute or so to go. Perhaps he might complete his remarks at this time.


William Arnold Peters: I think this is a very important field, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the committee asked these questions. I do not happen to be a member of that committee, but I would suggest this matter be referred back to the committee for further discussion. If that is done, I will take the opportunity given me by the sponsor of this bill to ask these questions, and I am sure he will inform his principals
Private Bills
of the line of questioning and they will be prepared to answer these questions.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I found myself quite intrigued by the remarks made a little earlier by the hon. member for Verdun when he took to task the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for the interest he was showing in particular aspects of this matter. I have been looking over the terms of the bill rather closely, in the light of what the hon. member had to say. He made some considerable parade of his own strong support for free enterprise. He went so far as to recognize the right of other members to hold different opinions, but as I think of the policies that have from time to time been advocated by Liberal administrations in this country I rather wonder whether all the Liberal members of the house hold such strong views about the virtues of pure free enterprise as were expounded by the hon. member for Verdun.
It has occurred to me-and I would like to take the moment or two that remain at my disposal to throw this suggestion out for the consideration of the committee-that the proposal which we have before us offers interesting possibilities for what we might call assisting the development of the mixed economy in Canada, and might even meet the objections raised earlier by the hon. member for Carleton in respect of disturbing certain of the existing operations of this company. This bill, as has been mentioned quite a number of times, has to do with an alteration to the composition of the board of directors of this company. It is clear to me from the reading of the bill that it provides that the determination of who the additional directors are to be, as it is set out in the bill, is left entirely in the hands of the shareholders of the company. But I think it might be quite possible and appropriate for this committee to consider the idea of amending the terms of this clause so that in the course of increasing the number of directors to 20 we could provide that at least 10 of those directors might be appointed on the determination of this house or the government of Canada. In other words, I think this question of public ownership and the pros and cons of whether it is advisable in the monopoly utility situation is very germane to the terms of the bill.
I would suggest that prior to the time this bill comes before us for consideration again, members of the house who are concerned

Interim Supply
with such matters and with the pros and cons thereof might be prepared to give serious consideration to the suggestion I put forward at this point, and perhaps we could give some thought to the idea of introducing appropriate amendments to the bill which would put into effect the suggestion I have advocated.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the question to be raised at ten thirty o'clock this day is as follows: the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin); establishment of smelters in Algoma East riding.
The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following	resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $696,010,791.01, being the aggregate of-
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $658,598,418.50;
(b)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of transport items 15 and 25, (schedule A) of the said main estimates, $7,044,425:
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 60, fisheries item 20, justice item 1, legislation item 20, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 25 , 45 and 60, national film board item 1, national health and welfare item 15, northern affairs and national resources items 15 and 35, privy council item 25, transport item 1, loans, investments and advances item L10 (schedule B) of the said main estimates, $9,525,758.34;
(d)	two twelfths of all the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A) laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, loans, investments and advances items L17a and L37a, for which no proportion will be granted, $20,840,372.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of justice item 12a (schedule C) of the said supplementary estimates (A), $1,806.67;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965.
Lucien Lamoureux: House again in committee of supply; interim supply. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock this afternoon, I began to talk about a matter which, in my opinion, is very important, in particular for the rural areas of eastern Canada.
This coming August or September there will be a federal-provincial conference on rural development. I intended to take part in the debate yesterday but as I had to leave at 4.30, I postponed my intervention until today. I sincerely deplore the absence of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) but I am convinced that he will take note of the few remarks I intend to make to enable him at this federal-provincial conference on rural development to express the views of hon. members; that is why I want to let the minister who is now responsible for ARDA know about them.
In order to do this, I will quote the following paragraph from Mr. Claude Ryan's column which appeared in Le Devoir of March 6, 1964:
Planning will be done with the interested parties or a monstrous bureaucracy will ensue. We have been told that, in a certain Quebec area, young theorists, working for ARDA, lost the sympathy of the people in that area by acting towards them in a haughty and self-assertive manner. The "Ca-nayens"-
I am quoting the exact word or the word in quotation marks-
-in spite of the reputation of docility we are trying to attribute to them, do not like to be led by the nose, especially by civil servants.
You are aware, Mr. Chairman, that prior to the 1963 election, the Conservative government, who was presiding over the destinies of this country, had created a plan which is now known as ARDA. Indeed, on December 15, 1960, the then minister of agriculture put forward this measure which is bound to become, in a way, the Magna Carta of agriculture, especially as far as eastern Canada is concerned.
I should like to repeat here what I have already said several times, in this house as well as outside: The farmers will find in this

legislation, known as ARDA, a plan created in 1960, co-ordination principles and systems which will enable them to set in motion a real rural development campaign.
Everyone must take part in this campaign, that is the farmer, the parish, the area, the province as well as farm organizations.
In this connection, I have said and repeated on various occasions that when it introduced this legislation the Progressive Conservative government of the time did not intend to intrude in any way on the freedom of action of farmers and provinces. The aim of this legislation is to provide farmers with the technical and financial assistance which will enable them with their free will, their knowledge and their social and professional organizations to work for unity and the survival of farming generally. When I read that article under the heading "Bloc-notes" of Le Devoir, I remembered the warning which I gave this government during the throne speech debate in the first session following the 1963 election.
At that time I said this:
I now ask the government which presides over the destiny of Canada to remember that such a program of action calls upon all the human, natural, industrial and institutional resources of the community. The government will have to act but it must leave to the individuals, to private enterprise and to the co-operatives their own responsibilities. Furthermore it will have to help them by trusting them and refraining from submitting the resources of the community to harsh regulations that would kill our farmers' legitimate ambitions and, should changes take place too quickly, miss the objectives aimed at.
Mr. Chairman, in October 1962 the federal government entered into agreements with every Canadian province.
They were signed with the full assurance that the federal government would leave each province entirely free to choose the urgent projects. In 1963 when the Conservative party was defeated, we heard statements like that made by Mr. Davidson which was prepared for the standing committee of the Canadian farmers' federation studying rural development. What did he say on April 6, 1963? Here are his words:
As far as I know, there never existed closer federal-provincial co-operation for the application of a joint program. Federal-provincial relations about that program are good in general and that augurs well for the success of those joint programs.
And agreements were signed between the federal government and the province. There is a table which is available to all members upon request to the regional director of ARDA. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, on December 6, 1962, the govern-
Interim Supply
ment approved and signed a convention with the province of Quebec for the making of a survey by the province at the cost of $185,000 to which the federal government was to contribute 50 per cent or $92,500. On January 1963, the federal government sent that convention to the government of the province of Quebec for signature.
We see that as far as Quebec is concerned, on January 7, an agreement was signed with the federal government, and after January, a second, a third, a fourth and a fifth and on February 27, 1963, there was an agreement on rural development.
As requested at the beginning of April 1963, an agreement was approved by the representatives of ARDA in my own riding of Nicolet-Yamaska, concerning the dredging of two creeks. That is to say, Mr. Chairman, that when our hon. friends opposite came to power a complete agreement was arrived at between the provincial and federal governments, according to the data given by the ARDA director. I should like to be permitted to mention again the words of the director:
-there never existed closer federal-provincial co-operation for the application of a joint program.
And at the end of his statement to the Canadian farmers' federation, he said:
Consequently, it is important to strengthen mutual understanding between the federal government and the provinces with respect to the objectives of the program before ARDA agreements are renegotiated in 1965 or 1966.
What happened since the institution of the famous co-operative federalism on April 22, 1963? The provinces, especially Quebec, have started complaining that the central government is trying to force its wishes upon them with respect to the administration of ARDA. That is so true that at the end of another of his statements made on February 6, 1964, just a few months ago, ARDA director Davidson stated:
I have tried to cover a lot of ground but I have refrained on purpose from dealing with the very important and most interesting problem of federal-provincial relations and the more pragmatic questions raised by co-operative federalism.
In any case, I hope I have given you a general idea of the kind of problems we are up against and I also hope that my remarks will give rise to some discussions.
I have a few excerpts here from statements which have appeared in the press. For instance, this large headline in UAction of July 6, 1964:
Ottawa will not intervene in Quebec ARDA projects.

Interim, Supply
Agreements signed between the provinces and the federal government clearly stipulated that programs put forward under ARDA would not be imposed on the provinces and that furthermore, under ARDA no plans or projects would be imposed on municipalities but that municipalities would be assisted in the development of plans and projects.
In another daily, that is he Devoir of July 6, 1964, we read the following:
Rural development: from now on Ottawa will respect Quebec-Summit conference to convene this summer.
We see such public statements only since co-operative federalism was introduced and since our Liberal friends came to power and we seriously wonder why the provinces, and more particularly the province of Quebec, have come to the point of refusing the Minister of Forestry or the federal government the right to put their noses into projects which have to be determined on its own by the province. And, we further wonder whether the federal government did not want to impose its will with regard to those ARDA projects. This is what we read in La Terre de Chez Nous, a farming publication of the Canadian farmers' union of July 22, 1964, under the title:
Parliament in action-Farming.. .from the Quebec angle.
In an item prepared by the provincial information service, we find this:
At the federal-provincial conference scheduled for August or September, which will consider this country's farming problems, and more particularly the suggested amendments to the agreements under ARDA for rural development, it is foreseen and accepted by now that Quebec will claim the privilege of determining urgent projects on its own.
And I repeat "determine urgent projects on its own". In Quebec, it is admitted that the province will demand that privilege. We know that as from October 1962 under Conservative rule, each province was free to determine any urgent or emergency project on its own, whereas today, under Liberal rule, with cooperative federalism, provinces have to tell the federal government: We are going to claim our rights and determine matters of urgency ourselves.
And it goes on. The article was based on information received from the provincial government.
Since 1961, Ottawa has forced projects upon the provinces, but there is every indication that, following Quebec's representations this attitude will change.
Last Friday, on July 24, I asked the Minister of Forestry the following question:

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry who is responsible for rural development.
Could the Minister of Forestry tell me whether, at the present time, the provinces, by virtue of agreements entered into in connection with ARDA, determine themselves the urgent projects for rural development or whether it is the Ottawa government which imposes those projects on the provinces?
And the Minister of Forestry answered.
Mr. Speaker, the provinces take the lead in this field.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that that answer is correct. I am convinced that, in the spirit of the legislation as passed by the house in 1961, the federal government actually had the intention of leaving that responsibility completely and entirely with the provinces. But today, we ask ourselves this question. Why must the provinces ask the federal government to respect the agreements entered into in October 1962?
Mr. Chairman, during that federal-provincial conference on rural redevelopment, the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, will study the program to be implemented as from the month of April 1965.
Such a program, for instance, might also provide for an improvement of public credit.
The federal farm credit was improved and the province of Quebec has an efficient system of loans for the farmers. But credit should be made available to some organizations so that they could do their job. In fact, it will be recalled that, in 1962, the Conservative government made an amount of $50 million available to the administrators of the ARDA program. That amount is at their disposal until 1965, in order to assist the provinces in the reorganization of their own territory. But they should also have available to them some money which would permit them to raise the standard of living in some regions.
In the statement to which I referred, it is also said:
We will also consider the matter of a comprehensive forestry redevelopment program in rural areas, not only as a land use project, but through the planting of trees and forestry improvement.
On that matter, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a suggestion to the minister responsible for the administration of ARDA.
I wonder if, in the course of the studies conducted by the federal and provincial governments in order to define the urgent projects, it would not be possible to find land which is not cultivated at present, which is useless, but which might become, after

trees are planted and the forest improved, a normal area in 15, 20 or 30 years.
If one visits the provinces, one can see land which has been cleared for several years and has no value today. If, at the time of this study on tree planting it was decided to plant trees on this land, it would have a much greater value in a few years. This would also provide a livelihood for the farmers of the area, who would help those organizations in this work.
The second point I wish to deal with briefly before the opening of this federal-provincial conference is the following: We hear more and more about the extension of farms.
Mr. Chairman, it is correct that, in certain areas, the farmer must be encouraged to enlarge his farm. But the fact of increasing the size of a farm does not necessarily mean larger incomes.
At a public meeting, I said that in Ontario and Quebec between 55 and 60 per cent of dairy producers had less than 13 milk cows. Now, after the meeting I met an economist who told me: "The only way for those dairy farmers to double their income is to have 26 cows instead of 13".
Mr. Chairman, it is not that easy because, as I said before in this house, it is possible to have a net income of $3,000 with 58 milk cows, and it is also possible to have a net income of $3,000 a year with only 18 milk cows.
It all depends on the equipment the farmer has and on the efficiency of his production. We must not limit ourselves to the expansion of farms or the greater number of acres; most important of all, we must give special consideration to the productivity of every acre of land owned by a farmer and to the efficiency of his farm equipment and cattle before advising him to increase his acreage or his cattle substantially.
A man who is not too well-informed and who does not work so very hard on a small or on an average farm has little chance of increasing his income by just adding to his acreage. It is easy to understand why. The fact that a man owns a larger farm does not increase his know-how.
Mr. Chairman, this brings me to speak of the technical assistance that provincial governments can provide for the farmers in our districts.
According to the agreements entered into with the provinces under ARDA, the federal government pays half the cost of any project. I am convinced that if provincial governments, following the agreements to be signed
Interim Supply
early in 1965, would provide for our farmers the technical assistance they need to cultivate their farm or to increase the output of the land they own today, just like the bank manager helps the owner of a business concern to start operating, 1 am convinced, that it would be a good step forward to help eastern farmers.
Mr. Chairman, while travelling through our ridings, our province and other Canadian provinces, we meet some farmers who manage to earn a decent living from their farm and we ask them how they manage to do that.
What occurs generally is that a family head has two or three of his sons who are farmers and who live near by. These farmers-his sons-share in a family corporation the same agricultural machines, the same tractors, the same hay-press, the same tools.
Allow me to give you an example. There is in my riding a farmer who has three sons living in the neighbourhood. He told me he had purchased a combined sowing machine for which he had paid $850. This combined sowing machine is used on an average farm about half a day in a year. For the average farmer, the price of such a machine is prohibitive compared to the service it gives. But if this family head who has purchased such a machine shares it with two or three of his sons, this allows them to reduce their production cost and realize a greater net profit.
If this exists in family corporations, why should the federal government, in conjunction with the provincial governments, not organize what we used to have in the past, the so-called farming circles, where farmers, by means of a corporation or a union, got together, using the same machines and the same tools? Their production costs were thus reduced by half.
That is, in my opinion, part of the technical assistance-


Lucien Lamoureux: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time is over.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, like other members on this side of the chamber I am concerned about the excessive expenditures of the government.


An hon. Member:: I am sure you are.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Thank you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Especially P.F.A.A.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am one of those hon. members who believe the main duty of the opposition is to examine the estimates of the

Interim Supply
government and scrutinize the expenditures. The government has not given us the opportunity to do so. In fact, it has dragged a red herring across our path in the name of the flag.
At the moment I am concerned with the cost of a picayune inquiry instigated by the flippant remark passed by an inexperienced minister of the crown. I wonder how much this inquiry cost the Canadian people. Reference was made in the press today to this inquiry. It called it a judicial inquiry and said it was a judicial report that was laid down.
I contend that it was not a judicial report, that it was a political report, and I am surprised that any judge, knowing the political overtones of an inquiry of this sort, would jeopardize the independence of the judiciary by acting as a judge in this connection, if not for some reason as yet unrevealed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You wait until I am finished and you will see the shame.


Mr. Ricard:: It hurts too much. They can't take it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would say it is a political report for more than one reason. Maybe the members of the committee do not know this, but I am informed that the judge who presided as commissioner, not in the capacity of judge but as commissioner, was a defeated Liberal candidate in the city of Moose Jaw. Not only that, his counsel, who acted for the government, was a defeated nominee for the candidacy of the Liberal party, and the second lawyer who acted for the government on behalf of the P.F.A.A. was a chief fund raiser for the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan for a number of years, and was chairman of the finance committee.
Another person who should have been connected with this, but who was not called by this, as I say, political commissioner, was the liaison officer who worked between the director and the minister. I say that he should have been called because he had some doing in the dismissal of one of my constituents. I ask why did the commissioner not go into this phase of it?


Mr. Turner:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to citations 149(j) and 152(4) in Beauchesne's fourth edition, concerning the unparliamentary practice of referring to judges.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But he is a Grit.


John Napier Turner: I would like to refer to citation 149(j) which says:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 35; it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(j) cast reflections upon the conduct of judges of superior courts, unless such conduct is based upon a substantive motion-
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station of the nature of personal attack and censure, have always been considered unparliamentary and the Speakers of the British and Canadian houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that you would rule on this particular point of order and, if you saw fit, discourage any further such references.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would suggest there is no point of order-


Mr. Brewin:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think we all appreciate what the hon. member said about references to judges, but surely when judges are merely acting as commissioners they are no more immune from comment than any other individual would happen to be. I wonder if the hon. member who has raised this point of order would say whether these citations carry to the extent that a judge appointed to a specific job as commissioner is free from any comment in this chamber?


John Napier Turner: If I might answer that, the second quotation refers to an attack on or censure of a judge in his office of judge, no matter in what capacity he is acting, in any judicial proceeding. I would submit that the inquiry to which the hon. member was referring was a judicial proceeding.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I suggest, there is no point of order, because the citation the hon. member mentioned referred to superior court judges, and the judge I am referring to is a county court judge, or what we in the west say is a district court judge, and if this person had acted in the manner a judge should act I would not be making these remarks.


An hon. Member:: He is not here to defend himself.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is right, but neither was my constituent when your minister made the accusation. The judge is surely capable of defending himself and I will give him every opportunity.


Mr. Macaluso:: 
Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I am only replying to the hon. member's invitation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. The point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is of interest to all hon. members, and I know that the hon. member who has the floor now wants to take into account the reference made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to citations 149(j) and 152(4) in Beauchesne's.
I admit there is obviously a distinction between a judge who acts in his strict judicial capacity and a judge who, in a circumstance such as this one, is acting not in a strict judicial capacity but rather as a commissioner of inquiry. However, I do not think this permits the hon. member to attack and make inferences against the judge in a personal way. I think he is in order if he refers to him in his official capacity as a commissioner, and if the hon. member, who I believe has just about completed his remarks in connection with the judgment of the judge, will limit his remarks to this particular aspect then there should be no problem. I hope the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George will agree that this is the way we should look at the problem.


John (Jack) McIntosh: With all deference to your remarks, Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer but I understand that in the Judges Act power is given to parliament, the Senate and the House of Commons, to call judges to order at any time. In fact, the only action the Canadian people can take is through the parliament of Canada.


Lucien Lamoureux: That is on a substantive motion, if any hon. member wants to make a substantive motion; but the rules provide that it is only under that particular circumstance that parliament can take a judge, whether a judge of the superior courts, or county or district courts, to task. It has to be done by substantive motion and it is not my understanding that this is what the hon. member wants to do.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If that is your ruling I will bow to it. In future I shall refer to him as the commissioner, but you all know whom I mean. I have the evidence taken by this commissioner, a commissioner appointed by the
Interim Supply
government-and I refer to the connection of this legal official-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: When I have finished. Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I think back to 1963 when the hon. member who just got up asked a lot of trivial questions. I am trying to establish that one of the witnesses should have been called. I also wish to establish at the same time that one of the witnesses upon which this commissioner relies so much did not give the right facts while under oath.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Just a minute. On page 852- I will quote some of this-a question was asked of the witness: "Are you required from time to time to submit reports on your supervisors?" The witness said in reply-and here, perhaps, I will read without interruption the series of questions and answers:
A. There is an efficiency rating in connection with various employees in the services, and that report is signed by the employee and superintendent in the case of the supervisors and is signed by myself.
Q. To whom do these reports go?
A. They come to Ottawa.
Q. You send them on to the minister?
A. They are sent on to the minister. They are sent on through to the administration in Ottawa. This is particularly in a case where there are increments in salary coming to the employee. His efficiency report is completed at that time with remarks attached to it.
Q. Prior to your submitting the report, to which the minister has referred in the house, did you discuss the subject with anyone else?
A. Discuss what?
Q. Mr. Walker's dismissal or the procedure in respect of how to go about it?
A. X cannot say that I discussed the matter of his dismissal with anyone else. I took it upon myself to write a letter to the deputy minister in connection with it.
Q. Without any advice?
A. That is my prerogative as director.
Q. I do not deny that. I am just asking you the question, yes or no. You have answered no, you did not discuss it with anyone.
A. No, I did not discuss it with anyone.
The next morning, as members of that committee will recall, this same witness came in and asked permission to change his testimony. He said he did discuss it with someone else, and hon. members seated in this committee will well remember that.
I am alarmed when a Canadian who holds the position which this commissioner holds in our judiciary in Canada should allow

Interim Supply
himself to submit a report like the one submitted to this house yesterday. Before I go into this further, perhaps I should make my position in this matter perfectly clear. I think my position is very similar to that of all other hon. members. I say that an elected member of parliament is a representative and spokesman for his constituency in regard to federal matters. I feel it is my duty to protect the rightful interests and entitlements of my constituents at all times, both individually and as a group. Now in this issue, it appears to me that two major questions were involved. The first was the delayed payment by the department of 1962 P.F.A.A. awards to farmers in the Swift Current area. Second was the suspicion on the part of the P.F.A.A. director of a "fix"-this was the term the director himself used when evidence was given before the commissioner. I heard it myself and it will be found recorded in the transcript of evidence which the commissioner has. With regard to the delayed payments-and I want all members of the committee to note this-clause 7 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act states:
Every award authorized under this act shall be paid in the month of December.
This inquiry took place because I was insisting that my farmers were not being paid until March, three months after they should have been paid. Also in the act is a paragraph headed "Offences and Penalties" which states:
Every person is guilty of an offence under this Act and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars who
(a) violates or fails to comply with any provision of this act or any regulation;
I also ask members of this committee to pay particular attention to the word "shall". The act says these payments "shall" be paid in the month of December. I say that the act is the law of our country and that no person, not even a minister of the crown, can overrule its provisions. But in spite of this knowledge, the director of his own accord did withhold payment with respect to a number of townships in my constituency. There were roughly 54 townships from which payments were withheld and the number of farmers affected was roughly 1,000. The reason given by the director for withholding payment even though the awards had been authorized by the board of review was that he was suspicious because he had received a letter from one farmer complaining about his neighbours. There was no foundation for the complaint and subsequent evidence revealed this to be a fact. There is no evidence in the judge's

report that there were any irregularities of any kind, and I intend to prove this later.
As the federal member of parliament representing these farmers I demanded that payment be made according to the act unless evidence could be produced that its provisions had been violated. No such evidence was produced so I made further demands stating again that no person, certainly not the director or members of the board of review, had the power to withhold payment of the legitimate claims of farmers if their claims had been passed for payment. I pointed out that if it were later proven that there had been a violation of the act there were several methods of recovery which could be adopted by the administrative branch of the department, namely, either by due process of law or by setting up an overpayment account, as has been done in the past in other parts of western Canada.
On no occasion did I object to an investigation being carried out in this area if it were deemed necessary and if any proof were presented that there were any irregularities. However, as I have previously stated no specific cases were presented, and as a result no investigation has been held. None has ever been held. No inquiry was held even after this government had been in office for a number of months. I wonder why, if there was any foundation for a charge that irregularities had occurred.
I have referred already to the word "fix" which was used by the director at the hearing of evidence before this commissioner. He, personally, must have gone through 8,000 applications. On this basis he presented four charges-four applications which, he suggested, were "fixed" and these are referred to in this report by the commissioner. I wish to refer to one of them and I will use the name, as I must, because it appears in any case in the report. It is the case of a young farmer by the name of Bymoen. He made a claim for P.F.A.A. assistance. Such cases occur quite often; there is nothing irregular about this. This young man made a claim for P.F.A.A. payments to which he was entitled. On investigation the Regina office, through the director, said he did not lease the land. No trouble was taken to investigate-like the supervisor-but when an investigation was completed, it was found that this was what had happened: The lad had recently got married and his father-in-law was going to assist him to set up farming. He made an application to the farm credit board for a sum of money to purchase a parcel of land which he

planned to farm. But as members of this committee know, it takes a considerable time for these applications to be processed and in the meantime the person from whom he intended to purchase the land decided to farm it once more. This left the young lad in a difficulty. However, his father-in-law said: Don't worry about it; I will lease you some of my own land so that you can go ahead and farm.
In the part he had leased to his son-in-law was a quarter section of land he had leased from another person. The lease was in the father-in-law's name. There was a verbal lease between the son-in-law and the father-in-law, which is quite permissible out there under the P.F.A.A. regulations, for the first year. However, the director said this was a fix, until we proved otherwise. The commissioner took no notice, apparently, judging from his report, of the facts that were presented to him at the hearings. I wonder why.
Another reference to one of the cases that was called a fix by the director is in regard to a piece of irrigated land. For those who know anything about P.F.A.A., any land that is irrigated is taken out of the area for which P.F.A.A. is paid and the average of that area is figured out without the production from the irrigated land. This irrigation was not the same as other types of irrigation we have out there; it was what we call a spring flood irrigation, and was quite legitimate. I am surprised that the commissioner says this.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Here he is talking about the dismissal of Mr. Walker. He says:
Here possibly I should review some of the matters that were placed before the commission, which although perhaps small in themselves, caused some apprehension in the mind of the director in his dealings with him.
"Small in themselves". This is the type of statement he makes in regard to Mr. Walker all through his report. He finally comes up with a decision in which he says it was necessary and desirable that Mr. Walker be relieved of his duties. I suggest that it was necessary and desirable as far as this commissioner was concerned because the commissioner was a supporter of the Liberal party and Mr. Walker was a supporter of the Tory party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That was the only reason. There was no other reason why he should have been dismissed. I would also like to
Interim Supply
refer to other statements the commissioner has made in his report, which statements are very misleading. In fact, he has made reference to some evidence that I gave before the inquiry. It is not necessary that I read all this to the committee, but this evidence was in connection with an interview I had with the director. The director came to see me in my office and his opening remarks were, "McIntosh, you are not running the P.F.A.A. in Swift Current. I am the director; I am running P.F.A.A. here". I said, "Mr. Riddell, you have made some accurate statements, and others that are not quite accurate." I said, "In the first place, you are right; I am not running P.F.A.A. You are the director; you are correct in that statement. But in regard to your running P.F.A.A., you are wrong". And that is where the evidence stops in this report. Why did the judge not complete the statement that I made, when I said, "You are not running P.F.A.A.; the Minister of Agriculture is running P.F.A.A."?


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has just said, "Why did the judge stop at this point?" I thought he was going to call him the commissioner while he was speaking tonight.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I thank my hon. friend for that correction, Mr. Chairman. If I forget again, I hope you will remind me. I also refer to another page of testimony, I guess you could call it, that I gave at the inquiry. The lawyer was asking me if I knew a certain person. I said:
Very well. When I went into the Skyline hotel I asked if Mr.-
-so-and-so:
-was there, and I was directed to a room upstairs to which I went. I knocked and went in, and there were several gentlemen in the room. I immediately recognized them as members of the board of review. I said, "What is this, an official or unofficial visit?" They said it was an unofficial visit. I said, "In what respect?" They said, "In connection with the holding back of payments on the P.F.A.A. cheques". I said, "On what grounds?" I was informed that because of the suspicions of Mr. Riddell. I asked, "What suspicions did Mr. Riddell have?" They said something to do with the carryover of wheat in particular areas. I said, "Gentlemen, those are suspicions. Has he given you any concrete examples of whether there are irregularities in any of these areas?" They said, "No, he hadn't at that time". I talked with them again for close to an hour and in this field, and I also talked about politics-
Which the commissioner did not wish me to get into. Then I said:
However, I must make this statement, that I was afraid that there was political influence being used in this case-

Interim Supply
Because these payments were withheld in my area just before an election. Why were they withheld? On whose orders were they withheld? I wanted to know. I said:
-I reminded them of a former instance where it seemed to me that politics were creeping in and what had happened the individual concerned was the former director-
This was the person whom I referred to earlier as the liaison officer between the present director and the minister at the time:
I told them further that if they had no concrete examples and they had passed these claims, then they had no authority to withhold the cheques. I think I cited the act. I told them that the cheques should have gone out in December and if they insisted that they had the power to withhold, then possibly the penalty provisions within the act should be applied; that they were violating the act if they were using that type of power, which they had no authority to do.
I also informed them that this was an act passed by the parliament of Canada and once it was passed it applied to everyone; not even the minister could violate the provisions of it without the penalty being applied if someone so wished, and in this case, I so wished, on behalf of the people that I represented. And if I was going to have any more trouble with this, I would lay a complaint against the whole works, including the director, the board of review or anybody else that tried to interfere in withholding these cheques.
I presume this is where the commission got the charge that appears in the paper, that I had threatened Mr. Riddell and the P.F.A.A. board of review. Well, if that is so, I would have done it with regard to anyone who was withholding cheques from my constituents, and I am quite sure anyone in this House of Commons would have done the same thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I just want to refer to one more statement in regard to Mr. Walker. The commissioner in the report says that he should have been dismissed. He says that Mr. Walker "was caught in the middle of a controversy between Mr. Riddell and Mr. McIntosh", and because he was caught in the middle, the commissioner stated he should have been fired. This is another passage. The commissioner said:
I can, of course, understand Mr. McIntosh's reluctance, as a member of parliament running for office, to have any investigation concerning anything within his constituency. But I cannot understand Mr. McIntosh's lack of understanding with respect to the obligations of Mr. Riddell, as director, to make sure that nothing improper was being done by claimants under the act, nor can I understand the position taken by Mr. Walker in regard to this controversy.
One of the reasons why he cannot understand, perhaps, is because he is a defeated

candidate and I am a successful one. Maybe he should follow my methods.
Further, he goes on to say that there may have been a misunderstanding in respect to the instructions which Mr. Walker received from Mr. Riddell in this regard; but it is hard to see how there can be any misunderstanding. There may have been one, but it is hard to see where there is one.
Another statement by the commissioner which I question is with regard to the inspectors who were employed. He said that many of them did not attempt to obtain accurate information. These inspectors are very honest men. That is one of the reasons they are selected for this position, and for any commissioner to make that accusation with the evidence which he had at his disposal at the inquiry is an affront to the position he holds. I am alarmed that a man holding such a position should make a statement which he knew would be publicized in this way. It is too bad that we have not some recourse within our country which would enable a person like that, to use an actor's phrase, to be brought on the carpet.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member's time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I was interrupted for a couple of minutes but I will close off by saying this. My immediate reaction to the commissioner's conclusion can be summed up in the phrase: "Suppressio veri et suggestio falsi", which as most hon. members know means "Suppression of the truth and suggestion of the false." Had the commissioner delivered these conclusions in his capacity as a judge prior to accepting the commission I would have taken action in this house to have him removed from that position; but because he delivered these conclusions under the cover given to a commissioner by the government I am left without any remedy against him.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit the question I was going to
ask?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, while the committee is in the process of dealing with the very important subject of interim supply, which is asking us to approve expenditures in excess of $700 million, I should like to make a few brief remarks in relation to the

Department of Forestry, mainly relating to the agreements between the federal government and the provinces on shared programs.
I should like to mention at the outset that the committee were very interested to hear the remarks yesterday made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton in outlining the functions of the department, the department of which incidentally the hon. member was the first minister. It is interesting to note that this department, which has been discussed both yesterday and today, came into being under the guidance of the former administration. When you look into many of the programs which the department is carrying out at the present time, you find more and more that a great deal of tribute can be paid to the former administration for bringing these programs into being. Yesterday the former minister gave us a very detailed account of the functions of the Department of Forestry and summarized the extent of our forestry resources, as well as giving a general picture of the present value of exports of raw and finished materials. I was also pleased to hear of the co-operation of a financial nature which is taking place between the federal government and the provinces under this particular department. It is extremely important that these programs be continued, and as quickly as possible improved.
Although I note that some small increases are planned in the Department of Forestry in relation to certain research programs of the department-and here I might say that it is interesting to see that increases in expenditures are going to be made in regard to research into this very important subject- I also observe that there has been no increase in relation to the contributions to the provinces in regard to the conducting of forestry inventories, reforestation, forest fire protection and forest access road construction, a fact which I am disturbed to learn. These programs are some of the most important ones, and they must not only be continued but carried out on a much larger scale. I sincerely hope that the government will give early consideration to working out details with the provinces which will result in greater contributions on the part of the federal government toward these very desirable projects.
In dealing with payments to the provinces, I have some brief remarks to make in relation to the particular forestry situation, forestry programs and potential in the province of Manitoba. I will refer at times to the re-
Interim Supply
port of the committee on Manitoba's economic future, which is quite a voluminous report. However, I intend only to refer to certain parts of it. Although the forestry resources of the provinces actually come under the jurisdiction of the provinces themselves, the absolute necessity for co-operation between the federal government and the provincial authorities is very apparent as one looks over some of the findings of the committee which presented this report to the Manitoba government in March, 1963. The report starts out by saying that the primary forest resources of Manitoba, while not as highly productive as those of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, and more remote from major markets, nevertheless offer great potential for development and utilization. The annual value of products extracted by the primary forest industries of Manitoba is approximately $20 million. The major products are newsprint, pulpwood, sawn lumber, poles, posts, crossties and fuel wood. Pulp and paper products, including newsprint, account for 90 per cent of the total value of all woods harvested. About one third is exported from the province as pulpwood. A large portion of the remainder is manufactured into newsprint. There is a pulp and paper plant at Pine Falls, Manitoba which, incidentally, at the moment is the only pulp and paper plant we have in that province.
The report goes on to say that some of these shared programs are extremely valuable and very necessary. The report deals with many things such as access roads and power development. It is interesting to note when we speak of power development that Premier Roblin of Manitoba, when making a statement to the legislature on February 21, 1962, mentioned power specifically and underlined the fact that it would open up unlimited possibilities for growth in northern Manitoba, and that it would provide for the development of provincial resources that otherwise might remain undeveloped for many years. It is very important, you will note, to continue the development of access roads in order to ensure future development of our forestry resources in all the provinces, including Manitoba.
You might wonder why I am associating the development of power sites with the subject of forestry. Here again we have a shared service, in some respects. When speaking of these shared services, it is interesting to note how many of them were originally instituted by the former administration. I mentioned access roads. The program to develop access roads was closely associated

Interim Supply
with the roads to resources program which, in many respects, serve the same purpose. We know that the roads to resources program is one which the present Prime Minister referred to at one time as nothing but roads from igloo to igloo. This program is working out very well in many parts of Canada. I imagine the Prime Minister will always regret the time he made that statement. I hope, although there is not much evidence as yet, that he has changed his mind about this program.
Getting back to the shared programs and power development, it is interesting to look at the announcement recently made by the present government, and which is a followup of a program entered into by the province of Manitoba and the government of Canada, relating to a study of the power potential of the Nelson river. A month or so ago this government announced that further studies would be continued under this same agreement. I can say that we in Manitoba are very pleased to see the present government continuing programs instituted by the previous administration.
I have pointed out that in relation to forestry development and the development of the forest industry in Manitoba, it is essential that we have not only power developed as rapidly as we can but that we also have access roads into our forest areas. Assistance to the development of access roads is one of the functions of the Department of Forestry.
I should like to mention also that the benefits of forestry research are almost unlimited and the necessity for newer and improved methods of assessing forest products potential are continually being improved. For example, in Manitoba we find-actually this relates to one of the functions of the federal Department of Forestry-the province is being assisted in setting up forest inventory. The report states that the estimate of timber resources in the province of Manitoba made in the thirties, upon which the existing forestry policy of the province was based, indicated that the annual drain from logging, fires, insects and disease exceeded the annual growth. This was an estimate made in the thirties. A much more comprehensive inventory just completed shows the earlier estimate to have been seriously wrong. It is now considered that accessible crown land alone will sustain an annual cut of almost 100 million cubic feet of softwood, and it is possible that even this estimate is conservative. However the total cut of wood for the province has tended to decline of late and the average for

five recent years has been only 34 million cubic feet of all species from crown lands. This shows that new inventories are not only desirable but a necessity.
The federal Department of Forestry should provide more improved methods for conducting inventories from time to time, as I am sure these improved methods are being developed. Dealing again with the forestry potential of Manitoba, the report states it is estimated that the consumption of lumber in Manitoba is at least four or five times the present level of production. Production, which is presently being carried out by many small sawmills, could be improved upon tremendously through the good offices and the assistance of the federal Department of Forestry. It is estimated, the report says, that upwards of 150 million board feet of lumber could be produced and sold annually in the province by 12 to 15 saw mills instead of the present 40 million board feet produced by over 200 saw mills. The report indicates, therefore, that we have many small saw mills operating today which could be operating far more efficiently if they had encouragement and if more information were forthcoming from the federal department.
I could go on for an indefinite period of time dealing with the findings of the report on Manitoba's economic future in relation to the forest industry alone. The report indicates that there is opportunity in northern Manitoba to establish, over an eight to 10 year period, a pulpwood cutting and debarking operation for spruce pulpwood for sale in the overseas market, with shipment going through the port of Churchill. Substantial quantities could be cut and exported without depleting any of these pulpwood forests. Here again, we can see the tremendous advantage in continually conducting forest inventories. I should like to see that under the guidance of the Minister of Forestry.
There are only one or two further brief comments I have to make. We also have the ARDA program. We in western Canada hope it will not be too long until the ARDA program is rapidly extended in the western prairies. I would also hope that it will not be too long before the minister will embark on a program of using the possibilities available under ARDA in relation to Indian reservations. I believe that here is a great opportunity for expansion of the program. I might say here that the ARDA program was brought into being under the former administration, so once again we

are quite happy to note that the present government is continuing a program instituted by the former administration.
I should like to suggest as strongly as I can to the minister through the acting minister that the fullest consideration be given to *entering into a program under ARDA on Indian reservations. I think there is a vast field here where this program could operate to the benefit of our first citizens. I hope the minister will look into this possibility and make an announcement in the near future.
Before leaving the Department of Forestry I should once again like to pay tribute to the wonderful and highly creditable work being done by the forest products research branch on the Montreal road. All of us should take the opportunity to visit this project as often as we can. I have only had the opportunity of being there once but I can assure all hon. members that a visit to the forest products research branch is most interesting, revealing and educational. I am sure the work they are doing will enable Canada not only to hold its competitive position in the sale of forest products in world markets but will assist Canada to expand her present markets very rapidly. At the present time Canada is in competition with the world in this regard. The only way we can maintain or increase our markets is by producing a better product. This is one of the goals toward which the forest products research branch on the Montreal road is working day by day. I think all of us owe them a great debt of gratitude.
tTranslation]


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, as I do not want to interrupt the filibuster which is being carried out by the Conservatives who are anxious to prevent the debate on the flag from taking place, I shall refrain from speaking.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as I come from the prairies it may surprise hon. members that I should speak on forestry, but I want to point out just how important trees are to the prairies and the fact that they can be grown there. In the 1930's a program was started in Saskatchewan of planting hedges in the fields and trees on the farms as weather belts. The program was carried out at the little town of Conquest in the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar. The farmers started a hedge growing program to stop the soil from blowing away and to afford protection against high winds. Today
Interim Supply
Conquest can boast of a thousand miles of hedges. These hedges were planted around the edges of the fields 160 rods apart and extended a full mile. They beautified the country and it was not very long before their ability to prevent erosion was seen. In the wintertime the hedges prevent heavy drifting caused by blowing snow. They have resulted in the government being able to save a lot of money in keeping roads open in the winter and also holding the snow on the land, which is very important from the point of view of the moisture that western Canada needs so much. I suggest that the minister speed up the tree planting program on the prairies as it is certainly needed.
In the northern part of the province we have forests but they are being logged off. The same thing happened in Ontario where the hardwood trees were cut down and milled. After 100 years Ontario is beginning to realize the importance of trees and forests and is starting a farm woodlot program.
The forestry farm in Saskatoon is one of the beauty spots of Saskatchewan, but we must have water to grow trees and make the prairies blossom. The Saskatchewan river dam will be finished in a couple of years. It will then take a few years to fill up the reservoirs but when that happens we will have the water for this program. We should not slash down and log off our forests in northern Saskatchewan in the way that Ontario logged off its timber 100 years ago, and now has to undertake a tree lot program. Where trees are being logged off in northern Saskachewan I think replanting of trees should be done now. I suggest to the minister that he should look into this matter. It all comes under the ARDA program, but I feel that somewhere along the line the people in charge of the program are dragging their feet. It is not going ahead on the prairies as fast as I should like to see it proceed.
We are short of community pastures on the prairies and I believe this program should be speeded up by putting large tracts of land into community pastures and at the same time planting trees for shade. When that country was opened the land should never have been broken up, and we are beginning to realize that now. It is the same thing in the north where they are cutting timber, clearing off the land, when instead much of the land should be left as forest.
On the prairies I would like to see the ARDA program speeded up to take land out of production and put it into better use as pasture. We have a big cattle industry in

Interim Supply
Saskatchewan. In the 1930's our farmers were caught without feed, but we are overcoming that problem now. Our biggest difficulty is that the cattle industry has been hampered by lack of sufficient summer pasture, and I am glad to see ARDA is providing more pastures because when we have them we will be able to breed a lot more quality cattle.
The same thing applies to the north. Pastures could be developed in the bush and, if they were, they would be very valuable assets to the province of Saskatchewan. I had not intended to speak at length but I hope the minister will give consideration to the suggestions I have made for speeding up the ARDA program and accelerating tree planting on the prairies. Some place along the line I feel someone is dragging his feet.
The Saskatchewan river dam will be finished in a couple of years and then we will have water to irrigate pastures, which will add greatly to the economy of the province.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, as it has been said in sensible newspapers, I do not want to be associated with that kind of filibuster set up by the Conservatives. And, especially, I do not want to delay the adoption of the Canadian flag. Consequently, I will not make the speech I intended to make tonight.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in the debate on the interim supply bill which is now before us, I feel I am facing my responsibilities in seeking to scrutinize the expenditures made by the government.
We just saw two Liberal members rising to say they did not intend to take part in the debate. There is nothing new in that, Mr. Chairman, because they decided to maintain a stubborn silence and follow the decisions and the discipline of the party requiring that they say nothing. If this is their tactics, their policy, to enter into an agreement and co-operate with the splinter parties in order to gloss over expenditures of $700 million, it is their business, but my colleagues of the Conservative party and myself have a responsibility towards the people and if we are rising to speak, it is not to obstruct but to seek information and because we want to see that the government expenditures are well controlled.
We have before us a request to pass-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: When I have finished my remarks, I shall be pleased to answer, as always.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) is now sitting in the press gallery where he is not supposed to be. He should be sitting in his seat. I think this is an insult to our distinguished journalists and he should be sitting in the comer over there.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On two occasions we have been charged with obstruction. I should like to point out to the house that, yesterday, three members of the New Democratic party and one from the Ralliement Creditiste took part in our proceedings and I am told that today the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste also made a speech.
I say again that if hon. members opposite are not responsible enough to take their mandate seriously, they alone will have to take the consequences. They ought not to rise in this chamber and try to make mountains out of molehills.


Maurice John Moreau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is suggesting that members on this side of the chamber are not fulfilling their duties by not participating in this debate. I would like to point out that the hon. member was not present when the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources were being discussed last Friday.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, if you can see any justification for the remark of my hon. friend you are much better than I am. 1 think he just stood up in his place to make an appearance, in order that the press gallery would take a note of it and put some writeup in the Toronto newspapers.

As I was saying a moment ago, it is our responsibility and our duty to examine thoroughly government expenditures. We tried on many occasions to obtain answers, but it is clear that the government does not intend to provide us with the information we are requesting.
We have obvious proof of this when we realize that during the consideration of supplementary estimates of a department in particular, the minister in charge of that department is not even in attendance to answer questions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is on the isle of Capri.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He is holidaying. I am speaking more particularly of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) who is joy riding in Europe when he should be here answering questions we want to put to him.
There you have further evidence, Mr. Chairman, of the lack of interest, the jauntiness and the arrogance of the members of the present cabinet.
For instance, may I draw your attention to the fact that, at today's sitting, there has never been more than four ministers, out of 25, in attendance in the house.


Some hon. Members:: They are working.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They are working. They are in Europe, enjoying themselves. They are not working, they are holidaying in Europe. That is the kind of work these wartime administrators can do: go to Europe and get a suntan on the shores of the Mediterranean.
Up until now, Mr. Chairman, nine days have been spent on studying the estimates of the various departments. In an ordinary year, on the same date, the same number of days have in general been spent on studying government's expenditures.


Auguste Choquette: Where is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton)?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, it is well and good for the ministers to spend the people's money like drunken sailors as they are now doing but the members of the opposition have to examine such expenditures closely and make sure that they are made within the law. And that is one reason for my intervention in this debate.
When the hon. members opposite say that we are filibustering, I tell them that if they consider our participation in the debate on Bill No. C-110 as a filibuster-


Auguste Choquette: It was division.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -I am glad I went in for filibustering tactics, because, with the help of my colleagues of the Conservative party, we managed to correct a piece of legislation full of deficiencies and totally against the interest of the Canadian people.
On many instances, I tried to get information from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) with regard to the projects he had in mind to give work to the Canadian unemployed and more especially those in Quebec.
In the province of Quebec we have the dubious honour of holding the unemployment record in Canada, because at the present time there are 105,000 unemployed, the majority of whom are family heads.
Interim Supply


Auguste Choquette: Are there some unemployed with a job?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, these jobless people would like to work but they cannot find any work, because this government is unable to offer projects which could provide work for those who are looking for employment.
On several occasions, I asked the Minister of Labour what plans he had in mind and I never could get the required information. I intended to avail myself of this debate to ask him again what were his plans to give jobs to the unemployed in the province of Quebec, but I notice he is absent as usual.
Mr. Chairman, we remember the high sounding speeches made by my hon. friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin)-he left the house a few moments ago-when he sat on this side. In fact, he enjoyed the pleasure-*


Auguste Choquette: Lustful.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -of asking and repeating questions to the then minister of labour to know what he was doing to find jobs for this or that dozen of unemployed who had just been dismissed in an industry. But since he has been sitting to your right, no one has seen the Secretary of State for External Affairs tackle the problem of finding jobs for our unemployed with as much eagerness as he did when he sat on this side of the house.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: The problem is settled.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I hear the hon. member for Longueuil say that the problem is settled. Although there are 105,000 unemployed in the province of Quebec, they consider that the problem has been settled, it would not be worthwhile to take the time of the house or make representations to the Minister of Labour in order to give those hungry unemployed the bread needed by them and their families.
But when they sat on this side of the house it was an obsession with them, and day after day they asked questions concerning unemployment and the steps that had to be taken to hold it in check.
Mr. Chairman, you will remember that at one time the then member for Laurier-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that my friends opposite are applauding my remarks to the effect that the former member for Laurier has now left the house

Interim Supply
because I understand that they had some difficulty in making him accept their views. When I named him in this house, they heartily applauded, because they are happy that he is no longer among them.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I recognized that it is a slip of the tongue on the part of the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, but since his remarks will be put on the record, I wish to make a correction.
The hon. member said: "I am glad to see that my friends opposite are applauding at the fact that the former member for Laurier has gone out". Mr. Chairman, I think that such words are improper and uncalled for. We have applauded the name of the former member for Laurier because he is a French Canadian who has always done credit to us.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is no point of order. Do learn the standing orders.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, like you, I forgave in advance the little knowledge that the hon. member for Lotbiniere possesses in regard to the standing orders. Like you, I also understood that as he is here only a few times a month, he cannot have had the opportunity to-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The remarks just made by the hon. member are entirely unfair. I am regularly in attendance in the House of Commons and I shall even say that I am steadier than the hon. members for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who are both absent, as well as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker).


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot that it is contrary to the rules to refer to the absence or the presence of certain members, and I would ask the hon. member to please limit his remarks to the matter presently before us.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Was the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere in accordance with the standing orders?


Lucien Lamoureux: I must say the question of privilege was out of order, but we have disposed of it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lotbiniere should learn the rules; he should go back to school.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for
Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is ignorant and stupid.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I said a moment ago that the unemployment situation was alarming, especially in the province of Quebec, where there are still 105,000 jobless. We had the right to expect that unemployment would be wiped out, since those who are now on the government side had promised full employment during their election campaigns of 1962 and 1963.
However, Mr. Chairman, you can compare the number of unemployed in April, May, June, July, August and September 1962 with the corresponding months in 1963. You will then agree with me that there has been very little change.
I will quote first the figures for 1962:
April, 171,000; May, 114,000; June, 105,000; July, 109,000; August, 96,000; September, 97,000.
I will now give the figures for 1963:
April, 182,000; May, 130,000; June, 113,000; July, 112,000; August, 108,000; September, 108,000.
Where are the hundreds of jobs which our hon. friends opposite were supposed to find for the unemployed in the province of Quebec?
To speak about a matter in which I am greatly interested, I will quote the figures given me by the local unemployment insurance office in St. Hyacinthe. According to these figures, there were 1,310 applications for jobs in the month of June; in May, there were 1,414; in April, 2,094, in March, 2,577, in February, 2,470. In January, there were 2,344.
Those are unemployed to whom the Liberals had promised jobs.


Mr. Boulanger:: They do not have a good member.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I just heard my hon. friend from Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) interrupt to say that my constituency does not have a good member. I should like to reply-


Prosper Boulanger: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I did not say that his constituency did not have a good member. I put this as a question: "Would it not have, by any chance, a member who is not doing a good job?"
I was just asking.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: To answer my hon. friend, I would remind him that the person now speaking had obtained-


An hon. Member:: A portfolio.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I did not hear that remark.


An hon. Member:: He obtained a portfolio.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I understand why some hon. members opposite can say: "The grapes are sour".
I had obtained the building of a penitentiary, but the great patriot, to whom my hon. friend from Lotbiniere referred to a moment ago lost no time in cancelling the project out of political partisanship-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Hon. Lionel Chevrier cancelled the building of that penitentiary after it had been decided to go ahead with it.
The decision was taken purely for political reasons. My hon. friend knows that as well as I do; and those around him know it too.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The St. Sylvestre station is also closed; you are pretty cheap.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Last Friday, the Minister of Forestry read a press release on the temporary policy of the government regarding feed grain.
The reading of that news release proved to us that the present government is entirely incapable of solving once for all the problem of feed grain, in spite of the fact that it had promised to do so during the election campaign.
It was also proved to us without the shadow of a doubt that the Minister of Forestry, who is responsible for the matter of feed grain, was speaking of something he did not know anything about.
Mr. Chairman, if you refer to the press release, you will note that the freight subsidy would amount to $1.30 and the balance payable by the breeders would range up to $6.20.
It also says:
Under the new policy, that difference of approximately $B was reduced to $2.60 in eastern Canada and it is expected that the competition from trucking firms will eventually reduce that margin to less than $1.60.
What is it all about, Mr. Chairman?
Are we talking about subsidies on 100 pounds, a ton, a wagonload or a shipload of grain?
I am told that when newspapermen got that release they were panicky, because nobody understood anything. The Minister of Forestry had a chance to prove himself in the eyes of the newspapermen first, and then, in the eyes of the members of the House of Commons.
But he showed us first that the government does not know any more than he does about
Interim Supply
feed grain subsidies and that he relied on trucking competition to get some results from that policy.
During the proceedings of the committee on agriculture and colonization last fall, if my memory serves me right, a member of the official opposition proposed the establishment of an agency in order to study the matter thoroughly and to bring in the required improvements.
In his announcement the minister said that he was waiting for the report of the committee on agriculture and colonization to make a final decision in that respect.
We will wait for a long time, because the matter of feed grain has not yet been referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization during this session.
Once again, we see how sincere is the government about that problem. Considering its attitude, this government does not wish to help farmers. There are fine opportunities and great needs.
I am asking the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry to give their attention to that highly important matter.
I would like in addition to ask the Minister of Forestry and I regret his absence from the house this evening-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is on a jaunt to Europe.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -because I had several questions to ask him. Anyhow, I should like to know whether as claimed by Mr. Jacques Guay in a magazine article published in Le Magazine Maclean, it is true that the administration of ARDA gives rise to shameful political favouritism in the province of Quebec.
According to Mr. Guay, one cannot work as a settler under ARDA unless one professes to be a partisan of the Liberal party. Allow me to quote one of Mr. Guay's statements as reported in Le Magazine Maclean:
In St. Joachim de Tourelle, I met a young man of eighteen who had to give $2 to the patronage dispenser of the Liberal party-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm read that this afternoon.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -to manage to get a job on an ARDA project-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: This is a repetition.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We have to repeat things to you seven or eight times.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -if you are not taken on, you will get your money back, he was told.

Interim Supply
I want the minister to deny flatly this statement.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is in Europe.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If this allegation is not founded, the minister should flatly deny that patronage is being dispensed with regard to ARDA, because even though ARDA, which was established by the Conservatives, is administered by the Liberal government in the province of Quebec, the fact remains that the federal government makes its contribution and is therefore authorized to control the actions of the Liberal government of the province of Quebec in this connection.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The minister is on holiday in Europe.


Auguste Choquette: He is on official business.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to direct other questions to the minister, but as he is conspicuous by his absence, having decided to take a vacation, I shall ask them when he is back in the House of Commons.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


Prosper Boulanger: This should be good.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Well, when you are ready to make your contribution we will be ready to listen to you.


Prosper Boulanger: On a point of order, I just want to say I do not intend to interrupt this filibuster.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am very interested in the views of the hon. member. He says he does not want to participate in this debate. This is precisely what is taking place on the part of those sitting in the front benches on the other side. For a long time during the course of this session we have been waiting to discuss certain phases of government administration. It is my understanding that one of the basic functions of parliament is the discussion of the spending program of the government. Because this discussion has been delayed we feel that it is not only our privilege but our duty to bring these matters to the attention of the country. I have noted in the course of the present session, as a result of one of the small responsibilities which is mine, that the members on this side of the house have done more than their duty with regard to the functioning of the committees of this parliament. They have carried the quorums, I might say, in practically every case.

In the vast majority of cases many of the committees of the house would not have functioned had it not been for the members of the official opposition. This is also one of the responsibilities of the backbenchers and supporters of the government.
Then we come to the situation where my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm puts his finger on the core of the matter relating to the lack of responsibility of the Minister of Forestry and his good wife, and the money which has been taken from the taxpayers of the country and spent as it has been. This matter was discussed today, and the information given must be correct because it has not been refuted. So that when hon. members talk of descending to low levels, when the performance of this party ever stoops as low as the level of performance of hon. members opposite in an election campaign, then that will be the day I will leave this party.
Now, there are some matters of legislation-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should address the Chair.


Auguste Choquette: He is addressing "Mr. Pigeon."


Eric Alfred Winkler: I regret causing the Chair any embarrassment in this regard, Mr. Chairman.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there has apparently been some suspicion over the program we have been following, but let me dispel these fears immediately. As I have said, this is one of our basic functions in parliament and we intend to carry it out, as we should, for the benefit of the country and everyone in Canada. Not only that, but we also feel that if the government were responsible they would bring forth the legislation which the people of this country want discussed. It does not take very much to appreciate what these items are. I have mentioned this before in the course of this session and it has borne some fruit at one time or another. But we have reached the stage of obstinacy as far as this government is concerned. If you look down the order paper-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor but I am wondering how the remarks he is making can be related to the resolution presently before the committee.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, it may be that technically you are absolutely correct in your statement. My whole remarks apply to the business of the Minister of Forestry, as does

the issue we are raising here this evening. But if he is not here, why should I discuss his affairs? Surely the rest of the business of the house is equally important. If these matters are not presented to us by the government it is our responsibility and privilege to discuss other matters which we are prepared to discuss. Goodness knows in the course of the next few days how many more ministers will be absent when we want to discuss their affairs. I realize it is their privilege to be absent and I will not take away that privilege which is theirs. That is all right by me. Nevertheless I will say this, that if the government is prepared to bring forth any of the measures on the order paper which the people of Canada are interested in having placed before us, matters such as pensions or any other item of business of interest to Canadians, then we are prepared to discuss the program of the government. If they want to discuss these items on the order paper from now until Christmas, then we are prepared to carry the program straight through.
In conclusion let me say this. Some of the bitterness which has been engendered over the way the government has carried out its program can easily be dispelled if they bring other legislative items forward. All I have to do is refer you and the other ministers on the front benches to the list of legislation which has already passed the house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is an imposing list. I have some-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Well, if you do not want to hear it now you will hear it another day.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. It seems to me that what the hon. member is now trying to establish does not have very much to do with any part of the lengthy resolution before the committee. I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me that the hon. member seeks at this time to discuss the procedure of the house and the order of business. In my opinion, this does not come under any one of the items that are before the committee now.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I shall be brief in my comments, Mr. Chairman. If $700 million of expenditures are not worthy of a substantial amount of discussion, then I do not know what is. It may be that I have roamed a bit in my remarks more than some, but I am only endeavouring to convince you, Mr. Interim Supply
Chairman, and the members of the government that the 38 items that have passed this house constitute not a bad record for a parliament such as this, up to this time. I am asking the members of the government to bring forward their program, and we will deal with it. I think that is sufficient in regard to the expenditure of $700 million upon which we are currently consuming time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the hon. member for Grey-Bruce a question, if I may. Did he indicate he is authorized on behalf of his party to bring this filibuster to an end if the government will undertake to bring forward the rest of the legislation?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member considers a few days discussion on $700 million of expenditures by this government a filibuster, then he had better seek some other area of representation.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Lot-biniere is ready to speak.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) wants to be recognized.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, it is any member's privilege to stand up and speak in the house, but I do not wish to interrupt the filibuster; I, therefore, waive this privilege.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that most hon. members in this house might have learned a very important lesson on how the business of the house should be discussed if they had been here and had paid attention to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. The forestry industry in Canada, as he pointed out, is very important. I thought that, having in mind the logical way in which he discussed this subject, the way in which he so clearly illustrated to all of us the many different problems of that industry, the many different ways in which that industry is of prime importance to this country, we would have had more of that same logical type of discussion. Certainly, I feel such remarks as those made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who obviously comes from a district that is dependant upon the forest industry, are out of place. He said that he would not take the time of the house to speak on this

Interim Supply
subject. However, when he considered there was a personal affront to him he took the time to get up and call that to the attention of the house. I suggest it behooves the hon. member to put the welfare of his constituents and a very important industry ahead of his own personal feelings. I hope he sends home many copies of Hansard with these great speeches of his tonight, so those people who have some realization of the importance of forestry will know how well he is taking care of their affairs in Ottawa.
It may be that I am not an expert on this subject. I understand that there are members who feel rather reluctant to speak on subjects on which they might not be fully informed. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if we all sat silent and allowed only the experts to speak on these occasions we would have very little debate and there would be few worth-while ideas brought forward. All of us would I think be properly branded as cowards who had deserted their duty. There is no better way, I believe, of realizing the importance of the forests of this country than to live in it and travel in it from one end to the other.
We have a good deal of forested area in Alberta. We have a wide variety of trees. There is a tremendous difference between the trees we have in Alberta and those in Ontario, for instance. I think that even to travel that distance, to see the different kinds and quantities of lumber, to see the different ways in which trees affect the lives of not only the farmers but of all of us, is to give any person some idea of the enormity of the task to be faced by any department of government which is going to mobilize its resources to give us the fullest possible benefit from this important natural heritage of ours.
I noticed the former minister, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, mentioned forest fires. He referred to the total loss of timber by forest fires and compared it to the total commercial production. It seemed that there was at least two thirds as much destroyed by fire as there was used commercially. When we consider how excited we have become in this house at the threat to even one part of the production of this industry, such as the possible imposition of a tariff by the United States against B.C. lumber, and how concerned we became at the possibility of having that valuable export market made more difficult, and when we realize that export market is only a small part of the total production of the country and is insignificant compared to the amount lost by

fire, and when we consider along with that the amount of money spent on fire protection, then all of us must realize we have a duty to look more closely at the methods of fire prevention. We should all be attempting to bring forward suggestions as to how we might prevent some of this tremendous waste.
I believe it does not do any of us in the house any harm to get up and give a pat on the back to those who are working so hard on research in connection with this serious problem. There are many who have developed, and are still developing, new techniques for fighting forest fires. I refer to the manner in which former military airplanes have been converted into water bombers, for instance; the way in which paratroopers have been trained to become firefighters; the new methods of strategically placing firefighting men and materials, and so on. I feel they all deserve the support of this house. I am sure there is not one member who would like to go back to his constituency and report that a substantial loss of money by theft was occurring in one part of the country or another and that the government had not taken it very seriously. However, when we consider that we have to face the taxpayers of Canada and say that their property, these great forests of ours which have meant so much and will continue to mean so much to Canada, have been harvested to a greater extent by fire than by lumbermen, we should blush just a little.
I know that there is a considerable amount of money being spent on research, and I hope that we will not be niggardly in connection with experiments on firefighting techniques. I have seen some of the fires or seen pictures of some of the fires that have raged in this country. I have wondered at such times if the Department of Forestry could not co-operate with the army a little more so that army personnel could be made available as firefighters. With the airlifting techniques that have been perfected by the air force and the fact that we have many troops who are easily and quickly mobilized, it should not be beyond the realm of practicability to organize firefighting brigades in different parts of the country and to work out arrangements with the civilian authorities to bring in by airlift special companies of troops to assist in areas where a sufficient number of firefighters is not readily available.
In the case of many fires which start to consume a large area and rage out of control it is quite common for the police to stop vehicles on the roads and to press every man

into service for this task. I know that sometimes this causes considerable hardship to some individuals, but they do not really complain about the necessity. Most of them readily understand the value of our forests and the danger to them and other property, as well as the loss of wildlife. Most of them serve as valiantly and effectively as they can, but as in any other endeavour I believe that the presence of trained troops who can be controlled and whose work can be directed would mean that man for man they would be much more effective in firefighting.
I have nothing more to say about forest fires. There are other aspects of the forest industry that I think are equally as important. For instance, there is the question of our national parks. It has been said in the house before that our trees are a recurring resource. Trees can be grown like farm crops. They can be properly cut and harvested under good forest management, and with proper provision for replanting we can always have plenty of trees.
In many of our national parks today there are huge areas of merchantable timber and there are many people anxious to be allowed to cut it. I am aware of course of the tremendous feeling and fear on the part of many people that this would be a desecration of our parks. I concede that where permission is granted for commercial tree cutting or any other commercial venture in our parks, due regard must be had for the preservation of these beauty spots of nature so that all may enjoy them and treasure them for years. But there are out of the way places that are never seen now by tourists. In these areas the trees grow old and die or are destroyed by fires. There are agreas where lumbering could be a fairly profitable industry and the operation could be controlled in such a way that the harm would be negligible. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I think such operations would be beneficial to the parks.
I can recall a recent instance with regard to which I had occasion to speak to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It involved a very small stretch of timber just within Wood Buffalo park in Alberta. Wood Buffalo park is the largest of our national parks. The area is tremendous and it is visited by very few people. There is a great deal of timber and there are small timber operations there now.


Auguste Choquette: Where is that?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Wood Buffalo park is in Alberta and the Northwest Territories and its
Interim Supply
size is tremendous. I know that the people concerned had a problem. They wanted to cut timber along the edge of the park. I had occasion to speak to the minister about the matter. I might say that I feared I would encounter the attitude usually displayed by officialdom. When people want to put a finger on the parks they say: No, they are sacred; you cannot touch them.
I found the minister to be most reasonable in his approach. He pointed out to me some of the difficulties, including the fact that the province of Alberta would like to have some of this parkland. This would require some consultation with the province, because if there was going to be any exchange of land the minister would not want to impose on the province responsibility for any industry that might be operating there at the time.
I mention this only because I think it illustrates in a small way, though I think a rather important one, that our ideas with regard to our forests in our national parks do not have to be firm, fixed and inflexible. Through proper negotiation with the provinces and the federal officials we can work out reasonable methods by which these tremendous forest resources can be usefully employed to furnish greater wealth for this country. I hope the minister will see that many more officials of his department look at our national parks to ascertain where good timber cutting can be done with beneficial effects. I hope that many officials of the Department of Forestry will also study more carefully the accessibility and availability of timber, and that the roads to resources program started by the previous government will be extended and expanded. I trust that every facility will be made available to private enterprise which shows a sense of responsibility, some ambition and some knowledge of the timber industry.
We are well aware in Canada today of the necessity for expanding our export markets and earning dollars wherever we can. We hear many members speak about the unemployment in their own ridings, and in view of the history of employment and good business operations in the timber industry there is no reason, despite our difficulties in other more highly mechanized or automated industries, why the tried and true methods of garnering the wealth of our greatest national resource, our forests, should lag behind. I hope that the availability of timber will be a subject of research.
I see it is 10.30, Mr. Chairman.


Auguste Choquette: You have unanimous consent. Go ahead.
6214	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. member for Lotbi-niere wants to have further study of this matter, now that it has been pointed out to him it is an important one.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Desmond Morton Code: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre what the business of the house will be for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member's question may I say I would be very pleased to take over the management of the business of the house so that matters which are of the most urgent importance to the people of Canada would be brought forward, instead of the type of program that has been placed before us during the last several weeks. I will now ask the acting house leader if he has any announcement for us indicating a change of program.


Mr. MacNaughi:: Tomorrow we will go on with the very important business of considering interim supply, and after that we will discuss the very important business of fiscal relations, and when that is completed, then we will go on with the very important business of discussing the flag.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the right hon. Prime Minister is unable to be in the house tonight because the question that I raised the other day, and which I am raising again tonight, is one of vital importance not only to the people of my constituency but to the people of the north country as a whole. It has to do with the arrangements that are reputedly being made about the smelter that will deal with the ores found in Timmins this spring.
Hon. members may recall that some weeks ago I raised this matter when the suggestion at that time was that the smelter would be built in North Carolina, and possibly as a result of the representations I made then an announcement was forthcoming that the smelter would be built in Canada, and more particularly in Ontario. Since then it appears
[Mr. Choquette.l

everybody has been trying to get into the act and everybody wants the Timmins smelter.
For example it has been reported that it would be built at Parry Sound on Georgian bay. When that report came out the people of the north country got very suspicious, because of a certain connection. The member of the provincial legislature for that constituency also happens to be commissioner of the Ontario Northland Railway which would be involved in any agreement to ship this ore. Also the suspicion was raised that there were possible political connotations to this matter.
Now we have been informed by a reasonably reliable authority that Cutler, in Algoma East riding, is talked about as the prospective site for this smelter. Again to the people of northern Ontario, this would smack of political interference and political pressure in regard to the location of the smelter.
It is economically ridiculous to ship ore, such as will be produced at the Texas Gulf strike in Timmins, over long distance by rail or by road. Zinc, even in the concentrated form, still represents about 50 per cent waste, and copper some 66 per cent waste. This would mean that they would be paying freight on 50 per cent waste in one instance and 66 per cent waste in the other, which makes no economic sense whatever. This leads the people of the north country to believe that there must be some other factor involved in this hesitation on the part of officials to announce that the smelter will be built at the place where it should be built, which is in the Timmins area.
The freight policy of our railways is that they offer a very cheap rate for unfinished products and charge a very high rate for finished products. Again the people of northern Ontario feel this is doing nothing more than turning it into a raw material economic colony for the people of the south. The treasure we have in northern Ontario is mined in its raw form, which provides very little employment. In fact the ratio of employment is about three times greater in the smelting work than in mining the ore.
Mr. Speaker, something came to my attention very recently which is of great importance here. I would like to show that this is not only a provincial problem solely under the jurisdiction of the province. On Sunday night there was an excellent program broadcast over the Timmins t.v. station, dealing with the Grand canal project. I think most hon. members are familiar with this project. It is a plan that is apparently coming to the

point of utter necessity by which fresh waters flowing north into James bay can be reversed and sent back over land heights, to maintain the level of water in the great lakes and in the St. Lawrence system. I think all hon. members are beginning to realize how desperate this water situation is becoming in the whole of the great lakes basin and the St. Lawrence seaway. There is a double problem here. One is to maintain the level of water in the lakes and the other is maintain a flow through the system which would keep shipping moving through the seaway.
It seems to me it is ridiculous to aggravate an already critical situation in the south by establishing industries there which could be built in the north. I think the government should be adopting the idea of moving industries up north so that they could take advantage of the natural flow of waters to the north which remains unharnessed at the present time. This is something the federal government is bound to be involved in, because this new Grand canal project is not only an interprovincial one; it is also an international one which can only be handled in all its aspects by the federal government. It is something which will come about very rapidly and which will call for the attention of this house and of the government.
Not only do we ship our raw materials down from the north at the present time but we find we have to ship the water out afterwards in order to process it. I think this is a senseless procedure and the stated policy of governments, whether federal or provincial, should be to rectify this situation. I should like an assurance from the Prime Min-
30, 1964	6215
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ister or from his parliamentary secretary that no plans are on foot to move this smelter down to the Cutler area. Though it may be considered to be in northern Ontario, Cutler is still on the south slope, because the slope of the land comes close to Timmins and Kirkland Lake. All water to the south flows into the St. Lawrence basin, and the arguments I have put forward apply. As I say, I should like an assurance from the Prime Minister or his parliamentary secretary that no such plans are on foot at the present time.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I should like to thank the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) for making such a persuasive case for locating more industry up north. Certainly he has made a strong case for locating a smelter in the Timmins area. His original question asked, in effect, what submissions the Prime Minister had received in this connection. My right hon. friend has received several oral submissions, one from the mayor of Little Current, one from the improvement district of Elliot Lake and one from the residents along the north short of lake Huron in the vicinity of Cutler, Ontario.
These people have all been anxious to point out the advantages of locating a smelter on, or close to, water transportation. No doubt the mining companies will take this and other important considerations into account and will certainly locate a smelter in Canada having regard to these possibilities.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Friday, July 31, 1964