1964-07-29

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all hon. members of the house. Yesterday, as reported at page 6066 of Hansard, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, the Minister of Public Works advised the house that he had given instructions that in future all elevator operators in the centre block of the parliament buildings should be bilingual.
My question of privilege is that it does not lie within the authority of the minister to set employment policy within the precincts of parliament. The minister's duty is to provide staff, not policy. Policy is and must be the sole responsibility of parliament and its officers.
I am not commenting on the decision that was made. I am merely challenging the right of the Minister of Public Works to rise and advise the house what the employment policy of parliament will be. It is the principle to which I take strong objection.
If the minister alleges that he has this authority, then I intend to take action to change it, and I so give notice now. If some of my friends from Quebec would say that I am against bilingualism on parliament hill, let them think twice. If this particular minister can on his own whim give such an order, a future minister could not only reverse it but could give entirely new direction in employment practices.
I say this is not the personal prerogative of any minister, and I rise to protest his taking this authority to himself. It is repugnant to parliament that it should not control policies within its own walls.



AGRICULTURE


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to table two copies in English
and two copies in French of the report of the prairie farm assistance administration commission of inquiry.
Members will find the conclusions and recommendations of the report summarized on pages 58 to 60.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like, with the permission of the house, to table the report, in English and French, of a special committee set up by the Department of National Health and Welfare to deal with mono-aming oxidase inhibitors.



WATER LEVELS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
July 27-The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources:
That the subject matter of the water levels of the great lakes system be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters for their consideration and report.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	On what date was the contract let for repairs to the Sackvillel
2.	By what firms were tenders submitted, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	To what firm was the contract granted, and what was the amount of its tender?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	March 10, 1964.

Questions
2.	Two shipbuilding companies were invited to tender. One tender only was received from Geo. T. Davie and Sons Ltd., $158,125.
3.	Geo. T. Davie and Sons Limited in the amount of $158,125 for the known items of work. As is customary in requirements for repairs to vessels, provision was made for additional funds for supplementary work of a type which could not be foreseen until the machinery was opened up in the shipyard. Work was completed on May 8, 1964. Based on the actual costs submitted by Geo. T. Davie and Sons Ltd., it is anticipated that the total expenditure will amount to approximately $185,000.


* MECHANICAL DISPENSING OF DRUGS IN HOSPITALS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,284
Mr. Cowan:: 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare intend to be a party to a cost sharing program with the Ontario hospital services commission in the installation of an automated dispensary in a hospital, where the dosages would be issued by a mechanical process?
2.	If so, what steps will be taken to ensure that Canada's unfortunate experience with the drug thalidomide, which was issued to patients
on doctors' prescriptions, shall not be repeated?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1.	Yes. The equipment will be installed for evaluation purposes.
2.	The purpose of this system is to simplify the distribution of drugs ordered by physicians. The system is under the supervision of the hospital pharamacist and only drugs which are approved for routine hospital use are stocked.
1923-five 1925-one
1929-	one
1930-	two 1932-one 1942-one 1945-one
1955-one
1957-	one
1958-	one
1960-	one
1961-	one
1962-	one
1963-	three
(b)	There has not, to date, been any registration of any industrial design featuring three maple leaves on one stem.


* SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DAM COMPLETION
Mrs. Jones: 1.	What is the present target date for completion of the dam on the South Saskatchewan river, and how does this compare with the originally estimated time?
2.	Has the Saskatchewan government approached the federal government in 1964 to request assistance under ARDA or any other federal assistance program. for a comprehensive investigation of the feasibility of making studies under a federal aid program of the development of the total potential of the Saskatoon Outlook area?
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary
to Secretary of State): 1. The present target date for completion of the dam on the South Saskatchewan river is the end of July, 1966. The previous target date for completion was December 31, 1965. It should be noted that this completion date does not include the reservoir filling period.
2.	In so far as the departments of agriculture and forestry are concerned the Saskatchewan government has not approached the federal government in 1964 to request assistance under programs administered by the departments for a comprehensive investigation of the feasibility of making studies of the type referred to.


'COPYRIGHTS ON MAPLE LEAVES DESIGN
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many companies or individuals have Canadian copyrights on the design of the three maple leaves joined on one stem?
2.	How many copyrights have been granted for said design year by year since 1922?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 1,447 is as follows:
1.	(a) No company or individual has registered Canadian copyright on the design of the three maple leaves joined on one stem;
(b)	however, 16 companies have registered trademarks which claim three maple leaves on one stem, as a feature thereof, in each case in connection with a specific trade name.
2.	(a) Since 1922, there have been 21 registrations of such trademarks, as follows:


SUBSIDY TO NEWFOUNDLAND-CANADA STEAMSHIP SERVICE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the governemnt approved a one year, $245,000 subsidy to the Newfoundland-Canada steamship service for its run between Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland?
2.	How many ships of the Newfoundland-Canada Steamship Service ply between Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland?
3.	What is the basis for the payment of such subsidy and is it intended to offset the effect of
competition from the government owned Canadian National North Sydney-Port aux Basques service?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The Canadian maritime commission advises as follows:
1.	A subsidy of $248,600 has been approved
for one year only.
2.	One.

3.	Because of a change in railway through rate allocations, it was no longer economic to operate the Halifax-St. John's service, and representations were received from trade and other organizations to maintain this long established regular service between the two Atlantic provinces concerned. Profit is limited to a nominal sum under a recapture clause in the contract. It is not intended as competition to the Port aux Basques-Sydney service.


ULTRA HIGH FREQUENCY TELEVISION CHANNELS
Mr. Priilie: 1.	How many ultra high frequency channels for television broadcasting are available to Canada?
2.	Have any plans been prepared for use of U.H.F. channels in Canada?
3.	Has any consideration been given to requiring manufacturers to build television receiving sets capable of receiving U.H.F. channels?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Seventy. From channel 14 to channel 83 inclusive.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.


CANADIAN CONTENT IN DEFENCE PURCHASES
Mr. Prittie: In the purchase of defence equipment and supplies, is a preference given to suppliers who provide Canadian content and, if so (a) upon what authority is such preference based (b) what is the extent of such preference for Canadian content compared with non-Canadian content?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Under provisions of the Defence Production Act, the Minister of Defence Production is responsible for ensuring that the necessary production capacity and materials are available to support the Canadian defence production program. Accordingly, departmental officers always look to Canadian companies for the provision of supplies that are required for our defence program and examine requirements to determine how these needs may contribute to the creation of Canadian skills and facilities. It is a provision of the general conditions that are applicable to departmental contracts that to the full extent to which they are procurable, consistent with proper economy and the expenditious carrying out of the contract, Canadian labour, parts and materials shall be used in the work. Therefore, the department buys from Canadian firms if practicable and only turns to other sources of supply when procurement from the Canadian sources is deemed to be uneconomical or impractical. For example, the complexity of certain weapons systems is 20220-387
Questions
such that production in Canada for our limited requirements often involves prohibitive costs. In these cases, the department encourages Canadian firms to participate in production sharing arrangements with the United States and defence export arrangements with NATO and other friendly countries.
In addition, it is the government's policy that in the absence of strategic reasons, a premium will be paid for a product with higher Canadian content. This premium is calculated at 10 per cent of the difference in foreign content. In the case of coal, a premium of up to 20 per cent can be paid.


PROTESTANT AND HEBREW BROADCASTS OVER C.B.C.
Mr. Prittie: 1.	Are there any broadcasts by Protestant and Hebrew denominations on either the radio or television networks of Radio Canada?
2.	Has any Protestant or Hebrew denomination requested permission to broadcast on either of these networks and, if so, have such requests been denied and for what reason?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	There are programs and program series in which representatives of French Protestant denominations participate, but there is no regular series of broadcasts allotted on the French language networks to Protestant and Hebrew denominations.
2.	Yes, a request was received for a regular weekly Protestant radio program. In view of the small size of the French speaking Protestant population, it was decided that a series of network broadcasts is not warranted at this time.


TENDERS FOR RECONVERSION OF FRIGATE
[Stage Direction]
"skeena"
Mr. Bell: 1.	Were tenders called for the reconversion of the frigate Skeena and, if so, who were the tenderers and what were the amounts of each bid, indicating the successful one?
2.	If tenders were not called, why was that procedure not followed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes. Tenders were called for the reconversion and refit of H.M.C.S. Skeena and the following firms submitted tenders.
Davie Shipbuilding, $2,884,519.75 including federal sales tax; Marine Industries, $2,950,420 excluding federal sales tax; St. John Dry Dock, $2,980,000 excluding federal

Questions
sales tax; Canadian Vickers, $3,626,727 excluding federal sales tax; Halifax Shipyards, $4,332,409 excluding federal sales tax.
The contract was awarded to Davie Shipbuilding.
In any refit there is extra work that cannot be contracted for until the ship has been taken in hand by the shipyard. The departmental practice when dealing with a straight refit is to award an initial contract based on the known requirements. At a point when the over-all job is about 25 to 35 per cent completed, the department negotiates a price for the supplementary requirements raised as a result of opening up machinery spaces and at the same time firm up the over-all contract terms, schedule, etc.
The Skeena requires both a conversion and a refit. When requesting competitive tenders it was not possible to define other than the known requirements. The total conversion portion of the tender was defined with precision as a basis for competitive tender together with that portion of the refit that was clearly known.
The labour and overhead rates quoted by Davie Shipbuilding in the tender for extra refit work, were the lowest.
2. N/A.


QUARTERLY PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX
Mr. Danforth: Is the Department of National Revenue (taxation division) assessing a fine on citizens filing income tax returns for 1963 who did not make a quarterly payment and, if so (a) was any official notice of this contemplated action sent out to these taxpayers prior to their 1963 filing in order that they might comply with the regulations (b) to what category of taxpayers does the above ruling apply (c) what percentage of the taxpayers are being fined in regard to their 1963 returns (d) what percentage of the taxpayers were assessed fines in this regard on 1962 returns?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: No. Interest is being assessed as provided by subsection 2 of section 54 of the Income Tax Act where taxpayers being required by sections 48 and 49 of the act to pay a part or instalment of tax have failed to pay all or any part thereof as required.
(a)	Not applicable. The requirement to pay income tax by instalment has been clearly set out in the Income Tax Act and previously in the Income War Tax Act since the pay as you go system was introduced in 1942.
(b)	Individuals are required to pay a part or instalment of tax as provided by sections 48 and 49 of the Income Tax Act where less than 75 per cent of their income consists of

remuneration from which amounts have been withheld or deducted at source on account of tax.
(c)	No fines are levied.
(d)	None.


FEES PAID BY C.B.C.
Mr. Boutin: What fees were paid by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during 1963 to (a) Andre Lau-rendeau (b) Jean-Louis Gagnon (c) Jacques Hebert (d) Jean Marchand (e) Mrs. Jeanne Sauve?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it is not customary to require the corporation to disclose the fees paid to program participants because of the competitive business in which the C.B.C. is engaged.


VANCOUVER
Mr. Prittie: 1.	Did the dominion public weather office at Vancouver formerly authorize TASCO (Telephone Answering Exchange Limited) of Vancouver to provide weather information to the public in response to telephone enquiries?
2.	Did the dominion public weather office ask for TASCO's guidance when it was considering the establishment of a similar service in Montreal and Toronto?
3.	Is TASCO still providing this service at Vancouver?
4.	If not, who is now providing this service?
5.	Was TASCO given an opportunity to continue the services at Vancouver?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1, 2 and 3. No.
4.	The Vancouver weather office provides information in response to telephone requests.
5.	Yes.


SUFFIELD COMMUNITY PASTURE, ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	How much money has P.F.R.A. spent in the development of Suffield community pasture during the years 1961, 1962 and 1963?
2.	How many head of cattle were pastured in this pasture in 1961, 1962 and 1963?
3.	What charge was levied on livestock for 1961, 1962 and 1963?
4.	Was the provincial municipal levy of 1 cent per head per day, which is normally paid to the municipality in which the pasture is located, collected in Suffield pasture and, if so, what municipality received the benefit of this levy?
5.	Is it in the interests of the government to continue use of Suffield pasture in 1965?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The capital expenditures to develop the Suffield community pasture are: 1961-[DOT] $90,806.15;	1962-$37,913.95;	1963-$105.94;
Total-$128,826.04.
2.	1961-8,139; 1962-5,788; 1963-5,604.
3.	The grazing fee in 1961 and 1962 was 3J cents per day per head. In 1963 it was 6 cents per day per head, 1 cent of which was for municipal purposes.
4.	Yes. The local improvement district No. 24.
5.	In a press release dated February 4, 1964, it was pointed out that the land for the Suffield pasture was made available by the Department of National Defence to assist farmers in carrying cattle during the severe drought conditions of 1961. It was also indicated this arrangement could not be regarded as a permanent continuing one and that other facilities will need to be provided for 1965 to accommodate the cattle which were to be carried at the station this year.


OVERHAUL OF U.S. MILITARY PLANES IN CANADA
Mr. Harkness: 1.	Are some U.S.A.F. fighter planes being repaired or overhauled in Vancouver under the joint U.S.-Canada defence sharing agreement?
2.	If this repair work is being done in Vancouver and is not under the defence sharing agreement, on what basis is the work being carried on?
3.	How many aircraft are involved?
4.	Is similar work going on anywhere else in Canada?
5.	What security arrangements, if any, are in effect to prevent these planes being sabotaged?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1 and 2. No U.S.A.F. fighter planes are being repaired or overhauled in Vancouver but 15 U.S.A.F. F84 aircraft are being transshipped from a U.S. overseas base via the port of Vancouver and thence by rail to the plant of Northwest Industries Limited at Edmonton, Alberta, where they are being overhauled and repaired under a Canadian Commercial Corporation contract placed under the joint U.S./ Canada defence sharing agreement.
3.	A total of 112 F84 aircraft. Fifteen aircraft are or have been transshipped by rail via Vancouver with the balance scheduled for fly-in from various bases in continental U.S.A.
4.	While there are numerous contracts placed with Canadian firms under the U.S./ Canada defence sharing agreement and covering a variety of requirements, this is the only contract placed to date with a Canadian facility covering repair and overhaul of complete aircraft.
20220-387i
Questions
5.	U.S.A.F. is responsible for security until delivery at dockside. At that time the normal security arrangements were under the control of the Canadian corps of commissionaires under a 24 hour guard basis. While in transit these aircraft were afforded normal railway police surveillance. Of the 15 aircraft scheduled for shipment to Edmonton, 12 have now been received by the company with the remaining three presently en route.


DROUGHT ASSISTANCE, ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Acadia): Has the Minister of Agriculture received applications for drought assistance from the province of Alberta because of the conditions prevailing in S.E. and E.C. Alberta, and will the drought assistance offered the province of Saskatchewan be made available to the province of Alberta?


Harry William Hays: As of July 24, 1964, the province of Alberta had not submitted an application for drought area assistance. The government will consider any application for assistance received from the province of Alberta on its merits and if conditions so warrant will be prepared to provide assistance on a basis comparable to that made available for Saskatchewan.


*C.B.C. &quot;CONFLICT OF INTEREST&quot; POLICY
Mr. Fisher: Has the C.B.C. personnel department developed a new policy entitled "Conflict of Interest" and, if so, what is the gist of this policy and the reasons for introducing it?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
In June 1964 a new statement of policy was developed in connection with the responsibility for making commitments with outside parties on behalf of the C.B.C. It has the dual intent of protecting both the employee and the C.B.C.
This policy explains clearly what is known in law as fiduciaries. Employees must not place themselves in a position where there is a conflict between their duties to the corporation and their personal interests. The conflict of interest policy deals with: (a) contracts which may involve conflict of interests;
(b)	hidden profits or benefits reaped because of one's special position in the corporation;
(c)	abuse of confidence, where secret and confidential information is used for one's own purposes; (d) competition, where an employee

Questions
is precluded from competition with his employer; (e) bribery, which, of course, is covered by the Criminal Code.


LABELLING OF FRUIT JUICE CANS
Mr. Mather: Is a review being made of the labelling and sizes of fruit juice cans in line with the wishes
of the Consumers' Association of Canada?


Harry William Hays: Yes. The question of labelling and can sizes of fruit juices is being studied by the Department of Agriculture.


STABILIZED PRICES FOR SOYA BEANS
Mr. Danforlh: 1.	What was the date of the official announcement by the federal Department of Agriculture or the Minister of Agriculture, regarding the stabilized price for soya beans for the years 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?
2.	What was the amount per bushel of the stabilized price for soya beans for the years 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Harry William Hays: 1. The official announcement regarding the stabilization price for soya beans in the last four years was made on July 6, 1961; July 23, 1962; June 5, 1963 and July 20, 1964.
2. The stabilization price per bushel for soya beans was $2.13 for 1961, $2.14 for 1962 and $2.15 for both 1963 and 1964. In each case the support year commences on July 1.


LOCATION OF DOCK, TUKTUK, N.W.T.
Mr. Nugent: Is the dock at Tuktuk built at the town site, and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: No. A number of essential factors were not available at the town site and the reasons for selecting the existing site were: sufficient depth of water; sufficient area for manoeuvrability for coastal vessels, tugs and barges; protection against elements; suitable site for development of transshipping depot including tank farm, haulout, piling ground and other necessary works; and adequate supply of drinking water available.


EDMONTON, ALTA.  TENDERS FOR POSTAL TERMINAL EXTENSION
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the respective amounts of their tenders for the postal terminal extension in Edmonton, Alberta?
2.	Has a decision been reached as to which was the successful tender and, if so, which tenderer?
3.	Has a formal contract been executed between the said tenderer and the government of Canada and, if so, in what amount?

4.	What is the projected completion date?
5.	What is to be the name of the building?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Burns & Dutton Construction (1962) Ltd., Edmonton, $4,424,626; McNamara Construction Co. Ltd., Edmonton, $4,439,000; Bird Construction Co. Ltd., Edmonton, $4,471,125; Poole Construction Co. Ltd., Edmonton, $4,544,800; The Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd., Calgary, $4,779,431; Smith Bros. & Wilson Ltd., Vancouver, $4,890,000.
2.	Yes, Burns & Dutton Construction (1962) Ltd., Edmonton.
3.	Burns & Dutton Construction (1962) Ltd. authorized to proceed on July 15, 1964, in the amount of $4,424,626. Formal contract form will be executed shortly.
4.	January 15, 1967.
5.	Sir Alexander MacKenzie building.


SUBSIDY ON WOODEN FISHING TRAWLERS
Mr. Crouse: Will the Minister of Transport give consideration to the payment of the same percentage of subsidy on wooden fishing trawlers 75 feet in length and over, as is presently paid on steel fishing trawlers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The whole problem of shipbuilding subsidies is presently under review.


DEFACEMENT OF WOLFE STATUE, QUEBEC
Mr. MacRae: Concerning the defacement of the statue of General Wolfe at Quebec (a) who is responsible for the apprehension of the vandals responsible for this outrage (b) what action was taken by the law enforcement officers (c) what were the results of such action (d) is an investigation still in progress to apprehend the said vandals and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The national battlefields commission, which is the agency responsible for the area where the Wolfe monument is located, reports as follows: (a) the Quebec municipal police, the Quebec provincial police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (b) the law enforcement officers are still carrying out their investigation of this incident; (c) until this investigation is concluded no details can be given;
(d)	yes.


ROAD BUILDING CONTRACT, JASPER NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Horner (Jasper: Edson):
Has New-West Construction of Edmonton recently been awarded a contract to build roads in Jasper national park and, if so (a) was it tendered (b)

who were the other tenderers (c) what was the amount of each tender (d) what is the work concerned?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes, (a) yes; (b) and (c):
Name of Firm	Amount of Tender
New West Construction Co. Ltd., Edmonton J. A. Moulson Construction Ltd., Calgary
P. F. Law Construction Ltd., Christina Lake, B.C. Standard-General Construction (International) Ltd., Calgary
W. C. Arnett and Co. Ltd., Kelowna, B.C.
T. A. Klemke and Son Construction Ltd., Medicine Hat
Poole Engineering (1958) Ltd., Edmonton Square M Construction Ltd. and Coleman Colleries Ltd., Edmonton Peter Kiewit Sons Company of Canada Ltd., Edmonton Dawson Construction Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. McNamara Construction Western Ltd., Edmonton United Contractors Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.

(d) Grading, base course, mile 11.1 to 19.9, and paving mile 0-19.9, Jasper-Edmonton highway, Jasper national park, Alberta.


PAINTING TENDERS, PAVILLON MERCIER, MONTREAL
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Were tenders called for the repainting of the exterior of the Pavilion Mercier, Boyce street, in Montreal during 1964 and, if so, what were the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
2.	Was the contract awarded and, if so, to whom?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: 1. Yes. The following tenders were received:
W. Collins Reg'd.	$2,573
J. R. Langovisth	2,650
Vallieres & Cusson Enrg.	3,275
Duke Industries	4,261
Mauger & Perreault	4,927
2. The contract was awarded to the low tenderer, W. Collins Reg'd., 5196 St. Andre street, Montreal.
Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motions 146, 147, 149 and 150 are acceptable. Motion 133 is acceptable subject to the usual reservations concerning consultation with the provincial government. Motion 135 is acceptable, except for cases still before the courts. I ask that motions 134, 151, 152 and 153 be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Will Your Honour please call motion 148.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the pleasure to the house that the other motions be agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


DETENTION OF SEAMEN FOR ILLEGAL ENTRY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 133-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Justice and the corresponding ministers of the Ontario government since January I, 1964, in connection with the detention, by the immigration department for illegal entry into Canada, and subsequent trial and conviction of seamen, as well as any correspondence from the families, friends, ministers and legal counsel for these illegal entrants, to the ministers concerned and the replies.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 135-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a list of the names of any illegal entrants to Canada since July 1, 1963. who were charged in court by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for violating the provisions of the Immigration Act, the sentence imposed on these people by the courts, where they served or are serving their sentences.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 146-Mr. Nugent:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the application made by Northern Transportation Company in 1956 to change the basis of licensing of their vessels to include the whole area of Mackenzie and Athabasca sectors, and for a copy of the reasons given by the board in granting such application.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 147-Mr. Nugent:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any agreement between Northern Transportation Company and the person or persons from whom the L.S.M. Sally was purchased.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 148-Mr. Nugent:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any agreement between Northern Transportation Company and the owner or owners of the dock where the L.S.M. Sally is now being stored covering such storage or dockage.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. gentleman that no formal agreement has been entered into regarding the storage of the L.S.M. Sally. McLaren and Sons, consulting engineers and naval architects, who are retained by Northern Transportation to design the company's floating equipment, agreed to keep the Sally moored where it would be subject to their watchmen's service. As no charges were involved, no agreement was drawn. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in the light of this information the hon. gentleman would be prepared to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Speaker, accepting the minister's word on that, I will withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


TENDER FOR VESSEL FOR ARCTIC OPERATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 149-Mr. Nugent:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of invitation for tender or tenders for a vessel designed to operate in Arctic water as more particularly set out in the answer to question 1,446 appearing in Hansard of July 15, on page 5499.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 150-Mr. Nugent:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any general instructions to all government departments wtih reference to shipping of government supplies in the N.W.T. and in the western and central Arctic regions.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman could give the house some details of the promised increased Canadian aid to Malaysia following his talks with the prime minister of Malaysia these last few days.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question. I was wondering if the Prime Minister can tell the house whether the government is planning to continue aid to Indonesia in view of these arrangements with Malaysia.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the only economic aid to Indonesia at present is in the form of flour or wheat to the extent of some $400,000, I am informed. This matter was mentioned to the prime minister of Malaysia,

and he understood the position. There is no intention to interfere with that shipment, but we will not be sending to Indonesia any defence equipment or strategic material of any kind.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: As far as the first question is concerned, the prime minister of Malaysia did hold a press conference yesterday, and this article is no doubt based on that public press conference. As far as the second question is concerned, I have already indicated that as part of our aid to Malaysia we expect to be able to equip 54 vocational schools with educational equipment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister any information as to the accuracy of the report that the Malaysia government has agreed to allow the United States to establish military bases in Malaysia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no comment on that, or knowledge of it.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister not think that Canada's assistance should be mostly economic and technical in character so that the people of Malaysia will be attracted by freedom and democracy rather than by communism?
What are the intentions of the government? Has it decided to give economic assistance to Malaysia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been offering economic aid to Malaysia, and the total over recent years amounts I think to between $12 million and $14 million.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


PULP AND PAPER-STEPS TO INCREASE EXPORTS TO EUROPE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the continuing shortage of timber in Europe, as expressed in the report of the U.N. economic commission and the food and agriculture organization, has the government taken any steps to increase pulp and paper exports to Europe?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Trade and Commerce spends its time promoting exports of pulp and paper and other products.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On what date will section 4 of Bill No. S-17, which establishes the 12 mile fishing zone for Canada, be proclaimed?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the act will be proclaimed before the end of this week.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by the minister when he gave evidence before the committee that this section of the bill would be proclaimed immediately it had been passed by both houses, and as it has been passed by both houses as of July 16, would the minister give us his definition of the word "immediately"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is quite correct. That was stated in the committee, but my hon. friend will remember that I later stated we would proclaim the whole act, and that will be done before the end of the week.

Mr. Speaker, may I complete my answer to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. The deputy registrar general has just informed me the act has been proclaimed.

Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to inform the house what the attitude of the government is to the suggestion of General de Gaulle relating to the calling of a meeting of all interested parties on the situation in South Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend gave me notice of this question several days ago. I can only say in reply what I have already said earlier, that the government is of the view that the Geneva accord of 1954 and the amendment thereto of 1962, if observed, would make it unnecessary for a further conference to be held. However, notwithstanding this, if one is held Canada will consider it its duty to participate.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister tell the house whether the United Nations received a statement from the prime minister of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, on his policy regarding the United Nations peace keeping force?
For instance, was it said that the United Nations force would have the required liberty and power to prevent an open war between Greeks and Turks on Cyprus territory?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I said in the house yesterday that I did not know whether the secretary general of the United Nations had officially received that letter from the prime minister of the Cyprus government. In any event, I answered the other questions yesterday.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question.
In the event that the Cyprus government would not co-operate, what would be the position of the Canadian government? Will our troops be left exposed to danger or will they be brought back?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt whatsoever that our soldiers
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]
are ready to do their duty. The decision will be taken by the United Nations and I think the hon. member should take a good look at what I said yesterday, afterwards we could discuss the matter together.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Has a copy of the letter from Archbishop Makarios to the secretary general been transmitted to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The secretary general is in Moscow today, and it is thought that the letter was sent to him there. In any event, the secretariat is dealing with the matter on the supposition that the letter has been sent, and negotiations are now under way between the commander of the force and the authorities in Cyprus.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What I wanted to know was whether the minister had received a copy of that letter or if he will, in the course of the process usually followed, receive a copy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; I will be glad to table a copy of the letter. While it was not sent to us, the letter we spoke about yesterday was supposed to have been addressed to the secretary general; and although we are not aware whether it has been received, nevertheless I made my comments on the supposition that the letter had been sent.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to provide extra working space in the Senate quarters for the distinguished and hard working members of the press gallery?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that the hon. gentleman should know is under the jurisdiction of the Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works but in his

absence I direct it to his parliamentary secretary and ask if he would give immediate consideration to the installation of air conditioning in the parliamentary restaurant and in the offices of the press gallery. I do know there are long term plans to be completed by 1967, but would he consider putting in portable units?


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


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: But by that time the heat will be over.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. Can he give any indication of the additional staff and expense which he and his fellow cabinet ministers have had to take on in order to handle the flood of wires and letters in support of the red ensign which the Leader of the Opposition called for a week ago today on national television?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Speaking for my own office, Mr. Speaker, one of the existing employees has been able to deal with the matter in a few minutes each day.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house and the country if there will be any changes in the announced itinerary of the Queen's visit to Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to give details of the itinerary within a day or two. Perhaps my hon. friend would wait for a day or two, when I will have all the details.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the house
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the government has reached a decision on the amount of subsidy it intends to pay the railway companies to permit them to meet the wage increases for their non-ops employees?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member would reread the letter the Prime Minister addressed to the presidents of the railways, he would see there was no promise of any subsidy. There was simply an undertaking at the end of six months to look at the situation to see what might be appropriate at that time.


Léon Balcer: Is the minister not aware that
both railway presidents have contended many times that they could not meet these wage increases under present circumstances, and that they expect definitely to have a subsidy from the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the contentions of the presidents of the railways are made very clear in the letter they addressed to the Prime Minister.



APPRAISERS ACTING FOR GOVERNMENT IN FERRY PURCHASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I might answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria about Marine Industries Limited. I admit that the answer to the question does look very odd, and I am not at all surprised that he raised the matter. The fact is that Marine Industries made an appraisal of this ferry, the New Grand Haven, on their own, and came and told us it could be purchased for this figure. We then sent officials of our department to see it and having reached the conclusion that it was a bargain, without waiting for the paper work-because we did not want this to slip through our fingers-we urged them to buy the ship for $1,200,000 and said we would buy it at the same price, with no commission.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Is the minister saying no independent body appraised this vessel, or did any officials from his department appraise it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member did not hear me. I said the appropriate officials of the department went down to check the appraisal in Florida before the purchase was made.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: To check the figures given by Marine Industries, or did they conduct an actual appraisal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you like to put it that way, to conduct an actual appraisal; and in our opinion it was a very great bargain indeed.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell us whether he expects the Bankruptcy Act to be revised soon, in view of the growing number of bankruptcies in Canada?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question some ten days ago and, today, I can only repeat that the Bankruptcy Act is now being fully examined by my department and that, for my part, I have started discussing the matter with my officials. Any information relating to changes in the act will be announced in due course as part of government policy.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Does he know that since he gave a reply ten days ago, bankruptcies have kept increasing throughout Canada? Is the minister aware of this fact?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have not obtained any precise figures in the last ten days, but it is normal, I presume, that bankruptcies should have continued since then.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell us how he can find it normal that bankruptcies are on the increase in Canada, when it is not normal at all?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I did not say it was normal that business failures should be increasing in Canada-


Gilles Grégoire: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: -what I said was that it is normal, I presume-


Gilles Grégoire: He presumes.


Guy Favreau: -it is normal that business failures should have continued in the last ten days, since statistics show that some occur every day.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question.
Does he not feel that the 11 per cent tax on building materials contributes to the increase in business failures? What does he intend to do to abolish that tax? Does he intend to threaten to resign?



SUGGESTED REFORM OF MONETARY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
Does the government intend to create a federal department of economy at the next session in order to apply the policy of prosperity implemented in Germany by Chancellor Erhard since 1948, through a monetary reform without state planning or intervention?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This question, in my humble judgment, is certainly of the type that would require a great deal of research, and therefore should be on the order paper.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in connection with the redistribution of federal seats. Have any representations been made to the government by national agricultural organizations of Canada, such as farmers' unions, federations of agriculture and the like, to have the present 20 per cent tolerance in the bill changed to 35 per cent in order to give a more equitable representation to voters in rural areas?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to consult my colleagues, Mr. Speaker; then I will be glad to answer the hon. member.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Manitoba-request for provincial

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises out of newspaper reports from Winnipeg with regard to the conference he had with the provincial minister of agriculture, Hon. George Hutton, stating that Mr. Hutton requested that the federal department rearrange the farm loan program of the Farm Credit Corporation so as to put it under provincial jurisdiction. What was the minister's reply to Mr. Hutton, or what is the government's attitude to this suggestion?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with no such discussions.



TURKEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which is a follow-up of the question asked on Monday by the hon. member for Provencher. I have a copy of the telegram sent to the minister by Mr. H. Perrault, president of the Saskatchewan turkey association, urging immediate action in regard to the heavy importation of turkeys from the United States, mostly live birds. Has the minister received this telegram from Mr. Perrault, and what action is contemplated?


Harry William Hays: I have received quite a few telegrams from turkey organizations. Perhaps at this time I should make a short explanation of the position of the government.
On July 17, 1957 import restrictions were placed on the movement of turkeys into Canada. This action was taken for a number of reasons, but essentially because a flood of United States turkeys was threatening the existence of the Canadian turkey industry. It was at that time that the eviscerated, oven ready turkey was just coming on the market. The United States producers were a little ahead of our producers in this technical advance, and they began sending this new poultry product into Canada in such numbers and at such low prices as to seriously threaten the Canadian industry.
20220-388i
Inquiries of the Ministry
The government of the day hoped, by putting on import controls, to give the Canadian industry a chance to meet this challenge of a changing technology. The industry in this country was able to make the changeover, and with a changed marketing and production picture the continuation of import restrictions became inconsistent with Canada's obligations under GATT.
Accordingly in August of 1963 these import restrictions were removed. It should be noted that for some time prior to that the import quota of four million pounds per year had not been filled. The current movement of United States turkeys into Canada results from the relatively strong prices prevailing in this country as compared to prices in United States. This situation is similar to that prevailing in our beef market this year. This movement of United States turkeys into Canada has caused some decline in Canadian prices.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harry William Hays: They are still about equal to the average annual value for the past ten years, and somewhat stronger than they were at this time last year. Furthermore, there is at present a tariff on eviscerated turkeys of a minimum of 5 cents per pound. This tariff rate was established in 1956 and at the time represented an upward movement from a straight ad valorem rate of 12J cents.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to protest this procedure. We only have half an hour for questions on Wednesday, and it should not be taken up by a long winded reply of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with the hon. member, but it did not seem wise to interrupt the answer when it was already half way finished.


Harry William Hays: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The tariff rate on live turkeys is 2 cents a pound. When you add to this tariff protection the dollar exchange differential, the cost of transportation, shrinkage during shipment and so on, Canadian producers are protected to the extent of somewhere between 8 and 9 cents a pound.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harry William Hays: The establishment and maintenance of import restrictions on agricultural products is not considered to be consistent with Canada's best interests in the over-all field of international trade.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the minister would give a written answer to the hon. member who asked the question.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: As a supplementary question, the minister said that the four million pound embargo is off-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: He said it. Won't you read it? Turkeys are coming in on the hoof-you know what I mean, on the hoof-and turkeys being brought into this country under one section of our tariff as breeding birds are being slaughtered in Canada and labelled Canada No. 1. I would like to have the figures covering these turkeys. Don't tell me this is a local question; it goes on from Cape Breton to Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is surely a question for the order paper, as was the original. The hon. member for Regina City.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, the question I wanted to ask has been asked. Does the minister deny that as a result of these importations there has been a drastic drop in the price of tom turkeys.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that there had been some decline in prices. Right along this spring Canadian turkeys have been approximately 12 cents to 15 cents a pound higher than United States turkeys, but the hon. member is quite right. We have a protection of 8 to 9 cents a pound for Canadian turkeys. We are watching this situation closely but we do not feel at the moment there is anything we can do about it, and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to talk about turkeys all afternoon.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made to the house today by the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the dumping of United States turkeys on the Canadian market, what action does the government intend to take to bring this to the attention of the United States government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Agriculture has said, except to say there is no dumping in this matter.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO APPLE GROWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister tell us whether his Quebec counterpart has accepted the offers made three weeks ago concerning federal assistance to apple growers who sustained heavy losses following hail storms and frost?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Tobacco growers too.

Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture:) Mr. Speaker, we have had no official representations from Quebec as yet in connection with this problem.



ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the Department of Agriculture prepared to take any action to remedy the critical situation caused in eastern Ontario generally, and in Renfrew county in particular, by reason of the advent of the army worm?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, pressing as the advance is, this is a question for the order paper.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is a question that is affecting agriculture generally and-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest the hon. member could raise it at 10.30.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister inform the house whether he has had representations from the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) with a view to establishing at Cutler, in Algoma East riding, the smelters that should be built in Timmins; and if so what was the nature of his reply to such representations?


Mr. Speaker:: I do think this seems to be a question for the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he is prepared to reply to the question I raised on July 21 as to the amount of the contribution being made by the C.B.C. in respect to the Couchiching conference?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry but I have not got the information from the C.B.C. yet.
(Later:]


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In his reply to my hon. friend from Fraser Valley he told the house he was sorry he had not obtained information as to how much the C.B.C. was paying to the so-called Canadian institute of public affairs. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he has requested this information from the C.B.C. and, if so, when he expects to make it available to the house.


Maurice Lamontagne: I have requested the information but I do not know exactly when I will get it. I will make inquiries.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Will
the minister inquire from the C.B.C. whether Mr. Chris Young has been employed by the C.B.C. to write, control and supervise television broadcasts by the C.B.C. from the Couchiching conference this week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a question for the order paper.



CANADIAN MARITIME COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the termination of the five year appointment of the chairman of the Canadian maritime commission this week, is the matter of a new appointment under consideration and when will an announcement be made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to say that Mr. Watson has consented
Inquiries of the Ministry to stay on until his 71st birthday early next year, and I think everybody who has dealings with him will be pleased at this devotion to public service.


Thomas Miller Bell: Supplementary to my question about the maritime commission, may I say we are pleased that Mr. Watson will be continuing in office. Is consideration being given to the long awaited changes in the Canadian Maritime Commission Act itself, and its future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The whole difficult and tangled policy of shipbuilding and shipping is under very active consideration at the present time.



HAMILTON FALLS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I
want to ask the Prime Minister a question in connection with the Hamilton falls power project. In view of published reports, does the Prime Minister have any knowledge with respect to allegations that members of the federal cabinet are attempting to pressure the Quebec government to enter into an agreement with the privately owned Brinco Corporation, rather than have this natural resource developed by a public corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there is no foundation for that report.


Reid Scott: As a supplementary question, in view of the Prime Minister's answer that to his knowledge there is no foundation for the report, I wonder whether he would make inquiries, as this is an important matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Minister of Agriculture took at least ten minutes to answer a question, and I feel that this time should be deducted from the member's question period.


Some hon. Members:: Ten thirty.
6128	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Interim Supply
[Text]	usually on the orders of the day, not during


Mr. Speaker:: When the house is ready to the course of committee proceedings. The change its standing orders and give me new matter could be brought up, say, at ten instructions I shall be glad to consider the o'clock. Perhaps the minister would wait hon. member's request.	until 10.30, and he could do it then.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I think that the Minister of Agriculture should be replaced.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 28, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamou-reux 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.
['Extensive forestry resources are to be found in the provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, in both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia these resources are easily accessible, and therefore have much greater potential from the development point of view.\nAt the same time, one of the important aspects associated with forestry is the conservation measures that must be adopted if we are to be able to have the assurance that depletion and wholesale exploitation will not be the end result, with a most necessary and desirable industry disappearing from our area. Better forestry management practices must come and these can only be brought about through educating the population in the provinces in good forestry practices, and through legislation which places restrictions on the manner in which the products from the forests are utilized.\nI was interested to note the comments in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald yesterday, July 28, by Nova Scotia\'s minister of lands and forests, Hon. E. D. Haliburton, who is reported as saying: "The Nova Scotia government is concerned about the quality of forest management on the province\'s crown lands." He had a good deal more to say, but I have no time to place it all on record. However, I have no doubt it would be of interest to members of this committee and I would refer them to the article in question.\nWe have the good fortune on Cape Breton island to have seen established in recent years the Nova Scotia Pulp Company which has been utilizing the products of our forests in Nova Scotia, especially from the island of Cape Breton. At the same time we have seen an increasing emphasis on the exporting of lumber to markets overseas. This has resulted in added employment for the people of my area. We have also seen the development of a forestry program by the government of Nova Scotia, in co-operation with the Department of Forestry in Ottawa, initiated during the period when the Conservative party held office, to have the double-barrelled effect of utilizing our forests to the greatest possible', 'degree and providing employment to displaced miners thrown out of work by the actions of the Dominion Coal Company. This program has proven to be highly successful, to the degree that this government has adopted the program established by the former Conservative administration. However, substantial delays in reaching agreement with the province of Nova Scotia have been evident since this government assumed office. I would like to hear an explanation from the Minister of Forestry as to why these delays have occurred, in view of statements by Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia that his government is ready and willing to proceed at any time on the basis of the agreement originally reached by the former administration and his government. Certainly hardships were created because of the dilatory attitude of this government in arriving at an agreement with the government of Nova Scotia.\nThe people of my area and the people of Cape Breton generally are now facing further serious problems as the result of the intended action of a coal operator to curtail coal mining operations on Cape Breton island. The end result can only be more unemployment, hardship and poverty unless immediate action is taken by this government to initiate programs which will provide employment for those thrown out of work. Certainly one of the programs that would assist in this regard would be increased emphasis on the forestry program already in effect. In this regard, I might say that officials of the united mine workers of America will be meeting with Premier Stanfield tomorrow, and among the matters to be discussed is the forest stand improvement program for displaced or unemployed miners. Associated with this forest stand improvement, in my opinion steps should be taken by the present minister to establish a forestry research station on Cape\n29, 1964\t6155\nBusiness of the House\nBreton island. This research station would be designed to increase forest research work throughout the Atlantic provinces. Not only would this station involve itself with the conservation of all of our forest resources but it would also endeavour to increase production and develop new products. It would also endeavour to carry out an educational program in our public schools which would make our young people more aware of the potential of this primary product and provide them with a better appreciation for the utilization of it. It should also endeavour to exert influence on the private owners, both large and small, of our forest lands so that they might better appreciate the importance of conservation and the revitalization of our forest lands.\nIn conclusion, may I extend to the Minister of Forestry a very cordial invitation to visit Cape Breton island as soon as he can, and see for himself what has been accomplished through the forest stand program. As a result of what he sees he will possibly be more encouraged to establish the forest research station which I have suggested. I thank the rest of the committee for the kindness they have shown in listening to me and, of course, I thank the hon. member for Kootenay East.\nProgress reported.']
Guy Favreau: I wonder if the committee would allow me to make a correction in Hansard?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The time has expired. Tomorrow.


The Chairman:: Order. I understand the minister is referring to proceedings in committee, so I submit this would be the proper time at which to make a correction.


Mr. Churchill:: If this becomes a rule, and it may happen throughout our session, it is a questionable one and I have not heard of it before. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you are clear on this procedure. Corrections in Hansard are made at the ODening of the day,


Lucien Lamoureux: If the minister is proposing to correct a statement which was made in committee of supply he certainly has a right to do so at this time. That is my understanding of what the minister wishes to do. Perhaps we should first hear from him an explanation of what he proposes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister tell us, then, whether this is to be a correction in Hansard'! This will settle the point.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps we could obtain that explanation or clarification from the minister.


Guy Favreau: My answer is that I would like to make a clarification with respect to something I am alleged to have said, appearing in Hansard of yesterday at page 6272 during the discussion in committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: This appears to be in order in view of standing order 37(1). If there is substantial objection to this being done I suppose it could be postponed, but I suggest that if this is a correction it will probably take only a few moments and that the minister might well be allowed to make an explanation at this time.


Mr. Starr:: On a point of order, I think the minister said he wished to make a clarification of what he said, not a correction. In my opinion there is a difference between one and the other.


Guy Favreau: I always understood that when there is a reference in Hansard which is not accurate a member is normally entitled to rise at the earliest possible date available to him to clarify the report, especially-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Mcllraith:: You have the right to make a speech if you wish.


Guy Favreau: No, I cannot make a speech at this time, because-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton was on his feet ready to speak. He was interrupted by the Minister of Justice who asked leave to make a correction in Hansard. Surely that is wrong. If the Minister of Justice wishes to participate in the debate later in the day he

Interim Supply
may do so; we are considering supply, and But I never expressed a personal opinion members may speak as often as they wish. on the bail as such.


Lucien Lamoureux: I think the hon. gentleman is incorrect. Although the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton was on his feet, perhaps along with other members, he had not been recognized. The hon. member who had the floor when we adjourned last night has not requested the floor again today, so the Chair can recognize any hon. member who rises at this time. I think the Minister of Justice is entirely justified in making a correction to the record if he wishes to do so.


Guy Favreau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday, when I dealt with the consequences of the steps taken by this government with respect to Mr. Banks, I have been quoted as saying, as recorded in the fourth paragraph, right hand column, at page 6083 of Hansard for July 28, 1964:
-decisions were taken.
Now, as I was then referring to courts, it is obvious that I said:
-decisions were rendered.
Mr. Chairman, there is a most important point on which I want to call the attention of the house. As recorded in the sixth paragraph, right hand column, at page 6084 of Hansard, I am quoted as having said the following words:
In my opinion-I was talking about the $25,000 bail-this is sufficient guarantee-
Mr. Chairman, quoting the hon. chief justice who rendered the decision and fixed the bail, I said:
It was, in the opinion of the magistrate, a sufficient guarantee to make sure that Mr. Banks would be present at the time of the hearing of his appeal.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the remarks I just made should be taken into account in order to make the necessary corrections at pages 6083 and 6084 of the English version of Hansard for July 28, 1964, in respect to the adequate amount of the bail, because I have too much respect for the courts to discuss the terms of the judgment.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I had just said that the chief justice of the Quebec appeal court, Hon. Lucien Tremblay, was in my opinion one of the most experienced jurists. I respect his decision and it is not up to me to discuss its consequences.
All I said was that, in his opinion, the setting of the bail at $25,000 was enough.


Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carleion):: In ordinary circumstances I would be delighted to make some observations in connection with many of the departments which I presume will be under survey as we consider interim supply at this time. However, it is not my intention to do this. I intend to confine my remarks to the Department of Forestry. I regret the absence of the minister-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is he?


Hugh John Flemming: -but
that is something over which I have no control. I am glad to take the word of the acting minister that he intends to pinch hit for his colleague, and this gives me a great deal of pleasure.
I preface these remarks with a bit of personal observation in connection with the Department of Forestry, because it was my great privilege to be the first minister of that department. During those years I acquired a great respect for the personnel of the department; I acquired a great respect for all the dedicated public servants who serve our country through the medium of the Department of Forestry. It was a matter of great satisfaction to me that before I retired as the minister of that department I was able to secure the services of the present deputy minister of forestry, Dr. Rousseau. He came to Ottawa to serve his fellow citizens in another capacity after having served for quite a long time as a very prominent member of the faculty of Laval University. It was a great pleasure to me that he decided to make this change. I am sure there will be no difference of opinion in this house in regard to the fact that the public service in general is very fortunate to have the services of Dr. Rousseau in this capacity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: I realize that when people examine departments and members are looking at departments they are inclined to measure the efficiency and importance of a department by the amount of money the department spends. In my opinion that is altogether a wrong measuring stick to use. In my opinion a department should be judged by the service it renders to the general economy of the country, and in my view the Department of Forestry is rendering fine service in this connection.

Interim Supply
Canada is a forest nation. I would like to remind the house of the importance of the forest industry and place some figures on the record in connection with it, because I do not think we are reminded often enough of the contribution which is made by the forest industry in general to the economic health of this nation. I find that the total forest area is about 50 per cent of the total area of all Canada; it is something like
1.700.000	square miles. I find that the productive area included in those 1,700,000 square miles is about 1 million square miles. I acknowledge immediately that 80 per cent of that area is administered by the provinces; but I believe the federal Department of Forestry is working very closely in co-operation with the provinces in connection with their administrative problems, with the general result of an improvement in conditions so far as the health of the industry is concerned.
We have 170 species of trees native to Canada. Thirty one of these are softwood, mostly evergreens. May I remind the committee that we have an annual crop-this is not a diminishing asset-of 3,200,000 cubic feet of timber year after year that may be continued if it is properly looked after. So far as employment is concerned, the forest industry takes care of about 300,000 people; it provides steady employment for this number. It pays out per year $1.2 billion in salaries and wages. As a part of this, the woods operations take care of something like
80.000	people, and that particular phase of the forest industry pays out $350 million in cash. So I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I have no hesitation in putting these figures on the record because I think we need to be reminded of the importance of this great industry.
We have small and medium size saw mills all over the country, and we have a few large one. It may be a surprise to hon. members within the sound of my voice today to learn that there is a total of something like 8,000 saw mills; that the saw mills employ something like 50,000 people; that the total payroll of the saw mills alone is about $150 million; that the value of the saw mill products is something like $750 million, or three quarters of a billion dollars. These figures refer to saw mills alone.
Then we come to the pulp and paper industry, which one might say is sort of the aristocrat of the forest industry. I do not concede that myself, because I was practically brought up in a saw mill; nevertheless it is generally recognized that the pulp and 
paper industry, because it processes to the ultimate the products of our forests, does earn a tremendous amount of dollars for this country. May I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the pulp and paper industry is Canada's leading manufacturing industry. We have some 130 pulp and paper mills, and the sale value of the products is about $11 billion per year, or $1,500 million. The pulp and paper mills of Canada employ 65,000 people; their wages and salaries amount to $350 million.
That is not all, Mr. Chairman; I am just getting nicely started. We have the ancillary industries, that is the industries using wood as their principal raw material, manufacturing finished and semi-finished products with an annual sale value of $800 million. These ancillary industries employ 70,000 people in full time jobs. The industries to which I refer are furniture factories, planing mills, veneer and plywood plants, and so on.
Again I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am not finished. We also have the paper using industries. The sale value of the products of these paper using industries is $500 million. The items manufactured include paper boxes, paper bags, building paper, coated papers, stationery supplies and sanitary papers. As I have said, there is a sale value of products of half a billion dollars under this heading, and these industries employ 29,000 people.
I have not told the whole story even with all the figures I have just put on the record. I say to the committee that the products of the forest which are manufactured in Canada are of great importance, but may I also say that the contribution made by that industry by way of the exportation of its products is certainly on a comparable level. Today the value of the exports of the forest products industry is $11 billion, $1,500 million, or about 30 per cent of Canada's total exports. We import less than $300 million, and the purchase of the things which we have to bring into this country is made possible by the exportation of forest products.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I go to the question of the exportation of lumber before I finish this particular phase of my remarks. We export a matter of 4,200 million feet of lumber a year, to a value of something like $300 million. This lumber is shipped to about 50 different countries.
The point I am trying to make is simply this; that we as Canadians need to be reminded of the importance of our forest industry, the part it plays in the general economy

of Canada and the part it plays in bringing about our ability to import things which we have to buy. In other words the industry makes a tremendous contribution to our balance of payments position at the present time, which is in a position it will probably always be in because we have to borrow money outside the country. Then of course, having borrowed it we have to pay interest on it, so obviously we have to export to live. Therefore from the point of view of employment the industry is tremendusly important. From the point of view of annual production and the furnishing of material for the ancillary industries it is equally important, and as I say its contribution to our balance of payments position in this country is great.
I acknowledge right away that in order that we shall maintain that industry and that it shall grow and flourish as it should, and in order that we as Canadians can contribute to its growth, we must have trained people. In this country there are four universities offering professional training in this regard, and I would list them in order of importance from my own point of view, although I realize there might be some disagreement about this. The four universities in Canada which offer professional training in forestry are, first of all, the University of New Brunswick, second the University of British Columbia, third Laval University and last the University of Toronto. In addition we have the maritime forest ranger school in Fredericton; the Ontario forest ranger school at Dorset, Ontario; the forest ranger school, department of lands and forests, at Edmonton, Alberta; the lakehead college of arts, science and technology, in Port Arthur, Ontario; station fores-tiere de Duchesnay, Duchesnay, Quebec; the conservation officer training school at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; and the forest ranger school at New Westminster, British Columbia. These are the schools and universities which represent the media of education which makes a contribution to the continuation of this most important industry.
As I have stressed the importance of this industry, I think at this stage we might ask ourselves this question. What do we intend to do to preserve this industry which is so vital to Canada? In this regard we have some deadly enemies of the industry, but perhaps the No. 1 enemy is the forest fire menace. The average forest fire loss in Canada for the period 1951-60-and I stress that this is the average, Mr. Chairman-was 293 million cubic feet. But in 1961 alone, which was a very bad year from the standpoint of
Interim Supply
forest fires, 2,650 million cubic feet of lumber was consumed. The total utilization of lumber in that same year-in other words, production-was 3,277 million feet. Therefore it will be seen that we allowed, if that is a fair statement, almost as much timber to burn in the year 1961 as we cut for all the pulp and paper mills and saw mills in the country.
I am not being critical of the department and the things they are doing. Neither am I critical of the provincial departments. I think they are reasonably efficient, probably as efficient as they can be in the circumstances. That did happen to be a bad year, I know. However, I think from year to year we are learning to combat this menace more efficiently than we have over the previous few years. In other words I am quite satisfied that we are improving-and I now speak in a national sense-in combating this deadly menace called forest fire.
In my remarks so far I have stressed the importance of our forests in an economic sense, but there are also other functions which the forest performs for the people of Canada. For example, it performs the function of a regulator of water resources. As you know, Mr. Chairman, as a result of snow lying on the ground in the winter, moisture is given off in the spring of the year. If this moisture, which is allowed to flow as nature demands, is protected or contained by forest cover and trees it will run off much more slowly than if the land were "hard cut", as we say in the lumber business.
I suggest to the acting minister that this is a matter of importance. I realize he has had a lot of experience and does not need any advice from me, but I know he will not mind receiving a little advice. I submit that he might convey to the department my own feeling that one of the most important functions which they have is the use of their influence to bring about a proper cutting program. When I say proper cutting, I mean a cutting which will lend itself to a retention of the water resources of the country over a period of months, rather than letting it run off quickly.
Next, our forest is the habitat of wild animals and birds as well as a place of recreation, sport, boating, fishing, etc. In my opinion there is need for the regulations to be framed with the assistance of the department, and' this also applies to the spraying of our forests.
I should like to say a word about consideration for animals and birds in our forests during the spring spraying program. The present mixture which is being used for budworm,

Interim Supply
spraying in New Brunswick would appear to be exceedingly harmful to birds. In this connection I respectfully suggest that there be careful examination of spraying material with a view to eliminating ingredients which are harmful to all life of this type. I examined the history of the damage which was done in New Brunswick by spraying fish, and the federal government of that day took legal action against the government of the province of New Brunswick to secure damages for the harm done to the fish in the province.
This is all ancient history now, and over with, but apparently those in authority decided they would try to make the ingredients a little less harmful to the fish, and an improvement was brought about. But may I say to my hon. friend the acting minister that apparently the improvement which was made so far as the fish were concerned has been brought about by adding a very dangerous, damaging and destructive ingredient to the spray mixture as far as birds are concerned.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hugh John Flemming: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That does not apply to fish, does it?


Hugh John Flemming: No, I am
talking about birds. I acknowledge and am grateful for the change that was made and I take some little credit for having a part in the change that was made with regard to the strength of the mixture inasmuch as it certainly relieved the situation so far as fish are concerned. But now I am asking him to look after the birds and I am sure that with that kindness of heart for which he is famous he will do all he can.
I come now to what is being done for the industry by the department. I have talked about the importance of the industry to Canada and now I should like to say something about what Canada is doing for the industry. First of all, I notice in the estimates that the department is contributing $600,000 to the laboratory at Pointe Claire. In my opinion this is the right type of research because it is a combination of research by private enterprise and assistance by the government. It is my opinion, for whatever people may think it is worth, that this combination of the two provide the right type of research. Research in this regard should either be exclusive to the government or else exclusive to private industry, with assistance by way of grants from the government. I congratulate the govern-

ment in this regard. The policy, of course, is one established by the former minister and government so perhaps we can also take some of the credit.
This year we are again continuing grants to the provinces amounting to almost $8 million. These grants are for various purposes, one of which is the making of an inventory and production of inventory figures. An overall provincial inventory is maintained and the federal government pays a proportionate share of the cost. It also reimburses the provinces to the extent of $15 per 1,000 trees planted, $4 per acre seeded with ground preparation and $2 per acre seeded without ground preparation. In 1962-63 there were 36 million trees planted on 56,000 acres. I presume that in the future this will undoubtedly be a part of the ARDA program. If that is not the case the programs are very similar in any event and the same minister is responsible. I suggest that he consider reforestation as a part of the ARDA program. Without a doubt, improvements in forestry go hand in hand and in many instances the soil is more suitable for the growing of trees than for any other crop.
I have made reference to forest fire protection and I do not want to weary the committee by elaborating any more on that subject. I want to take a minute to refer to the general concept of roadbuilding and the building of airstrips because in my opinion this is something that will bring about the possibility of bringing in raw material from greater distances. It will make it possible for private enterprise to do this, whereas they would not be able to do so if they had to bear all the expense of constructing a means of access to these isolated areas. I do not want to elaborate further except to say that in every place where stand improvement has been undertaken in Canada it has been a tremendous success.
With regard to forest research an amount of $2,642,000 is to be appropriated to cover technical staff and expenses. I think we have to acknowledge the fact that without a doubt we are in competition with the world in forest products and in order to maintain our competitive position we must of necessity have the very latest in research and in technical advice. So I am very pleased to see this amount being appropriated by the government at this time.
With respect to forest entomology and pathology, over $5 million is to be spent this year and, so far as the destruction of our forests is concerned, these services are al-

most equally as important as the prevention of forest fires. I happen to know that if steps had not been taken in the province of New Brunswick in 1951 to do something about the budworm menace we would have had terrific destruction of our forests and undoubtedly many forest areas would have been almost completely destroyed by this pest. So these operations are continuing with the very capable staff that is available for this work and which we are fortunate to have at our disposal in Canada.
Forest products research is concerned with new products and I am sure that the amount to be appropriated will meet with he approval of all hon. members. I realize that my time is almost up but I should like to repeat that this year the forestry department will spend :$19i million, part of the money in outright grants and part in payment for services rendered, which services are available to private industry.
May I refer for a moment to what I consider is a very fine piece of research that is under way at the present time. I refer to mechanical research. I regret and deplore the fact that people are being put out of work because of automation, but the fact remains that in order to be competitive we must recognize that we have to use the same methods to accomplish the same thing as are being used in other places. Recently it was my privilege to talk to one of the gentlemen in the forest products laboratory in Ottawa. I thought he had a tremendous fund of mechanical knowledge, which is available of course to the people of Canada, especially those who are interested in this industry.
I am sure the money that will be paid in outright grants and the money spent for services which are available are most proper expenditures because they mean that Canada is in partnership with everyone who is in business today. The government collects approximately 50 per cent of any profits and I think it is very appropriate that they should render some service in consideration of the fact that they are in partnership to that [DOT]extent.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -some people seem "to be in terrible rush to vote $700 million.


An hon. Member:: We want a holiday.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not interested in holidays.
Interim Supply


An hon. Member:: You have had one.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am interested in examining the government's spending program to see whether or not they can justify asking us to vote $700 million to keep them in operation for another two months. Some people may say "carried". Some people may want to wish this money on the government in a great hurry without any perusal whatsoever of their actions or their spending in the past months. We have seen a tremendous amount of money spent, some of it rather foolishly.


George James McIlraith: May I ask the hon. member a question? Do I understand from his remarks that he considers this is the opportunity and the occasion on which to examine the spending of the government?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is a rather naive question. When the government will not bring forward the estimates of the various departments we must take the earliest opportunity to examine them and interim supply provides us with a very good opportunity because they are asking us to grant $700 million. Certainly, anyone who was taking his responsibility seriously-


George James McIlraith: May I ask the hon. member another question? Why then was it that his leader offered to pass interim supply quickly if a certain item, namely the flag debate, was postponed until the fall?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Come over and we will discuss that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: These discussions go on all the time to try to get on with government work. We should like to see some participation in this debate on behalf of the Liberal party. The government has asked us for $700 million. No member of the government spoke yesterday and there was only one speaker on Monday. They are sitting on their hands and at the same time they want us to give them the money. They make no real effort to explain their spending or what they are going to use the money for in the coming months.
I intend to deal with the very important subject of ARDA. Many areas throughout western Canada particularly have been stricken with drought this year. This includes many areas in central Alberta. ARDA has been the hope and the prayer of many farmers since its inception in 1961.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I could raise another question? Does the hon. member

Interim Supply
realize that the ARDA estimates were dealt with in the appropriation bill? They have been voted by the house and they are no longer before the committee.


Reynold Rapp: They come under the Department of Forestry.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They come under the Department of Forestry. Whether they have been voted or not, I feel not enough has been said about ARDA. My remarks are directed at the need for the expansion of ARDA in various parts of Canada.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would respectfully bring to the attention of the hon. member the point of order which has been raised.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He did not raise a point of order; he asked me a question.


Lucien Lamoureux: I understood he asked it in the sense of a point of order. I am raising it now. If an item has been passed, the hon. member is no longer able to discuss it because it is not part of interim supply. It is my understanding that such is the situation, and perhaps the hon. member would want to take that into account.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I may speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely we are entitled to discuss the administration of the minister responsible for this program. We can do it at this stage when we are in supply. This really is the point at issue.


Harry William Hays: This was dealt with under the agriculture estimates. The minister was here and he did answer questions on ARDA in that debate. He made quite a long statement, as a matter of fact.


George James McIlraith: The item has been dealt with by the committee, Mr. Chairman. The agriculture department estimates, item 65, were dealt with some weeks ago.


Lucien Lamoureux: This was my understanding, and I was in the chair at the time. I have before me the record, and vote No. 65 was dealt with on July 10. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that any hon. member can deal with administration. However, after an item has been passed by the committee of supply, certainly it cannot be revived.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is with the administration and the retention of ARDA that I am going to deal. The item may have been passed, but the ARDA program is a program for the future. ARDA is a program in which many people have placed their hopes.

I should like to point out to those who are interested in the subject that ARDA comes up for revision this fall. The minister has said that there will be a federal-provincial conference take place in August or September on this subject. Certainly we should be able to voice our opinions before this conference comes about in August or September.


George James McIlraith: I must raise the point of order and persist in it. The hon. member had an opportunity to deal with the item on July 10. If he was away on holidays and not able to avail himself of that opportunity, surely he is not entitled to take up the time of the committee today for that reason. The subject has been dealt with by the committee and passed by the committee. Regrettable as it may be he is no longer under our rules and practice, able to bring it back for subsequent discussion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Speaking to the point of order, may I say that in the supplementary estimates there is an item dealing with forestry. The main estimate for forestry has not been considered by this house. The administration of that department can be discussed by the committee of supply. The minister who is responsible for it should give an accounting of what he is doing and his plans for the future. The fact that a vote was passed in the main estimates dealing with ARDA does not affect the question of the administration of the department. We have not concluded the discussion on the Department of Forestry. Surely on that basis a person can deal with a subject which is under the jurisdiction of the minister.
If the President of the Privy Council is listened to, we would be prohibited from debate on so many occasions just because we had passed a certain item. Are we not now to ask questions of the Minister of Agriculture because the estimates of his department have been passed? The thing is ridiculous. A question was asked today and he gave a lengthy answer to it.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, I note that on page 6089 of Hansard, the last item relates to an additional one twelfth for agriculture, item 60, and according to the main estimates item 60 relates to irrigation, water storage projects and prairie farm rehabilitation. Actually this is the same as ARDA. I think the hon. member who has the floor now is entitled to deal with the matter.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, this vote has been dealt with. If I remember correctly, we

discussed the estimates of agriculture for seven or eight days. The Minister of Forestry was here-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Five days; why don't you be accurate?


Harry William Hays: Well, it might have been five days.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is an auctioneer; he is entitled to expand a little bit.


Harry William Hays: My hon. friend must have been putting in his crop or bringing in the hay because we did not see hide nor hair of him. I am sure he is completely out of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale referred back to vote 60 which was passed in total on July 10, 1964. It is not before the committee at this time, and neither is vote 65.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if I may ask this question. Is the Minister of Foresty in charge of ARDA? If that answer is yes, then a discussion of the administration of the ARDA program is appropriate during a discussion of general supply.


Harry William Hays: That part of his administration was dealt with. He was here and he made a quite lengthy statement. He answered the
questions that were asked and the vote was passed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is all very well for members to try to suppress the freedom of speech. I should like to read to you, Mr. Chairman, from Hansard for July 28 when this house was asked to go into interim supply. The committee was asked to vote a sum amounting to $696,010,791.01. There was a long list of departments including health, water, natural resources, and so on. Certainly, my remarks, merely because they contained a reference to ARDA, should not raise such great fear on the government benches. If I am allowed to proceed with my speech, I see no real objection being voiced by the government benches. Never before have I known my words to strike such fear into so many government cabinet ministers who have risen to try to suppress my few remarks regarding the administration.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure the hon. member, on reflection, will agree there is something to the point raised by the minister. It is, however, a borderline case because we have an unusual situation where an item coming under a department whose estimates have not been passed was considered as part of another department, whose estimates have
Interim Supply
now all been passed. I am referring of course to the Department of Agriculture. I fully realize that the estimates of the Department of Forestry have not been before us and have not been passed. On that account I can agree with the hon. member that we can discuss that department's administration, but we are still bound by standing order 59(2) which says we have to be strictly relevant to what is before us. Items 60 and 65, dealing with ARDA, have already been disposed of and therefore cannot be before the committee of supply at this time.
However I would think members of the committee would want to be generous to the hon. member who has the floor and allow him to make passing references to the subject inasmuch as they relate to the administration of the forestry department, which can be properly discussed at this time. If the hon. member wants to take that into account we will get along well.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I am going to proceed. If I get carried away I am sure you will bring me back to order. If you do not, then I am fearful cabinet ministers and government members will rise in their places in the hope of cracking down on anything that might be pointed out that is detrimental in regard to their administration.


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. member permit a question dealing with something he said earlier before the point of order was raised? With reference to the $700 million we are being asked to vote now, he said he was more interested in examining these expenditures than in having a holiday. How does he reconcile that view with the statement made by the house leader of the official opposition, as recorded at page 5985 of Hansard for July 24 when, discussing future business of the house, he said:
Would the government like to consider three months, if we complete the dominion-provincial fiscal measure and pass interim supply in short order, and then adjourn?
From that statement it would seem to me members of the official opposition would be much more interested in a holiday than the hon. member says now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not say anything about a holiday.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to answer the question.


Hugh John Flemming: He did
not ask any question.

Interim Supply


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He asked how I reconcile my views with granting three months supply. I am in complete agreement with granting three months interim supply because it would facilitate and speed up operations in the house. The people of the country are completely fed up with the way parliament has been going on in the last couple of weeks. We will do everything in our power to aid the house leader in bringing in legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We suggested time and time again bring in this legislation and we will pass it, bring in that legislation and we will pass it; and we did on every occasion. They laugh over there. That is why I say bring in three months interim supply and we will pass it.


Maurice John Moreau: And then we will adjourn?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, that is your decision, not mine. I intend to speak on the administration of the Department of Forestry. I was interested to see the Minister of Agriculture in his seat today because even though ARDA now comes under the Department of Forestry, it used to be under his jurisdiction. But because his own department was late in putting out his biography, the Prime Minister did not realize he was such a great man and took the whole department away from him for 17 or 21 days, or something like that.


Harry William Hays: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I would sooner hear speech No. 7 than the one we are getting because we have heard it so many times.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is auctioneer
talk.


Harry William Hays: You know all about it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I don't follow that speech No. 7 bit. Maybe he wants me to bid eight; I don't know. It is very interesting to see the minister back and taking an interest in ARDA. It is too bad he did not take a bigger interest in it, as he would still have it in his own department. If he had only written that biography sooner he could have convinced the Prime Minister and the other cabinet ministers just what a great "I am" he is.
The Alberta government has taken a rather shameful and niggardly attitude with

regard to ARDA. In 1961 and 1962 they said it was nothing but a hoax, and many people in Alberta feared that ARDA would be doing nothing more than enlarging P.F.R.A. and perhaps slowing up development under P.F.R.A. An article in the Financial Post of August 17, 1963, was headed: "Our Not-So-Good Earth May Yet Yield Surprises. All 10 provinces and Ottawa are involved in a mammoth comeback project. If it works Canada's entire economy should benefit."
Dealing with Alberta it said:
Alberta has been slow to take up ARDA projects but favours additional development of dams and irrigation systems.
It pointed out that one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada is more interested in better land irrigation and water conservation than in ARDA projects, and I think that is a rather shameful approach on the part of such a wealthy province.
Out of 464 applications for ARDA projects only 24 have come from Alberta, and I point out that some of the provinces, Nova Scotia in particular, are asking for a better share in the cost sharing arrangements with regard to the projects. I quote from the Chronicle-Herald of Halifax, May 9, 1964:
They feel that the formula by which the provinces and Ottawa share the costs of the program on a 50-50 basis is unfair and unrealistic, that different conditions and different levels of income in each province require differing degrees of federal aid.
Alberta, one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada, is second lowest in the number of ARDA projects applied for by all provinces, and I point out that the lower half of my constituency is an area in which ARDA could play a tremendous part. Rehabilitation began in that area in the 1930's. The whole area was settled in 1909 and 1911, but people moved out of it from 1920 to 1935, and in 1935 the federal government participated in a gigantic movement of the people from that area. Many of the residents still there now look to ARDA for hope in the future.
There has been far too much talk with regard to getting the farmers off the land and creating farms of an economic size. As a result of an approach of this kind, they hope to see fewer farms and fewer farmers. This is definitely the wrong approach. One of the aims of this legislation was to put marginal land to more profitable use. Another was to improve the income and opportunities of many of those who live in rural areas. A third object, and perhaps it is the most important one, was to conserve water and soil in Canada. Certainly, a province as

wealthy as Alberta should be in a good position to spend money in order to develop and conserve its water and soil resources, but when I look at the southern half of my constituency I become somewhat frustrated by the attitude taken by the Alberta government with regard to the development of this area. If we go about the administration of the ARDA program in a proper way, so as to create greater employment opportunities in many rural areas and provide for the proper use of land, this will certainly encourage more farmers to enter agriculture, because when land is used to better advantage it is obvious that more farmers will be able to find a living from it.
As I travel across Canada I meet many people who have moved off the land. There should be one hope and one dream. It is that as a result of the correct administration of ARDA they will be able to find their way back to the land. I say this because there is no better life than one which derives from the land, whether as a farmer, or as a rancher or as one engaged in any similar type of occupation. Certainly, I should like to see more people brought back to the land in circumstances which would make it possible for them to enjoy a standard of living comparable with that of people engaged in any other type of occupation. But this can only be accomplished if the act is administered with this objective in mind. Many people in Alberta think that the act is now being administered in such a way that certain projects which could have been proceeded with under P.F.R.A. are being held up and labelled as projects which might be proceeded with under ARDA. This being so, before any concrete action can be taken there must be lengthy discussion between individuals in the locality which would benefit as a result of the project, and officials of the provincial government. Then in turn the matter must be taken up with the federal government. The delay caused by these discussions tends to hold up almost indefinitely a project which might well have been proceeded with under P.F.R.A. almost immediately, the federal government paying nearly all the cost. The arrangements I have described may be all very well in connection with a large program which P.F.R.A. cannot by its very nature handle. But I believe many of these smaller projects should proceed under P.F.R.A. as they have done in the past.
Many clauses now included in the ARDA agreement have a tendency to limit the size
Interim Supply
of projects recommended, and these should be changed.
I notice, Mr. Chairman, that the interest which was shown at the beginning of my speech has fizzled out. I see now only about eight Liberals in the chamber. It is amazing to note how they tried to suppress me and then fled.


Mr. Herridge:: Ten.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I guess two more have popped in.
It is true of course that the agreements are only effective until 1965, at which time they must be redrawn. When we consider the lines upon which the act should be administered and the effect of these agreements upon its administration, we must ask ourselves whether the agreements should be confirmed or whether a better deal should be given to the provinces. The Montreal Gazette of July 6, 1964 suggests that the federal government intends to hold talks with the provinces in August and early September on this subject. The administration of the act will be discussed, together with various projects which, it is felt, might well come within the provisions of the measure but which at the present time do not. According to the Regina Leader-Post of May 29, 1964, the Minister of Forestry has said that the provinces may get more than they do at present. What proposal has the hon. gentleman in mind? Does he intend to propose something along the lines of the suggestion by the Nova Scotia minister of agriculture, that more should be made available to the provinces which are less fortunate than others, or will grants continue to be made on the standard fifty-fifty basis? I know it is really not laid down as such, but in practice it works out to that.
I mentioned certain provisions which limited the operations contemplated under the act, particularly with regard to the approval of projects. I should like to draw attention to section 4, for instance, which provides that except with the approval of the governor in council no allotments to a province for soil or water conservation projects shall exceed 50 per cent of the allotment of the province, and that at least 10 per cent of the total allotment shall be allocated to research projects, rural development studies, and so on. I think this provision as to 50 per cent is unnecessary and I believe that to some extent it limits the scope of ARDA and restricts its administration. I believe many provinces should look upon ARDA from a much wider



[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
point of view than they do at the present time. I have read many of the pamphlets which the Department of Forestry has put out on the subject of ARDA. Most of them tell us that ARDA projects should spring from the grass roots-that they should have a local beginning, and that local committees should be set up to visualize the best way in which communities could be developed, such committees to report their recommendations to the provincial governments. This is all right, but perhaps the scope envisaged in these arrangements is not large enough. It is possible that provincial governments do not encourage local communities to set their sights high enough. Maybe the local people do not appreciate the possibilities and scope of the ARDA program; perhaps they do not know what amount of money the provincial government is prepared to expend as its share of an ARDA program.
Let us consider water conservation, for example. A local community may suggest damming a small creek. But in the years to come such a dam may prove too small; it may be made useless by a larger and higher dam built to serve a wider community. This is why I think the section I have mentioned, together with certain others, should be examined closely to make sure they do not limit the size and scope of many projects which it is desirable that ARDA should undertake. The present is a good time at which to do this. Hon. members need hardly be reminded of the drought which exists, particularly in Saskatchewan and southern Alberta following the hot, dry month of July. Many farmers and ranchers are having to sell their livestock or haul water to them. Now is the time when all the authorities concerned should become very active and interested in bringing aid to these localities. As one of the pamphlets put out by the department says, the local people must be behind these schemes in order for them to be successful. Certainly the local people are in desperate need of water conservation measures, and this is the time for provincial governments to move so as to satisfy these needs.
Certainly the provincial government must be consulted; but I think the federal government, in the administration of ARDA, should provide leadership and encouragement to the provinces. I know they are providing quite a bit of encouragement, but still the province of Alberta lags far behind all other provinces in Canada in respect of having ARDA projects approved by the federal government. I know that in fact every program for which they applied up until March 31

was approved by the federal government; but they have been reluctant to spend money on the development of the basic resources of that province, namely land and water.
Certainly the province of Alberta has been very fortunate in its resources under the ground. The oil companies have found a need for many of the resources below the ground and this has brought an unlimited supply of wealth to the province, but the province has been reluctant to return that wealth to the people through the development of its resources of land and water.
The Minister of Agriculture has now left the chamber, but I would hope that on the trip he proposes for the agriculture committee-which I think is to come about in October and with regard to which I have already said in this house that I am opposed and think it is a waste of money-the committee will take a good look at the land east of Calgary to the Saskatchewan border. I hope they will take a good look at the great productive value that lies in the future for this whole area, a great productive value that is now not even being tapped. If the committee does this, they will certainly get some idea of the great potential of this area. I know there are many other areas throughout Canada that this agriculture committee will no doubt visit, if the trip ever comes about. I would hope they would visit some other areas which have a potential, such as the area east of Calgary to the Saskatchewan border, and perhaps even on into Saskatchewan.
The minister has been making suggestions with regard to a revision of the ARDA program. As reported in the Regina Leader-Post of March 19, the Minister of Forestry said that the way in which each farm assistance program under the act must be authorized by federal authorities will probably be revised. In other words, the federal government is going to give a blank cheque to the provincial governments which they can spend in any way they see fit. This might be all right, but certainly along with it should go the rider that the provincial governments must spend the money on aims set out by the ARDA legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I have offended the ruling you gave at the beginning of my speech. While I well realized that the agriculture estimates had been passed, and with them the ARDA estimates, I felt that due to the severe drought conditions existing in southern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan, and the administration of ARDA and what it can mean to these areas, I should

raise this point in the house at this time in order that we can have less talking and more action under this very worth-while piece of legislation.
Mr, Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, without any desire to prolong unnecessarily this debate on interim supply, in view of the fact that the debate on this motion will likely cause our study of the main estimates to be held up until after the parliamentary recess-to which we all look forward-I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with an important subject that I had intended to raise on the estimates of the Department of Justice.
The battle to protect Canadians' rights has been long and constant, but fortunately occasionally successful. Government activities have expanded to the point where members of legislatures have been unable to do all the work personally, in some cases, that they should do in this field. They have delegated many of their duties to appointed boards and commissions-it is the nature of the development of our society that has caused this-and have too often failed to provide any appeal to the courts from the decisions of such bodies. The result of these circumstances has frequently been injustice. Fighting the arbitrary decision of a board is so costly as to be beyond the purse of the average citizen. A few of my own constituents have written me to this effect just recently. One who fought, however, was a Mr. Frank Roncarelli of Quebec. He had been deprived of his licence by the Quebec liquor commission on orders from Premier Maurice Duplessis because he had provided bail for arrested Jehovah's Witnesses. He could not sue the commission because the act establishing it prevented such action, so he sued the premier. It took 11 years and most of his wealth, but he won a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada that was a milestone on the Canadian road to freedom. That eternal vigilance which is the price of liberty has been constantly necessary. As one who believes in the maintenance of freedom and the rights of citizens, I wish to direct the attention of the committee to the gradual erosion of our freedom in this country as the result of legislative and administrative action.
I wish to mention first of all a bill recently passed by the legislature of British Columbia, which is known as an act to establish the British Columbia hydro and power authority. I will go into detail later, but I just want to say that in my opinion, when a provincial legislature becomes involved in a prointerim Supply
gram that withdraws from the electors who created it some of their basic rights and freedoms, it is our responsibility to protest, and suggest a remedy. We have had numerous illustrations throughout our history of the transgression of the rights of the subject in this country. Time will not permit me to deal with those at any length; but I do wish to remind the committee of the vigorous fight the late J. S. Woodsworth made against section 98 of the Criminal Code. It was because of J. S. Woodsworth's leadership in that fight, supported by the members of this party throughout the years, that the Criminal Code was amended.
Only recently we have had protests from members on the opposition side of the house, including some of my colleagues, with respect to injustices caused by the administration of the Immigration Act. Then quite recently as far as legislative action is concerned, I am sure most of us remember the infamous bill 99 that was presented to the Ontario legislature at the last session by the now departed attorney general. I mean departed from the legislature; I do not wish him any further departure. This bill was withdrawn at the insistence of vigilant people and vigilant members of the legislature who took exception to it. In this case I give full credit not only to the members of my own party but to the members of the Liberal party who saw this threat to personal freedom in this country. I also give credit to the members of the Ontario press in this particular instance.
Bill 99, the police state bill, shocked Ontario citizens into compelling their government to withdraw it, because it proposed the most blatant invasion of private rights which had occurred in that province. It was not the first such attempt. It should come as a considerable relief to those who value their civil rights and liberties that the attorney general of the province, Arthur A. Wishart, has since that time publicly recognized this fact.
I want to deal with another illustration of an invasion of the rights of the citizen. It is not an invasion which will cause any hardship or suffering to any citizen of the province of Alberta, but it is an invasion of their rights and of their privacy. I should like to quote from the Ottawa Journal for June 8, 1964 to which I hope my hon. friend from Alberta will listen, because I know he is a vigorous defender of the rights of the citizen, and I am sure my reference to this act passed by the legislature of Alberta will cause him to have some qualms. This is what

Interim Supply
an editorial which originally appeared in the Lethbridge Herald has to say:
Daylight saving time a crime.
The Alberta government, in its almighty arrogance, asked (and obtained) approval of the legislature not only to make daylight saving time illegal in Alberta, but to make it an offence, punishable by a $25 fine, for any person to "use or observe" the time on any watch or clock that is fast or slow.
Most people would like everything advanced by perhaps an hour in the summertime, so they could enjoy more of the lovely Alberta mornings and have more leisure in the evening daylight.
The Alberta chamber of commerce is asking the provincial government for a province-wide plebiscite on the issue at the time of the next municipal election.
That is the very least the government can agree to.
But if it refuses to make that concession, isn't there some municipality somewhere that will hold a plebiscite anyway and defy this autocratic government?
Imagine. A $25 fine for "using or observing within the province any time other than mountain standard time". Crowns have fallen for less than that.
I mention this to illustrate that this is an unnecessary interference with the private lives of our citizens. I can well imagine that there is many a farmer in Alberta who wishes to get up early to milk his cows and puts his clock on fast time. Whom is he harming in doing this? But apparently, under the present legislation in Alberta, if he does this he will be subject to a $25 fine. It is a very small thing, but it is this creeping form of the invasion of our citizens' rights by actions of the legislatures of this country, and by administrative acts, which should be giving us increasing concern.
Now I want to deal with the latest illustration of the legislative expression of the autocratic frame of mind. I want to refer to a bill passed by the B.C. legislature on March 10, which is an act to establish the British Columbia hydro and power authority. This is blatant transgression of the rights of the citizen, of the farmers in this province, of the working people of the province and all trade union rights, which should be protested in the most vigorous manner in this house and wherever possible. I speak with conviction on this subject because I am one of those persons who would rather live on a modest scale than in luxury and surrender one iota of the freedom which has been achieved through the centuries.
I have discussed this bill with colleagues of mine in my own group. Our members have protested this legislation in the B.C. legislature. I have also discussed it with members of the official opposition and some
[Mr. Herridge.)
of the legal fraternity on the government side of the house. Listen to this clause which I am going to read, Mr. Chairman. This is section 1 of clause 53, dealing with the application of other statutes. It says:
Notwithstanding any specific provision -in any act to the contrary, except as otherwise provided by or under this act, the authority is not bound by any statute or statutory provision of the province.
Mr. Chairman, did you ever before hear of a clause like that contained in any measure in Canada? I have consulted parliamentary counsel and some lawyers in private practice, and they tell me that they do not know of any similar piece of legislation anywhere in Canada. This means that the B.C. hydro and power authority is placed above the legislature of British Columbia, with the exception of measures such as the arbitration act, the workmen's compensation act, the labour act and one or two others? With those exceptions under this clause the B.C. hydro and power authority is exempted from all statutes of the province of British Columbia. It is under this section of the act that the B.C. hydro and power authority is perpetrating injustice on hundreds of the constituents whom I have the honour to represent.
I have had numerous letters from my constituents residing at points extending over a distance of 150 miles expressing their fears and protests at the policy of the B.C. hydro and power authority with respect to relocation or compensation. Under this act the authority are going to offer these people who are being disturbed-flooded out as a result of the building of the high Arrow dam- market value for their property. I want to contrast this with the policy followed by the St. Lawrence seaway authority where people, their homes and community buildings were relocated under suitable circumstances to the satisfaction of the vast majority of them. The B.C. hydro and power authority refuses to relocate owners; they have offered these people, as I say, market value. What is market value in an area which is going to be flooded out?
I have previously mentioned the policy of the national capital commission, which has been very different from that proposed by the B.C. hydro and power authority. The national capital commission has considered all aspects of this question, and as with the Saskatchewan dam authority, people have been compensated on the basis of the potential value created by the development under consideration. In some cases I am informed-I

am waiting for all the documents in this respect-that around the Buffalo pond dam in Saskatchewan some of the farmers were paid $1,000 an acre for waterfront land, because they were waterfront properties which had great potential value owing to their recreational values in beaches, and other like attractions.
I mention this to indicate how people who think in these terms can gradually erode the freedoms and rights of the private citizen almost without his knowledge. There was very little said about this in the press at the time this act was passed in the B.C. legislature, and it is only now that the first victims of this intolerance, this overriding legislation, are beginning to realize what it means to them, and what it will mean to all of us if this type of thinking and policy is allowed to continue in the future.


Mr. Prittie:: Typical Bennett democracy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, that is so.
Now I want to deal with another section which to date has concerned the farmers in my constituency.
There is another section which is concerning labour organizations in British Columbia. I want to quote section 56. Do not forget that whenever we allow the rights of any individual to be taken away from him we are paving the way to having our own rights destroyed in the future. Section 56 deals with labour relations and reads as follows:
1.	Where a conciliation board has been appointed under the labour relations act to deal with a dispute between the authority and one or more of its employees or a trade union, the report of the conciliation board is binding in every respect upon the parties.
2.	No person shall declare or authorize a strike and no employee of the authority shall strike and the authority shall not lock out any employee or employees.
3.	Words and expressions used in this section have the same meaning as those words and expressions used in the labour relations act.
The labour unions concerned are fully aware of the meaning of those words. Subsection 4 reads as follows:
4.	Where there is a dispute between the authority and one or more of its employees or a trade union, section 29 of the labour relations act does not apply.
That is the section that protects the rights of the trade unionists in our province. What has been the reaction? I mention this at the request of numerous trade unions that are involved with this legislation. Here is a telegram that was sent to the chairman and members of the external affairs committee:
Interim Supply
The joint councils of the unions of hydro and power authority representing the 5,000 employees of this crown company unanimously request your committee declare ultra vires that section of bill 14 that denies hydro authority employees the right to strike as this is contrary to the principle of natural justice. Previous to the takeover of the British Columbia Electric Company by the provincial government said employees had all the rights that workers in the province enjoy, including the right to strike. We fervently urge the return of this right.
It is signed by John L. Hayward, chairman of the joint council of unions of the British Columbia hydro and power authority. Why has that section been placed in the bill? Whether it is a private corporation or a public corporation, the policy of the corporation is affected by the philosophy of the government in power, and that is why this legislation has been adopted. The B.C. federation of labour has taken up the matter and has protested vigorously against this most unfair and unusual legislation. While Premier Duplessis passed similar legislation in 1954 in the province of Quebec-


Mr. Choquette:: It was a shame.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad we are in agreement for once-and while we have this legislation being adopted in 1964 in British Columbia, we find that Quebec is doing away with such legislation. I have a quotation from the Montreal Gazette of Saturday, July 11 last. The headline is "New Law Would Allow Public Service Strike", and the article reads as follows:
Premier Jean Lesage served notice yesterday that the government intends to extend the right to strike to most of the public services in the province. He made the decision known in tabling a new series of proposed amendments to the government's controversial labour code, which is due to come up for final study in the legislative assembly next week.
The changes grant the right of affiliation and the right to strike to employees in most of Quebec's key public services, subject to a series of restrictions closely modelled on those contained in the Taft-Hartley act in the United States.
If the amendments are passed by the house as expected, employees of municipal and school corporations, hospitals, orphanages, universities, colleges, convents, telephone and telegraph companies, railways, transportation companies, gas, water and electricity services, garbage removal companies, etc., will all be given the right to walk off their jobs if normal negotiation procedures fail.
Why was this done? Premier Lesage, and I give him full credit for it, responded to the representations of the syndicates or trade unions of Quebec, and I give the officers of those unions full credit for standing up for the rights of their members. As I said before, I give full credit to Premier Lesage for

Interim Supply
responding so favourably to their requests. In Quebec in 1964 they are wiping out the Duplessis legislation of 1944.


Auguste Choquette: I am sorry, it is 1954.


Mr, Herridge:: I have looked it up and the basic legislation was enacted in 1954.


Auguste Choquette: I doubt that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In 1964 in British Columbia they passed legislation similar to that supported by Premier Duplessis in 1954 and which is laying the foundation for the corporate state in B.C. I wish to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes when we are faced with the actions of a government and its agencies some people are inclined to say: What can we do about it? We can all do something about it if we accept some personal responsibility. I wish to give one illustration where vigilance brought results. I have here a quotation from the New York Times of Sunday, May 24, 1964. I always purchase the Times on Sunday afternoon to find out if the government has given away any more of Canada to the United States during the week. The article is an Associated Press dispatch from London. It is headed "Woman Wins Court Battle to Keep View of Thames", and reads as follows:
After a two year court battle by Miss Nancy Maurice, 63 years old, the London county council will eliminate eight stories from a block of apartments it plans to build across from her home. Miss Maurice can go on enjoying her view of the Thames river from the Battersea borough bridge.
Miss Maurice took one look at the specifications for the housing block when they came out in 1962 and went to court. She asserted the block, which she dubbed "the monster", would cut off the sunlight from her home, lower the value of her property and ruin the river view.
The high court of appeals held recently that she had just cause for complaint. The council is redrawing the plans. The building will be 157 feet tall instead of 220.
I mention this in order to illustrate what one person can do who sticks up for her rights. Our statutes and our common law are based on the common law of Great Britain and we can all do something in this parliament, in the legislatures, in the trade unions and in the farmers' organizations and women's organizations to make certain that these rights are not eroded and taken away by legislative or administrative action.
Therefore I urge members of parliament to be concerned about this question. It may not affect some of us directly at the present time but it is our duty to be concerned. I urge the legislatures to be concerned about this matter and particularly the people of British Colum-

bia, the farmers' organizations and the trade unions. I trust that they will continue to protest this infamous law so vigorously that at the next session of the legislature the premier of British Columbia will shamefacedly take action to have it withdrawn.
Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, I have nothing against these people as individuals, but collectively I have thought on occasion that they are a menace to society. That is just my personal opinion. I urge that the Minister of Justice study this piece of legislation carefully. There are many precedents for the disallowance of legislation passed by the provincial legislatures, and I urge the Minister of Justice to disallow this legislation.


Auguste Choquette: No, you cannot do that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I urge him to do so because it transgresses the principles of democracy and the Canadian Bill of Rights. I see my hon. friend does not agree. He is afraid that at some future time the Quebec legislature will pass a bill and there will be a danger of the federal government disallowing it. I say this, regardless of whether we live in Newfoundland or British Columbia, if the rights of any citizens of this country are transgressed by provincial legislation, government should have the courage to disallow it.
This brings me to my last point. I am not quite sure how much time I have left. I get a bit carried away with this subject. In my opinion, because of the increasing number of incidents of legislative autocracy and administrative dictatorship, there is a greater need for an ombudsman. He would deal with specific cases of misuse of authority by legislators and by agencies of government, by boards and commissions and, on occasion by individual civil servants who lose contact with the ordinary citizen.
You know, there is a tendency on the part of those who are particularly brilliant to lose some of their humanity in the process of exercising their intellectual ability. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, there is a great need for action on this score. I am not the only one to suggest this. The members of this group have previously recommended the need for an ombudsman in this country. Recently a former justice, Mr. Justice J. T. Thorson, spoke from experience following a panel discussion of this matter. I wish to quote briefly from the Ottawa Journal for May 14, in which I read:
Hon. J. T. Thorson, retired president of the Exchequer Court of Canada, Wednesday threw his

support behind a campaign to introduce the ombudsman system in Canada.
This former justice is supporting New Democratic party policy. I am glad to see that. This is the hon. gentleman who supported our nuclear policy. It is amazing how our influence is growing in this country.
The outspoken Canadian jurist took his stand in an interview at the annual meeting of the Canadian citizenship council following a panel discussion on how the system works in other countries and the need for it in Canada.
Mr. Thorson, president-elect of the council for 1964-65, said he supports fully the introduction in Canada of ombudsmen-officers of parliament or the legislatures who investigate complaints by individuals against unfair administrative decisions and, when necessary, recommend remedial action.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have to take action to fight against this tendency towards legislative and administrative tyranny.
Before concluding I just wish to deal with a quotation from the Gazette for Friday, July 10, concerning Crichel Down. This deals with an incident in Dorsetshire in 1937, when a farmer was dispossessed of his land improperly by the British air ministry. There was a protest because it split his farm. Finally, as a result of the protests by farm organizations and support from the public, this situation was remedied. This editorial reads in part:
The British labour party says that if it is elected in October it will appoint an "ombudsman" a defender of the rights of the people against the misuse of authority by government officials. The Scandinavian countries established this office of "ombudsman". And other countries are coming to recognize its necessity.
Then in conclusion the editorial says:
But this is not simply a matter that concerns a Labour party and those who may live under its rule. This is a matter of concern to all those in all countries who feel the spread of officialdom over their lives. It is a very real problem in Canada. Canada needs its "ombudsman" too.
As Prof. W. H. Angus, of the law faculty of the University of Alberta, told the Canadian Bar Association at its annual conference last September: "If the present trend continues and administrative government tribunals are permitted to pursue whatever tickles their fancy, our society would seem destined to suffer some rather serious consequences".
The case of Crichel Down is the perfect example of what those consequences may be.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again urge the Minister of Justice to examine this infamous piece of legislation. I am sure if he does what we consider to be right he will disallow it. I urge this house to give consideration to the introduction of legislation that will provide for an ombudsman to protect the rights of Canadian citizens, to protect their
Interim Supply
rights against the increasingly dictatorial powers of some government boards and commissions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to take a few minutes to speak in this debate this afternoon because there have been a few remarks made by the hon. member for Acadia which some people who read Hansard may take as factual, unless the rest of the story is told. He was discussing, it seemed to me, during the main part of his remarks, the question of ARDA. He directed some criticism against the government of Alberta, stating they were dragging their feet with regard to getting approval from the federal government for projects under ARDA.
It is amazing to me to see this particular member, and other members of the Progressive Conservative party from the province of Alberta, taking such delight in constantly downgrading their own province. The facts respecting ARDA are that this act was passed by a Progressive Conservative government. It is a fact also that several months, in fact considerably more than a year after this act was passed, there were no regulations, no rules and no guidance at all for provincial governments or local authorities as to how they could proceed to present a project to the federal government for approval.
I inquired about this in September of
1962.	The act had been passed several months at that time. I asked how many projects had been submitted by the province of Alberta to the federal ARDA branch, and how many of those had been approved. There was no answer given by the federal Department of Agriculture which had responsibility for the act at that time. However, I did find out from the ARDA committee in Alberta that they had submitted about eight projects to the federal government at that time. They were awaiting some action by the federal government. As late as December of that same year, three months later, in spite of the fact that these projects had been prepared by some kind of local committee, but more particularly by the provincial ARDA committee, there was still no approval given by the minister of agriculture of that day.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the federal director of ARDA for the Dominion of Canada, Mr. Davidson, was in Alberta.
In fact it was in Medicine Hat many, many months after the act was passed in this house, and during the course of his remarks and during the questions that were asked of him by people interested in what could be done under the act, his replies were constant. I

Interim Supply
give him a great deal of credit, because he was open, frank and honest in spite of being under severe difficulty with respect to what he was authorized to do, and he continually stated there was no provision respecting specific rules as to what would be accepted or rejected. He kept going back to the wording of the act and said there seemed to be sufficient scope within that wording to do almost anything short of building a tunnel in Montreal or Toronto. He said there was scope to do anything at all that would be helpful or useful to rural people any place in Canada, and there was authority granted by the federal government to undertake such projects.
This was months after the act was passed, yet he could offer no information as to how the local committees might be set up, no information or guidance as to what they should ask for, no information as to how much local support was necessary for a project, or how much provincial support would be necessary, nor could he say how far the federal government was prepared to go with respect to anything.
The hon. member for Acadia criticized the provincial government for not submitting some kind of project under ARDA for water and soil conservation in southeastern Alberta, because of the severe drought conditions at the present time. I would like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that during the summer of 1961 western Canada in general, and southeastern Alberta in particular, experienced one of the most severe droughts in the Canadian history of recorded weather patterns.
The federal government of that day was made up from the party my hon. friend supports, but even in spite of those severe conditions absolutely no action was taken by the government of the day to do anything about initiating ARDA projects to achieve what he calls water and soil conservation measures.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Which government implemented ARDA?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying. Would he speak out loud enough.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member suggests we did nothing while we were in government in 1961. Which government implemented ARDA? ARDA came into being in 1961, and the Suffield community project was initiated in that same drought year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is exactly the point I am making. The government of that day did in fact pass ARDA, but surely if it had intended any practical action to come from this it should have been willing to try to set up some kind of regulations and give some guidance for expediting projects. As I said, it was months and months after the act was passed, but the government of the day had not given any guidance as to how it was going to be implemented. In fact it gave absolutely no guidance as to what the federal government would accept.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Has the hon. member looked at the three year record from 1961, when the act was passed, until almost March 31, 1964? Of the 464 projects that were submitted by the ten provinces only 24 of them came from Alberta even though, according to the 1961 statistics, 20 per cent of the farmers in Alberta have an income of less than $1,200 a year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is fairly discouraging to do a lot of detailed work with local hard working committees-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The provincial government is dead on the subject.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is very discouraging to do a lot of detailed work, to send projects down here to Ottawa only to have them shelved, such as happened all during 1962.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not one project submitted by the Alberta government has been turned down by the federal government as yet.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That statement requires some examination.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, examine it. That is a fact, up to the end of March, 1964.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There has been a large number of projects submitted by Alberta that have not been approved-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And have not been rejected either.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not particularly partisan in this matter-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the only reason you are speaking.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -but the fact of the matter, dealing with the record of approvals, is this, that in spite of its being Progressive Conservative legislation, the number of approvals has been substantially greater since the government was changed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is a ridiculous remark.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I don't understand this attitude of the federal members from Alberta, continually getting up and downgrading their own province.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of privilege, the hon. member has said I have downgraded the province of Alberta. In no terms and in no words have I downgraded Alberta. It is the best province in Canada, but I think the government of Alberta has lagged a great deal in regard to the ARDA program.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, there is no question of privilege, and the only point of order is the fact that the hon. member is continually interrupting when I have the floor and that, of course, is a violation of the rules. The hon. member, who is now so exercised about someone placing the facts before him, also said the province of Alberta has been niggardly-I do not know if that is exactly the word he used, but he criticized the amount Alberta was spending on water and conservation jobs within the province.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Exactly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would like to remind him that with regard to the development of irrigation and land and water use, no province on the prairies has spent as much money as the province of Alberta.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Much of it started before Social Credit came into power.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That might be so, but it has been carried on at an accelerated rate since Social Credit came into office. I want to put these few remarks on the record so that anyone reading Hansard would not take the statments of the hon. member as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They are the facts. I can document them. There is no question about the whole truth.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The record of performance of the Progressive Conservative government in the administration and expediting of projects under ARDA has been something less than expected, particularly when one thinks in terms of the tremendous political propaganda carried on all over western Canada with respect to this act. We know for example that there were pamphlets printed at public expense prior to the passage of the act. I have said before and I will say it again that at that stage there was no justi-
Interim Supply
fication for spending public funds for that purpose because, until the legislation was passed by the house, it was nothing but Conservative policy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Every party in the house approved the legislation. Were you opposed to it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Sit down.


The Deputy Chairman:: I shall have to ask the hon. member for Acadia to permit the hon. member for Medicine Hat to continue his remarks without being interrupted.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are many things which the province of Alberta is doing in the administration of its affairs which happen to have tremendous public support. One would think that those members of parliament who come from the province of Alberta would give some support to that province, in the best interest of its citizens. But we do not seem to see any of this support coming forward.
One of the subjects I wish to deal with this afternoon, because it has been a sore spot with the government of Alberta and residents of that province for years, is the attitude of the Department of National Health and Welfare in applying the regulations governing the sharing of costs under the hospitalization program. I think it would be well for us to review briefly how this federal-provincial cost sharing program works, so that we may completely understand this discriminatory action on the part of the federal government both under the present administration and under the previous one. I might say this attitude is costing the residents of Alberta close to $2 million a year and, as I have indicated, it is unfair and discriminatory.
Under this co-insurance fee system, patients using the hospitals in Alberta in the year 1962-63 paid to the hospitals something over $5,700,000 in direct payments. Under the federal cost sharing program for hospitalization the federal government treats this revenue represented by the co-insurance fees as revenue payable directly to the hospitals, and therefore it is deducted before the balance of the cost becomes shareable by the federal government jointly with the province. We think this is unfair because it discriminates against those provinces which impose a patient fee or co-insurance fee instead of collecting hospital revenue by means of sales tax or a hospital insurance premium, or some other form of direct taxation. In our view, there is a definite advantage to the co-insurance fee system as compared with the prov-

Interim Supply
ince collecting some direct tax to meet hospital costs.
Today in Alberta the individuals using our hospitals are paying only 7.8 per cent of the operating costs. The municipalities-and I wish to give the complete picture; this is a four mill tax, plus any extra requisitions they have to meet-pay 11.9 per cent of the operating costs; the province pays 40.6 per cent of the costs, and the federal government 39.7 per cent. As far as we are concerned it is no business of this parliament to dictate to the provinces how they shall collect the portion which is paid by the provinces and to disallow these deterrent fees, or co-insurance fees, and subtract them from the actual operating costs of hospitals before the balance of cost is shared. In my opinion, this represents a direct attempt at interference with the way in which the province of Alberta chooses to run its affairs. I hesitate to become involved in the politics of the situation, but it just happens that in the province of Alberta the government, in its administration of the affairs of the province, has greater support from the residents than any government in Canada. Yet the department of health and welfare-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question? Will he tell us, while he is talking about provincial government finances and the position taken by the federal government, what has brought about the resignation of the Alberta government's treasurer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Acadia, in his determined effort to downgrade the province of Alberta, has of course now drawn another red herring across the path. He can read the news reports as well as I can, and from what I have read the premier of the province indicated that he felt there was some conflict between the private interests of the treasurer and his responsibility as a cabinet minister. In those circumstances he asked for his resignation, and got it. I would hope that this manifestation of principle would be followed by all governments of Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hope the whole story comes to light.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: To get back to the discriminatory action shown on the part of this government in applying these regulations as far as the hospitalization cost sharing program is concerned, let me say this: I wonder what would happen if there were protests in this respect from some of the other provinces

of Canada. Have we reached a point where the only language which this government understands is the language of those who talk tough and are unco-operative? Is this the attitude of a government which makes so much of the spirit of co-operative federalism? Are there to be penalties imposed on those provinces which have chosen to act responsibly and try to administer their affairs and get along with the federal government in a spirit of fair play, reasonableness and cooperation? I should like to remind the members of this government that the price of reasonableness, fair play and co-operation is reasonableness, fair play and co-operation in return.


An hon. Member:: And justice.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And justice, as my hon. friend says. If the only language this government understands is tough language, then perhaps it is time the government of Alberta began to talk in the kind of terms which will be understood.
We have been trying to secure the fair play about which I spoke. When the new dominion-provincial fiscal arrangements are again before this house, as they will be we hope in a few days, I shall have a great deal more to say about these things because there are at least five different areas in which the province of Alberta in particular because of discriminatory formulae is losing a large percentage of its fair share of the federal moneys redistributed to the provinces. This applies to other provinces, as well. So I think it is time for the government to do what it claims to be doing, that is to see that all the provinces and all the people in Canada are treated alike. Ministers responsible for these matters-and this suggestion has been made several times in the house as being the course actually followed-should not decide how much money they wish to grant to each province and then cook up a formula to provide that predetermined figure. I do not think that is justice. If that is what is done, then of course, it will be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, and I do not think that is a satisfactory or reasonable way of administering our public affairs.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words at this stage. If I do so, it is not to delay the committee in any way; I merely wish to make some general remarks about agriculture in Quebec and speak of the slump which affects farmers in that province.

Mr. Chairman, agriculture is truly in a state of depression in Quebec. What is the responsibility of the government under the circumstances? Should it face up to its responsibilities or let agriculture go down like a drifting ship?
For four generations, our farmers have been working for the development, the settling and the expansion of farm land in Quebec; their victory has been achieved at the price of hard work and sacrifices because the means at their disposal were spare indeed.
Today, we have a fertile soil and several farming groups in each community. We have professional farmers with a clear vocation.
As the country and agriculture developed, the farmers' debts increased. After three or four generations, there are practically no more farmers in the province of Quebec who are not in debt up to their necks.
Due to our economic system, all those sacrifices and all those efforts were made under distressing conditions. But yet, that work was done in order to provide a brighter future for generations to come by making available to them the fruits of such labour.
But, Mr. Chairman, our predecessors never worked at such a development for the benefit of only a few individuals who took over the fruits intended for future generations. If there is someone responsible-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture have been passed and a decision taken on them.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the agricultural estimates have been passed, but several items among them must be discussed on the occasion of the introduction of interim supply. Indeed, some agricultural items affect this interim supply. I think we can deal with agriculture generally.
The responsibility for that must rest on the old line parties. It is stupid and deceiving to see our national heritage, the very basis of our Canadian economy in the hands of financial interests. The very life of the nation is in the hands of a few unscrupulous people.
For people in debt, the government has no alternative solution than to guarantee the whole economy so that people in debt, those who have been dispossessed can be held in chains and never be free again.
On account of those who are in debt, centralization and collectivism in farming as 20220-389
Interim Supply
well as in all other economic fields are advocated. To protect and respect the financial situation and requirements of a few individuals, some people are ready to sacrifice the work and heritage of generations which have done everything for us and future generations will have nothing to reap, because it will have been necessary to satisfy a few ambitious individuals. Such is the state of mind of the saviours of the people.
Every Canadian citizen including the farmer must abide by an accounting system which robs and discourages the farmer in the first place and has the same effects on the remainder of the community. Those who are responsible will soon have to render an account and their responsibility is constantly increasing.
Therefore, as a result of those startling facts, we must assume our responsibilities. First, as far as farming is concerned, what is to be done? I will say to the government that it is not only with farm loans that it will save agriculture. Agriculture and the other classes of our society will be saved by making them prosperous and by bringing the proper solutions to the true causes of the disorder.
Family farms must be safeguarded. The various governments must take the necessary steps to protect and encourage agriculture.
First of all, solutions different from the ones which were applied in the past must be found. The steps required to help agriculture out of its present stagnation must be taken.
In this regard, I take the liberty of pointing out that everything has been done when our national defence was concerned or when other countries at war needed some assistance. All our economy was set in action. We found the means to give jobs to all the technicians, the engineers and the labourers of the country and to take advantage of all our resources. Money was no object; there was no problem to find the funds required.
When time came to go on with international destruction and slaughter, everything was done and it was done in the name of Christendom and freedom. Members of the government should know that it is also in the name of Christendom and civilization that we must feed and prevent from starving countries that are unable to feed their people. Starvation causes more destruction in various countries than the most devastating of wars.
Consequently, in the name of justice, in the name of civilization, in the name of human beings, let us revive our agriculture, let us

Interim Supply
take the same means as those we used to wage war, let us provide the required equipment and let us put our technicians to work.
It is up to the government to understand and to make available to farmers every mechanical and technical equipment they need.
I will get the following answer: "But the farmers will not be able to repay this money". To get your money back, send the bills to the same place where you sent those for the weapons you threw on Hitler and Mussolini from 1939 to 1945.
You have armoured cars that will never be used, several of which have cost as much as $300,000 each. You spend huge sums of money on aircraft, on war material of no use whatsoever.
At least, if you manufactured farm implements and gave them to farmers, they would serve some logical and practical purpose and to carry out worth-while projects.
For the price of a tank, it would be possible to manufacture several tractors for the farmers; that would greatly help the farm people and would also give work to the people who would manufacture them.
If agriculture is the cornerstone of our society and the mainstay of our economy, why do everything in a niggardly way? Let us do what needs to be done. If agriculture is prosperous, the rest of society will be prosperous also, because it must be recognized that the farmer, in addition to being a producer, is also the most important consumer.
Let us put an end to temporary, piecemeal and inadequate measures, let us get to the heart of the problem, let us help the farm people so that they will no longer depend on the kindness of the other classes of society. We must start at the beginning through an educational program, but we must also realize that this problem can be solved if our farmers can sell their production at a profit, never at a loss as is the case now.
The government should buy any production surplus, supervise storage and find markets through price stabilization, while leaving a reasonable profit, the main problem being one of distribution.
I think that economists or scientists will never be able to teach farmers how to produce pork or beef. The only way is to set a profitable price and establish price stability; in this way, we will have an abundant production.
The government's duty is to supply farmers with the fertilizers they need, the required technique by our farm experts, to give them good equipment, as far as cheap
[Mr. Latulippe.l
machines are concerned; then agriculture will know further developments. Steps should also be taken to make them enjoy the benefits of crop insurance, insurance in case of loss of their cattle, and the guarantee at least of partial repayment. The fear of risk explains to a certain point why some Quebec farms were not and are not entirely developed.
The Canadian Press, itself controlled by press agencies, takes whole pages to analyse false problems and report the actions of royal commissions which have no other purpose but to quiet public opinion, because those who appointed them do not feel strong enough to bring final solutions to situations which are unbelievable nowadays.
The first concern of governments should be the prosperity of agriculture, which might be assured of efficient means like loans without interest, free machines and fertilizers-if necessary-stable markets, equipment at government expense for farm improvement.
Low priced feed grain, government subsidized means of transportation, as the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) announced the other day, government paid drainage, retimbering, water conservation through storage, those give an idea of the problems and the solutions which have to be brought about if we want to make agriculture a paying proposition.
ARDA program will undoubtedly bring about many solutions, but it will not settle all the problems. The officials in charge of the administration of ARDA will have to assess the primary problems in agriculture; they will also have to take into consideration the main advice which will be given them if they want agriculture to be profitable in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada.
Those are, Mr. Chairman, the few remarks I wanted to make.


Mr. Kennedy:: Interim Supply
near at hand in order not to delay the ship. It is the opinion in that area that the government should develop facilities in that harbour to accommodate ocean-going vessels. I maintain that this would be a good thing, in that because of the natural layout of the harbour it would not be very difficult or costly to do so. New construction is now underway to take care of low draft vessels and this could be extended. The deep water is right there and all that would be required would be a vessel bed to carry the ships at low tide.
The argument I get from the department is that there is already a facility for such ships on that shore, but I would hasten to point out that this facility already serves two industries. It serves an industry which is mining barium and another industry which is producing gypsum. The area around the harbour where the wharf is located is very hilly and it is extremely difficult to stockpile wood there so that it can be loaded on ships readily. Even if this could be done, because of the nature of the harbour and the high tides in the area which run twice a day a ship can only move on the crest of the tide. Having in mind the time it takes to load a ship with wood, this would paralyse the port for use by the other two industries. It just will not work out that wood can be loaded at that port. This is one of the main arguments why the government should consider the provision of facilities for ocean-going vessels at Noel.


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


Cyril Frost Kennedy: Yes.


Gerald Augustine Regan: In addition to the arguments that the hon. member has just made with regard to the busy nature of the wharf facilities, would he not agree that the need for such facilities at Noel has increased greatly in the past year or so because of the new possibility of greater shipments from that area, if such facilities were provided?


Cyril Frost Kennedy: Yes. The need has existed for some years and I would agree that it may be increasing. However there is another angle to this matter. There is a desire to process our natural products there as much as we can before they are exported, and I understand that a study of this matter is under way. Perhaps our pulp and paper producing industries can be expanded and this may take up the slack. But I still say that the federal government has saved enough money on maintenance of wharves because of the wharves which

have been abandoned in that area to spend a few thousand dollars to extend these facilities. I think it would be a move in the right direction, and I am all in favour of anything which is in line with economy. I am not in favour of spending money on something which will not be of economic benefit.
If I may go further, there are other things which could assist this area and are probably related to the forest industry. As I said before, the people of the area rely almost entirely upon the cutting, loading and moving of wood. The government of Nova Scotia in the last few years has been faced with the very heavy burden of constructing roads in that area because now wood is moved by truck much more than it was before. It was necessary to do this because the wharves had been allowed to deteriorate, and there is only the odd wharf available here and there. The area is cut off by a natural barrier known as the Shubenacadie river. To get across the river from the area trucks must travel upstream a distance of about 20 miles and then travel roughly the same distance down the other side to get to the centre of Nova Scotia.
ARDA has been mentioned this afternoon, and I should like to say that there is a strong committee working on the matter of a survey of the river to see if a crossing cannot be established near its mouth. This would make it possible for people to have easy access to the area. It would develop the rural area of East Hants and be of great benefit to the people on both sides of the river. As a matter of fact, even western Nova Scotia would benefit. The committee has been working diligently on a survey of this matter. They have received some voluntary support from the municipal councils and the boards of trade in the surrounding area and also from the province. There is some suggestion that ARDA might participate. I cannot think of a more useful place for ARDA to participate than in the cost of this survey. It is not right to ask the municipalities to underwrite projects of this kind because they are burdened to the hilt now with their own problems involving the cost of education and so on. I would be very pleased if the minister would take note of this to ascertain if the project could not come under ARDA because the cost would only be a few thousand dollars and it would mean a lot to the municipalities in that area.
There is another thing to which I would like to refer, and that is that those in the area who have been displaced in the forest industry have found employment at a radar station known as Beaverbank. Within the

last few months the Department of National Defence has indicated this station will be completely abandoned by September 1. This facility is in excellent shape and should be very useful. I gather the impression from the people down there that they would like the Department of National Defence to use the housing and other facilities there. It is located on a paved highway within 20 miles of Halifax. There are 120 housing units which have all the facilities. There are churches, schools and a recreation centre including a swimming pool. I gained the impression that even the service people think this is a wonderful set-up and would like to take it over. Within the last few days I read in the newspapers that the Associate Minister of National Defence is now going to take a second look at it. I hope he will take a darned good look at it and will be able to bring about something in that area which will be of benefit, not only to the area but the services as well.
I think that in this day and age these facilities are located close to a city and deserve consideration. It is only a 15 or 20 mile drive into the city, and so far as the isolation of the families is concerned, I do not think that is a question because nearly everyone has a family car today. I know there are servicemen with families who live at least 75 miles from their base, and they do not seem to suffer.
In closing, sir, I should like to say that another big problem in Nova Scotia is transportation. Our cost of living in that area is high because a lot of the things we buy have to come from far away. I want to say a word of appreciation to the Atlantic development board for providing $3 million of assistance to our trunk highways. The highway between Halifax and Truro needs to be developed. Traffic is extremely heavy and it needs to be widened. Even if that were done, it would still be more or less out of date. It costs a lot of money to build highways through that type of country. I hope the federal government will continue in an ever growing way to take an interest in the province of Nova Scotia, because the government of that province has worked very hard and done a great deal to bring industries to the province. If the federal government will cease pulling things out of the province and consider putting things into the province, we may keep our people employed and we will be ever grateful.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, my interest in the forest goes back to my boyhood days when
Interim, Supply
my grandfather told me many stories of his exploits as one of the first settlers in our area. The whole district was heavily wooded at that time with great stands of hard maple, ash and other hardwoods, as well as white pine, hemlock, and tamarack and balsam in the swamps.
Forests in those days were an encumbrance, and thousands of acres of excellent timber were cut down and burned so that land could be quickly cleared and made ready for the production of food. Only the very choicest logs were saleable and my grandfather said he sold the choicest white pine for $8 a thousand delivered at the mill in Owen Sound. However, as the area became settled, lumbering emerged as the main industry. Mills were set up throughout the whole district and the exploitation of our great stands of timber was under way.
Conservation was a word never heard, and regardless of whether or not the land was suitable for cultivation, the forest was cleaned off, actually leaving completely devastated areas that were suitable only for timber production. Of course during this timber boom many woodworking plants, by way of secondary industry, were established and were prosperous. However as time progressed and timber limits began to peter out, many of these furniture factories were unable to continue profitably and were forced out of business. The big lumber mills came to the same fate, as the timber being rafted in from the north shore of Georgian bay to support their operations was finished. We do have enough second growth hardwood available, which of course may be supplemented with some imported lumber, to keep several thriving industries in my area under production.
In the city of Owen Sound, R.C.A. Victor has an up to date plant producing television cabinets, and Keenan Woodenware produces a variety of products. In the town of Meaford the Knight families have several factories producing wood products and they have built up an envious reputation as producers of hardwood flooring. Bovell Bros, in Meaford uses a variety of wood in its operations. So, the forest still plays an important part in the economy of the Georgian bay district.
In the summer months thousands of tourists are attracted to our area, mainly because of our beautiful beaches, but we do have some quite extensive well wooded provincial parks with excellent accommodation. While on the subject of parks, I would bring to the attention of the minister the great undeveloped potential for a national park in the Georgian bay country. Perhaps I should direct this to

Interim Supply
the attention of the minister of northern affairs. However what I am about to propose would involve the minister responsible for ARDA.
We have a great ridge running through Grey county that involves some 40,000 acres and which, in my humble opinion, should be completely reforested. This area contains a high percentage of marginal land, and if reforested would serve a more useful purpose. The area reaches an altitude of 1,735 feet above sea level, the highest point in the province of Ontario. This ridge is the watershed for the Humber, the Grand and the Credit rivers running to the south, the Saugeen to the west, and all the rivers and streams flowing north into Georgian bay. If this area were reforested, it would impede the fast spring run-off of all these rivers and eventually restore them to their normal flow. This program and many other similar projects on other watersheds would aid considerably in bringing our great lakes back to normal levels. We must provide more water storage, and forests are a source of assistance. At the present time more water in our great lakes waterway is a dire necessity.
I just noticed in the Globe and Mail yesterday that the loss to shipping and industry is tremendous, and the loss to the iron ore industry alone has been estimated at $13 million. We were made aware of the great loss to other shipping earlier in the debate in this house.
This area is in proximity to the highly populated centres and will, in my opinion, some day be developed as the need for water and recreation become critical. Therefore, I propose that a survey be made so that some of the preliminaries might get under way in connection with reforestation. I should say also that the raising of the levels of the rivers, such as the Sydenham, the Beaver and the Bighead which flow into Georgian bay, would be a shot in the arm for our sport and commercial fishermen. Rainbow trout, which in recent years are becoming more abundant, use these rivers for spawning, and more water means more protection for the fish; more fish mean more tourists.
It has been announced by the Ontario department of lands and forests that they will be stocking Georgian bay and lake Superior with sockeye salmon, and these fish will also use the rivers for spawning. I might be allowed to say, in passing, that I take great satisfaction from the proposed plan for the sockeye, as I made this suggestion on the floor of the house and in the fisheries com-

mittee about six years ago, and have continued to press for action on the matter ever since.
Our forests also make an indirect contribution to the tourist industry by way of giving covering protection and food to our thousands of moose and deer, which provide many tourist dollars as well as providing big game hunting for our own people. This is now a noteworthy industry.
In doing some research on the forestry industry and how it applies to our nation, I was amazed at some of the figures I came across. The pulp and paper industry generates directly or indirectly $1 in eight of the incomes of all Canadians. Three hundred thousand persons are employed in the woods and mills; many other thousands gain work and wages in meeting the needs of this group and of the industry itself, for pulp and paper is the biggest buyer of goods and services of all Canada's manufacturing industries. Ninety pulp and paper companies own 130 mills in eight of the 10 provinces; only in Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan is pulp and paper not the leading or among the leading industries.
Pulp, newsprint, fine papers, paperboard, building materials, plastics, cellophane, rayon and other textile fabrics, and literally hundreds of commodities classed as essentials have their start in Canada's pulp and paper establishments. Without this industry Canada would not rank today as an important world trader, living standards would be lower, annual labour income and gross national product could not have reached their unprecedented highs. Every hour of the day and night the pulp and paper industry turns out more than 1,000 tons of products valued at $140,000, or $1.3 billion a year. The value of its annual production equals that of wheat and all other grains combined, or of the country's total mineral output. Pulp and paper exports amount to some $981 million dollars annually, approximately a quarter of all Canada's exports, and a third of the nation's exports to the United States.
More than half of the output of the industry is in the form of newsprint, and half of the newspaper pages in the world are printed on Canadian newsprint. The great increase in newspaper circulations throughout the world would not have been possible without Canada's newsprint production. In 1955 Canada consumed about 7 per cent of her newsprint production, 11 per cent went to countries overseas, and 82 per cent was sold in the United States. Newsprint is Canada's leading export.

Nine tenths of Canada's existing forests stand on publicly owned crown lands. Most of the wood used by the pulp and paper industry is cut from crown lands, with payment made to provincial governments for the lease, and for the amount of wood cut. The federal government collects more tax revenue from pulp and paper than from any other industry, and payments to all governments run to some $200 million a year.
Converting our trees into pulp and paper is the most economic use to which most of our forest resources may be put. A tree consumed by the pulp machines leaves virtually no waste. Indeed the industry uses for the most part trees of a size which could never make anything but scrap lumber. The pulp and paper industry accounts for about a fifth of the wood consumed in Canada each year. Fire, insects and disease destroy almost as much, while a similar amount is used annually for fuel, and one and a half times as much is cut for lumber. The industry creates far more new wealth annually than all other forest industries combined.
The paperboard and building board output of the industry is second to newsprint production, and most of these products are consumed in Canada. For shipping containers, paperboard has largely displaced wooden boxes, while for the construction industry there are hardboards and many types of building board. In the manufacture of paperboard and building board the pulp and paper industry is actually conserving the forests, since an equivalent output of material from the sawmills would require the use of many more trees.
Canada's forests cover 1.4 million square miles and the country's forest resources are exceeded in total only by the tropical forests of Brazil and the forests of Russia. Of Canada's total forest area 826,000 square miles are classified as productive, and of this 249,000 square miles are at present economically inaccessible. Demand for raw materials is constantly extending pulpwood operations. Several companies are cutting beyond the height of land on watersheds draining into Hudson's bay, hauling the logs by truck road to the headwaters of streams that flow south to the mills, and through improvements in silviculture and by reduction of losses from fire, insects and disease, more and more wood will be obtained from the forests now occupied.
The fine paper industry, entirely separate from newsprint and pulp production, employs about 27,000 Canadians and has an annual
Interim Supply
output of about $80 million. Its range of products includes book, writing, ledger, currency, blotting and magazine papers; it also includes the paper that goes into drinking cups, milk containers, wallpaper, wedding invitations, cigarette paper and the finest rag paper selling for as much as $1,500 a ton.
Canada's fine paper industry dates back to 1803, when the first mill was established near Lachute, Quebec. Today 18 mills are in operation, many of them on sites chosen a century ago, and the descendants of many of the early papermakers continue in the trade. In Canada, because of the relatively small national population and because the industry's output covers about 500 different products, fine paper is not made on a mass production basis. Also the fine paper industry, unlike the newsprint industry, is faced with tariff barriers that sharply limit exports to foreign markets. Despite these substantial handicaps the fine paper industry provides Canadians with a range of products at prices comparable to those which are obtained in the United States or Great Britain, the two chief fine paper producers of the world.
I think the house will agree that this is a magnificent industry and that every effort should be made to pass it on to posterity a little better than we found it. It does seem, however, that we have a minister in this government who is somewhat careless in respect to the orders he issues when it comes to preserving our forests. The Minister of Transport issued an order a few days ago grounding all 34 Beaver aircraft used by the Ontario department of lands and forests for firefighting. At the time 60 fires were raging in our forests and planes were in urgent need, so much so that two planes came from across the border to help, and they were Beaver aircraft. I would caution the minister to consider the consequences before issuing such orders. He might well have jeopardized the lives of many people.


Robert Muir: Since the hour is getting rather late I shall be as brief as I can, but I would like to say a few words in regard to the forests in the Atlantic region. The forestry resources of the maritime provinces are one of the most important assets in our area, and it was a significant step taken by the former Conservative administration to establish the Department of Forestry. It was also welcome news to learn at that time that Hon. Hugh John Flemming had consented to assume

Interim Supply
the duties related to the formation of this department. I feel certain that the present minister owes him a great debt of gratitude for the outstanding job he did in establishing the department in the efficient and effective manner that is so evident today.
Soon after the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton assumed the duties associated with his position as minister of forestry, an article appeared in the Atlantic Advocate in which he presented some of his views as to the value of forestry in the Atlantic region. Among other interesting things which he said, and there was a lot of good material in it, he said this:
The Atlantic provinces are fortunate in having 80 million acres of forest. Practically all of it is accessible. About three quarters of the timber is softwood and suitable for the manufacture of pulp and paper.
This asset is of special importance to the Atlantic provinces in view of their ideal location as a base for export to world markets.
Did the hon. member for Kootenay East have something to say?


Mr. Byrne:: There is not as much soft wood as there are soft heads on that side of the house.


Robert Muir: On the question of soft heads, I am sure the hon. member is an authority. However he will have an opportunity to make his own speech, and for the moment I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to tell him to remain seated on what little brains he has.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton continued:
This asset is of special importance to the Atlantic provinces in view of their ideal location as a base for export to world markets. No tariff of importance operates against pulp or paper in the export markets; and economists have forecast that the world demand for these products will double in the next 25 years or less.
Further down in the article, the hon. gentleman had this to say:
With an assured supply of raw materials and the opportunity for continued expansion it is not surprising that the forest industries in the Atlantic provinces play an important role in the regional economy.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: He is reading somebody else's speech.


An hon. Member:: They do not care about Nova Scotia.


Robert Muir: Undoubtedly the hon. member for Kootenay East has a very loud voice, but I doubt whether he has a strong voice in the present government, even though he is a parliamen-

tary secretary. I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will ask him to close the wide vacant space in his face until I have finished these remarks. My time is very limited so I hope he will allow me to continue, and then say his own little piece when he has an opportunity.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Finish reading your speech.


Robert Muir: Extensive forestry resources are to be found in the provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, in both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia these resources are easily accessible, and therefore have much greater potential from the development point of view.
At the same time, one of the important aspects associated with forestry is the conservation measures that must be adopted if we are to be able to have the assurance that depletion and wholesale exploitation will not be the end result, with a most necessary and desirable industry disappearing from our area. Better forestry management practices must come and these can only be brought about through educating the population in the provinces in good forestry practices, and through legislation which places restrictions on the manner in which the products from the forests are utilized.
I was interested to note the comments in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald yesterday, July 28, by Nova Scotia's minister of lands and forests, Hon. E. D. Haliburton, who is reported as saying: "The Nova Scotia government is concerned about the quality of forest management on the province's crown lands." He had a good deal more to say, but I have no time to place it all on record. However, I have no doubt it would be of interest to members of this committee and I would refer them to the article in question.
We have the good fortune on Cape Breton island to have seen established in recent years the Nova Scotia Pulp Company which has been utilizing the products of our forests in Nova Scotia, especially from the island of Cape Breton. At the same time we have seen an increasing emphasis on the exporting of lumber to markets overseas. This has resulted in added employment for the people of my area. We have also seen the development of a forestry program by the government of Nova Scotia, in co-operation with the Department of Forestry in Ottawa, initiated during the period when the Conservative party held office, to have the double-barrelled effect of utilizing our forests to the greatest possible

degree and providing employment to displaced miners thrown out of work by the actions of the Dominion Coal Company. This program has proven to be highly successful, to the degree that this government has adopted the program established by the former Conservative administration. However, substantial delays in reaching agreement with the province of Nova Scotia have been evident since this government assumed office. I would like to hear an explanation from the Minister of Forestry as to why these delays have occurred, in view of statements by Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia that his government is ready and willing to proceed at any time on the basis of the agreement originally reached by the former administration and his government. Certainly hardships were created because of the dilatory attitude of this government in arriving at an agreement with the government of Nova Scotia.
The people of my area and the people of Cape Breton generally are now facing further serious problems as the result of the intended action of a coal operator to curtail coal mining operations on Cape Breton island. The end result can only be more unemployment, hardship and poverty unless immediate action is taken by this government to initiate programs which will provide employment for those thrown out of work. Certainly one of the programs that would assist in this regard would be increased emphasis on the forestry program already in effect. In this regard, I might say that officials of the united mine workers of America will be meeting with Premier Stanfield tomorrow, and among the matters to be discussed is the forest stand improvement program for displaced or unemployed miners. Associated with this forest stand improvement, in my opinion steps should be taken by the present minister to establish a forestry research station on Cape
29, 1964	6155
Business of the House
Breton island. This research station would be designed to increase forest research work throughout the Atlantic provinces. Not only would this station involve itself with the conservation of all of our forest resources but it would also endeavour to increase production and develop new products. It would also endeavour to carry out an educational program in our public schools which would make our young people more aware of the potential of this primary product and provide them with a better appreciation for the utilization of it. It should also endeavour to exert influence on the private owners, both large and small, of our forest lands so that they might better appreciate the importance of conservation and the revitalization of our forest lands.
In conclusion, may I extend to the Minister of Forestry a very cordial invitation to visit Cape Breton island as soon as he can, and see for himself what has been accomplished through the forest stand program. As a result of what he sees he will possibly be more encouraged to establish the forest research station which I have suggested. I thank the rest of the committee for the kindness they have shown in listening to me and, of course, I thank the hon. member for Kootenay East.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the acting leader of the house if the program remains unchanged as far as the business of the house is concerned?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Yes. We will continue with interim supply, and when that is concluded the bill on fiscal relations, and then the flag debate.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
6157
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 30, 1964