1964-05-26

LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he would make arrangements immediately to have the maritime union trustees appear before the standing committee on industrial relations, in order to give that committee the story on what has transpired up to now and so the trustees can be subjected to questioning.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be seeing the trustees later today and I will raise this question with them.


Michael Starr: Could not the minister be more specific, in view of the fact that one of those trustees, Mr. Millard, has appeared before certain members of the New Democratic party? Other members of the House of Commons should be given a resume of what has transpired in the work of the trustees.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that any such meeting had taken place, but I will raise the question my hon. friend has mentioned, namely the appearance of the trustees before a committee of the house.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As someone who is not aware of the allegation made by the hon. member for Ontario, I wonder whether the minister would consider really moving on the suggestion made by that hon. member, as it would help to clear up not only the one question but also the matter of whether Mr. Millard did meet with members of this party.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, I have raised this question more than once with the chairman of the board of trustees and with at least one other member, and the view taken at that time by the chairman and members of the board was that an appearance before a parliamentary committee, where they would have to discuss their activities in detail and in public, might
prejudice the work of the board. I will raise the question again with the trustees and see whether the intervening passage of time has changed that particular consideration.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the report in the Globe and Mail this morning by Mr. Wilfred List stating, among other things, that Mr. Millard recently met the parliamentary caucus of the New Democratic party to explain the position of the trustees, would the minister not consider that the other members of this house also have a right to meet with the trustees?


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the statement just referred to by the hon. member for Ontario is completely inaccurate. Mr. Millard has never met with the caucus of the New Democratic party. I do not know where the report came from, but I want to assure the house that the report is completely incorrect.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because in two ways I am indirectly concerned in a previous question. I want to make it clear as deputy chairman of the caucus of our group that Mr. Millard has never met with us. In addition I wish to speak as national vice president of the New Democratic party and as such I am, I presume, a responsible officer of that party. Mr. Millard has never met with our political party in any way whatsoever.



GREAT LAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to answer a question I asked him regarding the "do not ship" list and, in particular, the position of one Jacques Savard who claims he was denied employment because his name was on that list.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I promised the right hon. gentleman that I would get this information for him, and I now want to tell the house that the case of Mr. Jacques Savard has been brought to the attention of the board of trustees.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I am informed by the trustees that Mr. Savard has been interviewed and has been advised to make application to the maritime appeals board established to consider such cases. The trustees have also stated that they are prepared to assist Mr. Savard in bringing his appeal before this board.


John George Diefenbaker: Have there been any further examinations made to ascertain whether the "do not ship" list is still in effect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In conjunction with the information provided in this case the trustees have stated once again that there is no "do not ship" list physically in existence. The only record which the trustees have of persons previously included on this list is that available from the Norris commission. The trustees have written to all those whose addresses could be located, offering their assistance to such persons.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question with reference to the statement he made the other day to the effect that workers desiring to move from one part of Canada to another should be given financial assistance irrespective of whether or not they are moving from a labour surplus area to a labour deficiency area. Does the minister intend to introduce legislation regarding this matter at this session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the question of labour mobility I ventured the view that careful consideration ought to be given to widening the basis upon which assistance should be given to unemployed workers. I suggested that we in the Department of Labour were at present considering a wider method of assisting unemployed workers, but no decision has been reached. The matter is under consideration.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour along the same lines as that of the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam. In the minister's contemplated and Gordones-que migration of workers, has he any special plans for quick action on the 72,000 jobs needed in the Atlantic region?


Mr. Speaker:: I realize the great importance of this question, but would the hon. member put it on the order paper.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, to return to things more mundane may I ask the Prime Minister whether there has been a determination by the cabinet as to the design of the flag that is going to be submitted to the house, and when he intends to place the resolution on the order paper.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there will be a resolution in Votes and Proceedings tomorrow morning which, among other things, will describe in some detail the design of the proposed flag to be submitted to parliament. To assist hon. members and as a convenience to them, at the time the resolution appears on the order paper there will be a pictorial description of the flag which will be circulated to all hon. members.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that action on the part of the Prime Minister, so we are going to be let in on the secret. May I ask him, then, what is the general plan of the government regarding debate on this matter? Will it be proceeded with at once or will it be delayed? I think the house and the country would like very much to have the Prime Minister tell us what is going to be done about it, after we see this pictorial obsession produced.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the resolution will be on the order paper on Thursday and it can then be called, I take it, by the government at any time. It is proposed to give hon. members a few days to consider the resolution and then to proceed to introduce the resolution, I would hope within a matter of a few days after that.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
Could he inform the house as to whether his office, the government or the Liberal party had one or more gallup polls carried out on the question of the flag?
If so, would he kindly communicate the results to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken no poll of this kind, nor do I know of any poll taken by any party.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister on the flag. I wonder if the Prime

Minister will advise if it is intended in the resolution respecting the flag to provide for the conjoint flying of the red ensign, thus satisfying first the premier of Newfoundland and second the concept of co-operative federalism.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will wait until tomorrow morning he will have a chance to see exactly what is in the resolution.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question on the flag. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether instructions have now been given to any government department to manufacture anything in the form of the Pearson pennant?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Should the Pearson pennant be adopted, will he carry out an educational program in those countries where Canadian peace troops are serving, so that our troops would not be fired upon, in view of the fact that foreign countries might-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Should parliament adopt a distinctive national flag, could the Prime Minister tell the house if the cabinet will abolish the 1945 order in council which established the red ensign as a flag?

Yes or no?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not in order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The question is most important, because we think the government is about to give Canada two flags, which is a stupid thing. We would have one for week days and the other for Sundays.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. He referred earlier today to a pictorial representation of the flag the government is recommending, which is to be distributed to members. Will this be printed on paper only, or is the government considering providing us with a 20220-228
Inquiries of the Ministry specimen of the flag so we can see what it looks like as a flag when it hangs from a mast?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is appearing on paper to assist hon. members in their consideration of the resolution. If members, having had a look at it on paper, would like it in some other form we should be glad to oblige.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the fact that we have two flags mean that the government adopts two national anthems?
Yes or no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there can be only one national flag, and I am sorry my hon. friend is not going to support us in getting one.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Could the minister tell us if, while conferring with the United Nations secretary general, U Thant, the matter of Canada's participation to a peace force in Viet Nam was discussed? If so, could he tell us what are Canada's commitments in that regard?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed many things generally, but as there is no definite proposal before the security council, I think it might be better to wait and see what happens. If we know of a proposal, we will consider it.


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether parliament will be consulted before Canada reaches a decision about sending a peace keeping force to Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there has been no question for the moment of a definite proposal, but I am convinced that parliament would have some responsibilities to assume in that event.

Inquiries of the Ministry


CYPRUS-EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF COMMITMENT OF CANADIAN FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders oi the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the Secretary oi State for External Affairs tell us whether the secretary general of the United Nations, U Thant, has asked him to extend the mandate of the Canadian forces for a three month period, as previously agreed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We did not discuss the matter during our talks.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask if he will give me an answer to my question of last week, as to whether the government has yet decided on the reappointment of Mr. Alistair MacArthur to the unemployment insurance commission.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the matter is presently under consideration, and no decision has been reached.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Because the flag debate has come to our knowledge since May 15, when the Prime Minister gave us the list of business for this part of the session, could he at an early date make a statement giving us the actual priorities so we will know what are the items of business we should give our attention to in the next few weeks, and so that we will know where the Canada pension plan will be in that list of priorities?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very good suggestion, and perhaps a convenient and useful time would be next Monday or Tuesday.


Harold Edward Winch: As
a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, in order to expedite the business 
of the House of Commons and the legislation he wants put through the house, at an early date will he place the legislation on the order paper so members can read it, understand it, and be prepared to discuss it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think there are between 15 and 20 items on the order paper now.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Fowler committee terms of reference do not include the study of cable television, would the minister now consider removing the freeze that he placed on this industry as of December 31 last?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State indicated in his statement yesterday, it is the intention of the government to make an announcement very shortly about this subject, and I cannot anticipate it.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. According to today's issue of the Globe and Mail there is a large shipment of eggs to arrive in Canada from England. Could the minister advise the house as to what type of eggs these are, and for what purpose are they being imported?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize the urgency of the question, but I would like to be in a position to hear the answer.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the report but I would be glad to check into it. I know that an hon. member from Saskatchewan-I just forget which constituency -is quite concerned about eggs in Saskatchewan, and I think probably we should be bringing them from that province. We will take a good look at the matter.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: 
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: I cannot but repeat the statement which I have made in the house on two or three occasions: The north Pacific treaty matter will be brought before the standing committee on marine and fisheries as soon as our negotiations are complete and before acceptance or ratification by the government.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choqueiie (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production. It is an urgent question since the St. Sylvestre radar station is going to be closed without delay. I ask the minister whether he intends, in anticipation of the establishment of an economic industry, to let the equipment on the station go at a nominal price?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: On advice, may I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise that question after ten o'clock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is there in progress at the present time in the United States a major military exercise called "Desert Strike" and are members of the Canadian armed forces there now as observers?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I will take the question as notice.
20220-228i
Eastern Agricultural Assistance EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On May 14, which was the day the Prime Minister announced the amount of the federal contribution to the Alberni valley and west coast disaster fund, he informed me that he would be glad to consider taking some steps to assist the committee in increasing the amount of the voluntary contributions. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continuing need for an increase in this fund, he would be willing to take some steps, such as appearing on a national television appeal, in order to bring to the attention of Canadians everywhere the continuing need for assistance in the rehabilitation of the tidal wave disaster victims.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Bring out that old film.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to appear on such a program in such a good cause; indeed I would be glad to appear on a program at any time.

The house resumed, from Monday, May 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hamilton.



LACK OF ACTION TO ASSIST EASTERN AGRICULTURE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, last evening at ten o'clock I had just started to speak on the supply motion, particularly with reference to agriculture. In review I might say that I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that in order to have a healthy agricultural economy, not only has it to be healthy in western Canada but it must also be healthy in eastern Canada. You cannot have two distinct programs; you must have one national program.
I was dealing particularly with an important question. I said that I did not think we should be critical unless we would be constructive. I pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture through you, Mr. Speaker-and I am glad to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his seat today-that with Russia we had one of the most economic contracts for the sale of western wheat which we ever had, outside of the one with China. I said to the minister that I thought it was regrettable we did not have the facilities in

Eastern Agricultural Assistance this country, particularly the railway facilities-I wonder whether we could have a little order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am finding it very difficult to hear the interesting remarks of the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Coming back to what I was saying, it is rather regrettable that a country which favours not only an agricultural industry but also an industrial economy did not have the facilities either through the railroads or at our ports or otherwise to move grain to Russia. When this government was elected they said they were going to be a government of action, and I maintain that if they had got busy with the railroads and the farm organizations, the pools of western Canada and the line companies which purchase our grain at local elevator level, and make certain those facilities were such as to move the grain off western Canadian farms, we could have supplied the grain to Russia instead of letting the United States do it. When these negotiations were first entered into the United States was against selling wheat to those people who were living behind the iron curtain. It was only after we were unable to complete our contract or fulfil the demands of Russia that the United States stepped into the picture and was able to take a big slice of the contract which might have gone to the farmers of western Canada.
My charge to the government is that although the wheat board has done a good job and has co-operated throughout the years to sell grain for the western farmers, this government has been irresponsible in that it did not get the facilities ready to deliver that grain. As I said last night, I maintain that when the law of supply and demand operates then there is prosperity on the farms of Canada, whether they be in western Canada or in eastern Canada.
I think the main reason these facilities were not ready was the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the government first took office. What was that position? I set it out very clearly last evening. The position was that the government told the farmers of western Canada that the former minister of agriculture, who is in his place today and who told the farmers to grow grain so they could meet the demands of Russia and China, was "all wet". They said that the farmers should not have been encouraged to grow grain because there would be a large surplus.
I should like to quote from the Winnipeg Free Press for September 23 last so as to put the exact words on the record. Under the
[Mr. WoolUams.l
heading "Wheat curb urged" the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture are reported as follows:
Mr. Sharp said the Soviet sale did not change the advice he gave last spring that Canadian farmers should grow less wheat and more of other kinds of crops.
Mr. Hays said farmers should cut their wheat acreage and turn to crops like feed grains. A 10 per cent reduction in wheat acreage, he said, would put Canadian wheat production back in the 500 million bushels a year range-
In other words those two ministers took the position that even with a contract with Russia and a contract with China there was going to be a surplus of grain. The fact is that if we had fulfilled the contract that Russia would have liked to sign with this country, fulfilled the obligation with Russia under the contract we already had, and had had the facilities to deliver this grain, there would have been a great boom in the agricultural industry of this country.
I do not know how the minister can now reconcile his position. He was shortsighted. He was irresponsible. He was not aware of the situation when he spoke to the farmers on that occasion, not only in Edmonton but in Moose Jaw and throughout western Canada. I should like to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture explain their positions.
Today they would like to take the credit. I noticed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce went to Los Angeles recently. I do not know whether he was in Hollywood, but he made a speech claiming that these large wheat sales which he was putting through were a great thing. When we on this side of the house were on the other side of the house we were told these contracts were the wheat board's contracts. He was the one who criticized them, who told the farmers to produce smaller crops; and today, of course, now that we have a boom they are endeavouring to take the credit for it. I do not think he will be able to pull the blinds over the eyes of the western farmers. I do not think Mr. Buckwold, the mayor of Saskatoon, will ever get into the cabinet, because the people of western Canada will know exactly what the situation is. I suppose because they have tried to bribe the voters before they will try to bribe them again, but it would seem to me that the people of Saskatoon, and particularly the farmers surrounding that area, will know the true picture and will know who really implemented a national agricultural policy in this country.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture, who has done a lot of travelling since he took that portfolio, to stand in his place when I have finished talking and name one piece of useful legislation he has placed on the statute

books for the farmers. The answer is that he has placed nothing on the statute books. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the wheat board has served the farmers well, but as far as the grain growers and agriculture are concerned, this government are most irresponsible. I am laying before the house the facts about this government this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: A government of retreat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a government of retreat, but unfortunately with regard to agriculture they have nothing from which to retreat, because they have done nothing.


Mr. Sharp:: Just the greatest year in Canadian history.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce come to life, because he puts me in mind of that advertisement for blue blades. They used to say "Be sharp and look sharp". Today I do not know whether we can be sharp or look sharp because everybody is using Wilkinson's blades-and everybody out in western Canada is going to vote Conservative.


Mitchell William Sharp: Just like they did in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Greene:: I didn't think you were old enough to shave.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I heard one of my friends say that he didn't think I was old enough to shave. I will tell him that when he appears before the Liberal convention in Ontario he will have the closest shave he has ever had.


Mr. Benidickson:: He might win.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to quote from the Toronto Star of September 23, 1963. Let us see what they have to say. I mention the Winnipeg Free Press and the Toronto Star because I think they would report the facts regarding these ministers very accurately:
Last July Mr. Sharp suggested in Edmonton that wheat acreage might be reduced. "I would think", he said, "that foreseeable demand for our wheat can be satisfied from smaller acreage-
The reason he is telling the farmers to grow smaller acreage is that he knows the facilities of his department are inadequate; he knows that the Minister of Agriculture, who went to Russia, did nothing to stimulate a contract, and they are not capable of doing the job. I charge them with their lack of responsibility in this connection. As far as the western farmers are concerned, I know he has been played up as a great Liberal hero, but the fact is that both those ministers should resign; they are irresponsible as far as a program for agriculture is concerned.
Eastern Agricultural Assistance
I would now like to come to another matter, Mr. Speaker. One of the most confusing things for anybody in the opposition is to ascertain who is really looking after the agriculture portfolio. We all know how some of these ministers come to grips with subjects. I have here a copy of last night's Citizen. I can understand the headline because we have seen many of these headlines in regard to a very unusual committee. I am glad to see one of the members of that committee sitting in the front row opposite-he is generally in the back row- because I know he will be interested in this subject. The headline says, "Beer parlour socialists not wanted". This statement was made by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), and I am sure the hon. member will be interested in hearing this.


John James Greene: I haven't heard anything yet.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This article says:
"We have to work through political parties".
Describing himself as one of the "real socialists". Mr. Sauve poured scorn on socialist theorists who are "arguing all the time and don't know what the real problems are".
He took up the theme of his complaint about this matter and said he was a "real socialist". I remember I once made a speech in which I said birds of a feather flock together and birds of certain other feathers roost together. Now these birds are beginning to show their true feathers in the House of Commons. They are the great socialists. We have finally smoked them out. As the hon. member for Kootenay West-


An hon. Member:: What about Fairweather?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, he had a lot to say
and they were very complimentary about Mr. Fairweather. I refer to the Citizen. The hon. member for Kootenay West said that the Minister of Agriculture, who has nothing to look after, was a free enterpriser and would be such even after the resurrection; but the other minister is a socialist, and they do not know how deep the roots run. That is exactly what the Citizen said in its article. I do not think he challenged the Citizen.
So, Mr. Speaker, how do the farmers know where they are going? Do they believe they are going to be under the regimentation of the socialist who really holds the power in that department or, under the free and fancy programs which have not yet been administered by the Minister of Agriculture, who is a free enterpriser? Are they going to be under the regimentation of the socialist or under the free enterpriser? I say, Mr. Speaker, they are a two flag government and they are a two flag party in regard to the Department of Agriculture. But under one of those ensigns there is one man with the power-and that is the socialist-and the

Eastern Agricultural Assistance free enterpriser from Calgary has been pushed out; he has nothing to take care of. That is the situation.
My final charge to the Minister of Trade and Commerce is briefly this; that no matter how he tries to dish it up, he can never take credit for the prosperity on the western farms as far as the sale of grain is concerned. First of all he told the farmers they were wrong to grow it; he told them not to grow any more, and when it finally fell in his lap he said it was an accident. I say to him that it was an accident that he arrived on that side of the house, but it will not be an accident when he returns to the proper side of the house, if he ever does return.


Mitchell William Sharp: Which side is that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say that because the policies with regard to agriculture are the same kind of policies that this government are trying to implement in other departments, and they do nothing to help the situation. What have they done for eastern agriculture? What have they done for the eastern farmers? Nothing. Any time the Minister of Agriculture swells with pride he does so because he is speaking about the legislation which the Conservatives put on the statute books of this country.


William Moore Benidickson: And did nothing about it


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The operation of that
legislation put on the statute books by the Conservatives has done a great deal in improving agriculture in this country. Let us get down to brass tacks. When it comes to exporting grain-and we are going to hear a great deal about this-in 1962-63 we exported about 357 million bushels; that is flour and wheat together. In 1961 we exported 353 million bushels; in 1960 we exported almost 300 million bushels. We can only keep that quantity moving if the facilities of this country are such that we can move the grain off the farms-


Mitchell William Sharp: How much this year?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know, but I am coming to that.


Mitchell William Sharp: Five hundred and fifty million bushels.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce how much was sold under the Russian contract and he kept saying it was against public policy to tell us. We cannot find out unless we read newspapers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
An hon. Member:: And empty heads.


Mr. Haidasz:: What a lot of verbal diarrhoea.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That may be true; if there is one man who knows anything about diarrhoea, you would understand. I would not have used the word diarrhoea, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member is a specialist on diarrhoea; that is his profession. On those words, Mr. Speaker, I rest my case.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in all humility I apologize for the member from Calgary on behalf of the people of Calgary.


An hon. Member:: He will look after himself.


Harry William Hays: I realize that he feels this way occasionally, but he is a pretty good friend of mine and he has said to me "Harry, don't take any notice of it; I have to say it in the house anyway but you know I don't mean it". First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the figures in so far as shipments of wheat from Canada are concerned. The all time high in wheat shipments out of Canada occurred in the year 1928-29.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


William Moore Benidickson: You are too late.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not too late. I want to say that the minister may have been right that we are friends, but I challenge him to say again in this house or outside of the house anything that he has said today. If he meant it as a joke let him come clean, because I have never said to the minister inside the house or outside the house that anything I say in the house he should take with a pinch of salt. I can say that I have respect for the community which has elected me twice as often as it has elected its former mayor. I say to him that if he knows what he is doing, then as a citizen of Calgary and the member for Calgary South, who had a very close shave and bought his way into the house, he will get up and apologize.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I understand that if any member of the house wishes to take the attitude that the hon. member for Bow River has taken, that is his privilege, and I have no recourse but to accept his statement. If I may continue with the wheat export figures, the all time high was 408 million bushels in the year 1928-29. To date we have exported 418 million bushels and we have two and a half more months to go. A year ago at the same time our exports were 255 million bushels. Remember those figures; 255 million bushels a year ago compared with 418 million bushels now.
I remember being on the west coast shortly after the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his visit there, when we learned that we must do something about the static condition in so far as shipments of wheat from the west coast were concerned. At that time the all time high was the unloading of 400 cars a day. It was not long before we had it up to 450 cars a day. We thought that was excellent. We were even more pleased when it reached 500 cars a day. We never thought it would get to 600 cars, but it has reached 650 cars a day.
By the first of August this year we will probably have exported in the neighbourhood of 600 million bushels of wheat. Add to this the 155 million bushels consumed in Canada and we come out with a figure of 755 million bushels. The all time high production was 723 million bushels of wheat last year. I think that pretty well takes care of the facts of the case, and I believe this government should be commended on the good job it has done. I am sure every farmer in Canada feels exactly the same way as the Russians, Chinese and other recipients of our grain.
The hon. member for Kootenay West made the comment last night that he now has a prize bull named Harry. I think that probably is a good name to give him if he is an active chap, and he probably is. At three o'clock this morning I telephoned the Minister of Forestry to ask him whether he wanted to come back to protect his ARDA program. He said "I do not think it will be necessary. All the farmers know about it, so I think I will not come back." My wife said to me, "To whom are you talking"? 1 said I had been talking to Sauve.
I said I was thinking about what the member for Kootenay West had said about me. I said "You remember the time we imported that highland cow from Scotland for which we paid $1,800". She had a bull calf and we took the bull calf back to western Canada. We did not want to expose him to any of the females and we did the necessary thing so that if he did jump the fence nothing would happen. We got to like him. He was
Eastern Agricultural Assistance a funny fellow. He was a little shaggy and did not do much, but we laughed at him. I said to my wife "I have been thinking that maybe we should call him Herbert, or Bert for short". She said "Well, I think that is a pretty good idea, but as he is such a nice, kindly old man why don't you call him after the old goat we have to keep the bulls from fighting?"
As Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, I wish as nearly as possible to answer all the questions that were raised yesterday concerning the Department of Agriculture, because farming is a very serious business. We have a great responsibility to the farmers of Canada, and 1 do not think we should take it lightly. I want to answer what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said about feed grains. My colleague the hon. member for Kings mentioned the matter, but I should like to go into a little more detail.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle referred to the feed grain policy which he said the previous government was ready to introduce at the time of the dissolution of parliament in 1963. I discussed the problem with farm organizations and found that they wanted a program which would ensure adequate supplies of feed grains in the east at prices which would not be affected by the close of navigation. I did not take long to appreciate that a program could readily be set up to do this very thing. The policy was announced on August 22, four months after we took office.
This was the policy under which the government reimbursed holders of western feed grains in eastern position for the winter carrying charges. As a result of this policy there were 30.8 million bushels of western oats, barley and feed wheat in eastern elevators at the close of navigation last year compared with 21.2 million bushels at the close of navigation in 1962, an increase of 9 million bushels. On May 13 this year there were 8.7 million bushels in eastern position compared with 6.7 million bushels a year ago.
I tabled in the house previously figures showing the manner in which this policy resulted in western feed grain prices staying uniform throughout the whole winter. The figures I tabled and which I am going to repeat now were assembled from the actual invoices of sales which are filed with the department under the freight assistance policy. These show that from October last year to April this year the average weighted price at Montreal of oats and barley shipped to retailers changed hardly at all. In October last year it was $2.44 per hundredweight for oats, and over the succeeding months it

Eastern Agricultural Assistance has varied from a low of $2.42, which was in April, to a high of $2.47. This is a very minor spread, I am sure.
The same thing has happened with barley prices. The average weighted wholesale price of barley, based again on the actual claims filed with the department, was $2.48 per hundredweight last October. The price in the succeeding months has never gone above that and, in fact, in April it was only $2.38.
Without this storage assistance policy it is very doubtful if we would have had the volume of feed grains in eastern Canada which we did have during the past winter and, based on previous years, we could have expected by April an increase of 17 cents a hundredweight in the price of oats compared to last fall and an increase of 13 cents in the price of barley, based on storage charges alone, plus any changes that may have occurred in the market due to short supplies.
Present indications are that this assistance policy will cost about $1 million, and I may say that this has been money very well spent because, in addition to the benefits which I have just reviewed, eastern and British Columbia livestock and poultry producers have used approximately 500,000 tons more Canadian feed grains this past year than they did during the previous year.
We have heard a great deal from the official opposition about what they intended to do about an eastern feed grain policy, but the fact is that nothing was done. The steps taken by this government last summer have contributed very substantially to improving both the supply position and the stabilization of prices over the winter months. This has been accomplished despite the very heavy pressure on both supplies and facilities occasioned by the immense overseas wheat movement.
The former minister of agriculture mentioned something about dairy policy. However, before I deal with dairy policy, I may say he referred to the fact that the previous government had a whole agriculture policy. I have been through the office and I have been through every drawer, but I cannot find it. If they had one they have taken it away with them, because I cannot find it.
As I say, the former minister mentioned dairy products. Several times during agricultural debates here it has been charged that savings have been made in the cost of the dairy support program at the expense of the dairy farmer. Any examination of the facts will show that this is not the case, but rather the moves that have been made have been a rationalization of the program with a transfer of part of the costs from the taxpayer to the actual buyer of the products. The only exception to this was the step

taken a year ago, a step which had been forecast by the previous government, to reduce the assistance previously given to fluid milk producers. Even here certain measures taken have been of assistance to this part of the industry.
To put this matter in perspective, let us look at the suggestion which has been made here that the $3.5 million saving which has been forecast this year will be at the expense of producers. This is obviously incorrect, since the support levels have not been changed and the $3.5 million represents entirely the saving of 1 cent per pound in the butter subsidy. Perhaps the best indication of the effects which the program changes have had on farmers' returns is the farm gate milk and butterfat prices recorded by the bureau of statistics. For the most recent month available, which is February, the average farm value of butterfat this year was 69.4 cents per pound, up 1.9 cents from a year ago. Cheese milk was $2.87 per hundredweight, up 7 cents from last year. Milk for concentration and ice cream was $2.85, up 15 cents from a year ago.
It has been suggested that changing the cheese subsidy from 30 cents per hundredweight of milk to 3.6 cents per pound for first grade Cheddar cheese is a backward step and that it will reduce producer returns. For Canada as a whole, based on the per cent of first grade cheese produced and the average yield per hundredweight of milk, the 3.6 cents subsidy is equivalent to 30.5 cents per hundredweight of milk. While it is true that there are some plants whose production of first grade cheese is below the national average, I am confident that the present program will provide an incentive to improve cheese quality and will provide a basis for the payment to producers for cheese milk on a quality basis. I think it is important to point out that there are cheese factories which consistently produce less than 60 per cent first grade cheese.
Some members have suggested that a lowering of the export assistance on cheese would adversely affect our markets abroad. Changes in the export assistance have only been made as market conditions in the importing countries warranted it. Last year the assistance on cheese was reduced by 1 cent and export markets absorbed this difference. Exports last dairy year were 31.2 million pounds compared to 27.4 million pounds the year before.
I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle that we have not yet reached a final solution in regard to a dairy policy. It does seem to me, however, that rising producer returns, increasing consumption, greater exports and decreasing stocks are a distinct

improvement over the mounting surpluses which faced us when we came into office.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle referred to a water policy for eastern Canada similar to the P.F.R.A. in western Canada. Under ARDA we have been carrying forward an aggressive water policy in eastern Canada. In Quebec we have entered into agreements with the province for 82 drainage and channel improvement projects at a total cost to the federal government of $1,169,000. I might say that this is almost the amount that had been spent on this program in all the previous years. In Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick we are participating with the provinces in community and farm pond programs and in open ditch drainage and channel improvement projects. The total contribution to these projects by the federal government to date is $223,000. In Ontario we are participating in a complete soil and conservation project for the Whiteman creek watershed which is part of the area coming under the Grand river conservation authority. The total contribution to this project is $223,000.
In addition to these active conservation programs we are engaged in several water resources projects. We are doing a ground water resource inventory in the Annapolis valley of Nova Scotia and in the Big creek watershed in Norfolk county in Ontario. We have a project which is being carried out by the Ontario water resources commission for a surface of water resources survey in irrigation and other rural uses in southwestern Ontario. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the engineering assistance of M.M.R.A. is being redirected to cover a comprehensive watershed protection and development plan for the Musquodoboit river in Nova Scotia and the Kennebecasis river in New Brunswick.
The hon. member also mentioned that he had planned a livestock policy. It is my contention that the most immediate need of the Canadian livestock industry is to put itself in a position to better meet competition, both internally and abroad. This, I believe, can best be done through increasing the efficiency of our basic flocks and herds, whether by decreasing the amount of feed required to produce a pound of beef, a pound of pork, a dozen eggs or a pound of chicken, or by increasing the rate of gain of the animals or rate of lay of the birds.
The approach to this problem is manyfold, but fundamental to it all is the need for active, accurate and expanding testing programs. Canada has always had an excellent record of performance program for dairy cattle. I should like to digress here a little by stating that 42 countries recognize that
Eastern Agricultural Assistance Canada has the finest dairy cattle in the world. They have recognized this for something like 40 years. I come back now to the fact that Canada has always had an excellent record of performance program for dairy cattle. On taking office we were confronted with a backlog of applications from 115 farmers who, because of the staffing situation within the record of performance organization, were unable to avail themselves of this excellent program. This was immediately corrected.
Testing programs must, however, be reinforced and complemented by research programs having in mind the over-all objectives that I have just outlined. In order to do this we are reassessing the emphasis in livestock and poultry research programs. A further step in such a national program is to ensure that the benefits that can accrue from such programs are brought rapidly and strongly to the attention of livestock producers. Possibly the best forum for this would be the many fairs and exhibitions at which livestock of all classes are exhibited.
Over the years livestock classifications have tended to move away from utility factors. A definite step has been taken to reorient livestock classifications through the establishment for the current year of a pilot project at certain fairs. This project will provide the basis for a major change in the assistance program to fairs and exhibitions and will ensure that utility and efficiency assume their rightful place in the evaluation of our livestock.
Now, Mr. Speaker, another project which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned as having been in his party's plans, but which had not been introduced, was a fertilizer policy. As hon. members know, there are some agricultural matters which are attended to by the federal government and some which are attended to by the provinces. Matters such as fertilizer assistance have always been regarded as a field of provincial activity. The province of Quebec has had a fertilizer assistance program for a number of years, on which they spend between $2.5 million and $3 million annually.
There have been suggestions from time to time in the house that much more is being done for western agriculture than for eastern agriculture. I think it would be desirable to put some figures on the record to illustrate that these suggestions are not correct. For example, in the fiscal year 1963-64 payments under the various deficiency payment programs of the agricultural stabilization board totalled $31.8 million in eastern Canada and $10.3 million in western Canada. On butterfat alone, Quebec farmers received $14.3 million and Ontario farmers $9.6 million, which is a


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I could not attend yesterday's debate on agriculture, because of a death in my constituency. But, when I returned to the federal capital this morning, I read the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), in which he voiced his opinion on Canadian eastern agriculture. The speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle shows that the former minister of agriculture has the interest of farmers at heart, especially those of eastern Canada to whom we will have to pay special attention during the next few weeks in order to raise their standard of living.
However, I was astonished-and this will surely vex eastern farmers-to see that the leader of the house and leader of Quebec Liberals was opposed to the discussion by
Eastern Agricultural Assistance the house of the very delicate and complex question of eastern agriculture. I think this matter should be debated so that the government may not only resort to long sentences and put resolutions on the order paper but find concrete solutions to the problems of eastern farmers.
When I think that, during the next general election campaign, those very same Quebec Liberal members will come to that province to boast of Liberal government achievements and tell the farmers that the Liberal party has done much for them, I am sure that they will not boast of the stand taken by their own leader, for he was opposed to the debate now going on in the house. In fact as recorded on page 3544 of Hansard, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) stated:
-dealt squarely and completely with all policies relating to ARDA, and therefore to eastern agriculture.
As if eastern agriculture were limited and come only under ARDA.
The minister concluded his remarks by saying:
For that reason, I suggest respectfully that the amendment ought to be declared out of order.
Mr. Speaker, we have responsibilities to carry out and, since the government of the day has been in power for a full year, we should like to ask all hon. members, regardless of where they sit in the house, whether they sincerely feel that the members of the government have fulfilled their duties as legislators and whether they have really done something for eastern agriculture. I am convinced that not one hon. member can trust the present government, because it has done nothing whatsoever for eastern agriculture, and I am going to prove this point.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) tried to prove a while ago that the dairy program he announced on April 29 last was an improvement. He said for instance that 3.6 cents a pound would be given on first quality cheese, and that represented 31 cents per cent. By this statement, he proved the point I put forward last year and which I continue to maintain, that the farmer has not received the money he should have per cwt. of milk which he shipped to the cheese factories last year.
If 3.6 cents a pound are equivalent to a 31 cent increase per cwt. of milk, when the minister tells us that milk was sold to cheese factories 7 cents per cwt. more than the previous year, he should know that last year the price of cheese was, according to figures published in the report on dairy products market by the Department of Agriculture for the months of May, June and July, 34.6 cents, 34.2 cents and 35.2 cents, while it was

Eastern Agricultural Assistance may convince the federal government to accept that legislation. If we succeed, we will have performed our duty and made progress in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, if western farmers have deemed it advisable to set up the Canadian wheat board to look after their interests, the farmers, millers and co-operatives of eastern Canada can do likewise to look after their interests, so that they may play their part as suppliers of food to mankind.
What amazes me is that members of the present government said in the province of Quebec during the last election campaign that they had passed this resolution. They claimed they were the ones who would apply it. Why then this reluctance to go any further today and to really tackle the problem? Farmers themselves wonder whether some interests are preventing the government from doing so.
On October 15, 1963,1 said this in the house:
Where are we, today, October 15, 1963? Are there interested people who do not want that legislation put on our statute books? Those are questions that farmers we meet ask themselves.
On that date, I directed that question to the government, and today, I am asking all the members of the house who are really familiar with this feed grain problem and have met farmers and millers-as I have all during this winter-to tell the committee-if such a committee is again instituted-what they really think about it, to study this question objectively, in order to arrive at this solution which, in my opinion, is the only one deserving our attention, since it is the only one which will ensure final settlement of this question.
But, as far as we are concerned today, the non-confidence motion which was introduced by the member for Qu'Appelle and which I supported, to the effect that:
This house regrets the continuing failure of the government to take effective action with regard to the pressing agricultural problems of eastern Canada.
Well, this non-confidence motion should be adopted by the house, for we do not speak solely in our name but in the name of the farmers of eastern Canada. Everybody knows that, at the present time, they are disappointed and I wish that Liberal members could meet the farmers, in their own constituency and in others, to discuss objectively all that they think about the present government because they would then state: "In the next election, we shall get rid of that government which heads the country." I hope the house will support that non-confidence motion.


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member permit me a question?


Clément Vincent: Yes.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member advocates the establishment of a board, of a grain agency for eastern Canada. Now, is he able to tell me whether he was in perfect agreement with the leader of his party and with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he made that suggestion?


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, what I suggested-


Auguste Choquette: I ask the hon. member whether the right hon. member for Prince Albert supports his suggestion?


Clément Vincent: What I have just suggested-


Auguste Choquette: Yes or no?


Clément Vincent: May I read a resolution passed unanimously at the last convention of the Conservative party, before all Conservative members representing eastern and western Canada, for it is the same country. I quote:
To enable the passing of legislation on sales in the east, to create a single authority for the purchase of feed grain, and second, to set up credit for the purchase of feed grain for our farmers.
That quotation should answer the question asked by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, since this means that all Conservative members wanted that legislation to be passed. That is why we intend to work, to discuss and to ask the government to pass it as soon as possible.


Auguste Choquette: Hence, all Conservative members are in favour of the establishment of an agency for the purchase of grain for eastern Canada? Is that what you mean?


Clément Vincent: Certainly.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere du Loup-Temiscouala):: Mr. Speaker, nobody will deny the importance of the farm problem in Canada itself, on the national as well as the international level.
On the international level, Senator Y. Coude de Foresto submitted to the NATO parliamentary conference a brief in which he pointed out that the 15 member nations of NATO are faced with similar problems in agriculture, namely the constant drift of people from rural areas, an increase in individual farm acreage, the ensuing disappearance of numerous farm jobs. Here is what he says on page 2 of his brief:
Better means of communication, automobile, radio, television, some progress (still not enough of course) towards equal education, have brought about clashes between agriculture and the other sectors of the economy. The rise of labour unions, co-operatives or mutual associations has shown the young farmers the value of number and the strength derived from unity and sometimes its corollary: the use of force to gain satisfaction.
Of course, it is not those indications at the international level which will remedy the

situation here. In our part of the country, in the east and especially in the province of Quebec, a revolution is going in our farming communities which, in days past, formed an autonomous parochial economy and tried to be self-sufficient. However, the advent of such means of communication as the radio, television and newspapers and the opening of roads have created completely different problems.
Nowadays, young farmers are no longer satisfied with living on the farm as their forefathers did; they want to enjoy all the advantages of modern society. But, at the same time, it is no longer as easy for them to be self-sufficient because they must take the money they make from the sale of their production to buy the consumer and other goods necessary to satisfy his needs.
It is there that is felt the great difference between the standard of living in industrialized areas and the one existing in farming areas. They are conscious of that fact and they are shocked.
We are witnessing-and you know it-an economic concentration in about 15 large cities across the country and a constant exodus of young men and women from rural areas. This is obviously creating serious economic, social and moral problems.
Those economic problems often force young men and women getting nowhere in their own areas to leave for the larger centres. They are faced with difficult problems because they are ill-prepared to earn a living and to contribute by their work to the normal development of the community in which they live.
On the other hand, the rural communities where this social haemorrhage is taking place are affected by the loss of their young men and women who could, if they had the opportunity to do so, contribute by their vitality, their energy and their work to the development of their community.
From a social and local point of view, we must remember that this emptying of all those parishes creates many serious problems, since people remaining have to pay for education, schools and local organizations, and they often are left with only the young and the old people, while those who could develop the community through their vitality and their work have to go elsewhere.
There is no need for me to emphasize the moral significance of this uprooting of people who, sometimes ill-prepared, in an environment unsuitable to them where they feel like strangers, encounter difficulties of all kinds for their own moral life.
Of course, the family is the natural basis of society; it is the mother-cell of society.
Eastern Agricultural Assistance We shall not add to our moral or to our material wealth by destroying the soundest cells of our society. Unfortunately, we sometimes see this evil developing like a cancer through an irrational and rapid development of certain sectors, thus destroying the healthier cells of our society.
This creates a number of problems for the underdeveloped areas which are asking for the tools that would further their development.
However, in accordance with the philosophy of economic liberalism, the first condition which is laid down is that it must be an economically sound proposition. Since that condition is not fulfilled, these areas are sometimes refused the tools which would contribute to lift them up from their economic misery.
I say that the agricultural problem has not only one solution in the remedies related to agriculture itself. The present government has put on the order paper a number of measures just waiting to be passed. Perhaps a greater contribution would be made by letting that legislation to be passed as quickly as possible rather than moving want of confidence motions.
I will not go into the details of all those measures. The minister himself explained them and other speakers have indicated to what extent the present government intends to contribute to the financing of farm properties or agricultural institutes, to assist farmers by means of a support price for milk, butter and other commodities and do some planning in the case of products that are difficult to sell, in short, how the government wants to encourage the production of other commodities which would boost our exports.
But I want to point out the fact that we will not find a definite solution to the farm problems without looking after the development of the whole territory of a region. And that is when the whole problem of an improved economic balance throughout the country arises: the need to bring back on their feet the distressed areas and to assist, as the present government is doing, those distressed areas which are grouping themselves and want to contribute to the solution of their problems.
Neither will there be one easy utopian solution for the farm problem. We shall have to group ourselves according to the various areas to find the true avocation of our communities and invite the whole population to work hard at its own development. And I would say that it is up to the communities to take the initiative and start this necessary economic re-grouping, with the assistance of local authorities and later, of the provincial and federal governments.

Eastern Agricultural Assistance
The point of knowing whether the matter of designating areas was under federal jurisdiction has been much discussed. Where were those who wondered whether this did not come under provincial jurisdiction. As for me, I say that we live under a democratic system and that it is, first of all, up to the various areas to group themselves and have those groups recognized by the higher authorities, taking into consideration the avocation and trend of the collectivities and have their suggestions approved by the higher authorities of this country, keeping, of course, in mind the latter's recommendations in this field.
There will have to be agreements to proceed with the inventory of our communities and at the same time projects will have to be started to make people wait patiently for the implementation of fully considered, long term schemes; it will be necessary also to canalize the clearly expressed local ambitions and hopes while neither minimizing nor spuming such hopes by trying to implement over-simplified solutions.
I say, borrowing Boussuet's words: "It is among the people that you will find plain common sense".
One has to attend the meetings of the economic guidance council of the lower St. Lawrence to see how interested our people are, how devoted and ready to co-operate in their own economic development.
But alone they will not be able to go against the very strong current I have mentioned before if they do not receive that sympathy which is given to a sick child who gets not only the medicine it needs but also the best food to restore him to health.
I do not accept the principle according to which, the rentability being the same, preference will be given to the setting up of industries in depressed areas.
It is like telling two children one of whom is healthy and the other crippled; first come first served. In such a way, the former would surely get fatter and the latter would only get weaker.
If economics only is laid down as basic principle, the vicious circle by which more is given to those who have already a lot, and nothing to those who do not have much, will be further emphasized.
However, if this principle of economics is not taken into consideration, this will open the door to numerous abuses. Hence the need, in order to intervene effectively, for area planning and justification for the creation of a rural development department. That is another government measure, which followed the establishment of the economic council and the Department of Industry, as well as the

adoption of a group of other pieces of legislation, designed to relieve underdeveloped areas, which proves the sincerity of the present government in its endeavour to better the lot of underdeveloped areas, especially the farmers.
It will be quite a challenge and quite a task for the department to put an end to unemployment in rural areas and, at the same time, to develop that territory, to set up industries related to agriculture-we will have to come to that if we are to provide a market for our agricultural products-and to process forest products locally. As forestry engineers pointed out in their brief to the Belanger commission, because there are no other resources, trees are being cut indiscriminately and forests are being spoiled to pay land taxes and other taxes whereas what we need at present is a long term reforestation policy.
The paradoxical situation of sailors throwing cargo overboard to save the ship is not uncommon. However, if we have set up an economic council, a Department of Industry, designated areas-the criteria and statistics used for the establishment of such areas should be revised-and the responsibility to deal with those problems, which they could not do successfully, will not rest only with that department but rather with all the departments, all the crown corporations and all governments at every level.
Individuals in society are not like potatoes in a bag. The rotten potato can be taken out to prevent it from corrupting the others. We know that society is constituted like the various limbs of the human body, in such a way that if one of those limbs gets sick, and if it is not nursed in time, the whole body is in danger. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied with global statistics and we must see to it that adequate remedies are applied to the affected limbs.
It is therefore necessary that all departments and all crown corporations be not partitioned, but agree that they can, while administering in the best possible way their own department, work in such a way that an appropriate decentralization should provide for the rehabilitation of areas which could, not only take care of themselves, but contribute to the general development of the country.
I say that, in any case, we will have to pay the bill for the progress or the recession, and we have no alternative. I think it is more pleasant and more profitable to supply the required tools, the organization which is essential to the development of resources, and invest the money required for that purpose, or else the number of those who

have no other alternative but the welfare state will increase and we shall revert to what caused the decline of Rome, when demagogues were promising bread and games, leading to believe that a people can unduly live on empty dreams, sponging on the whole world, and keeping the nation in the dream of a marvellous world where we could get rid forever of all the miserable people who stemmed that sea of hidden and miraculous plenty which could spread over suffering mankind and bathe everybody in a sea of joy and plenty.
It must be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that if the 30 acres of ice and snow have become a huge and rich country-the second nation in the world as far as exports and industry are concerned-it is certainly not because we have one of the most favourable or easy climates. It must be recalled that other nations, other countries had just like us abundant natural resources and a milder climate.
But, if we have the development by which we are benefiting today, it is because we had serious, hard-working and honest people and governments that could inspire confidence to the whole world.
We must do our share to maintain that confidence to support initiatives, encourage capital investments in the development of our natural resources while not giving away, of course, our right to control our economy and our policy. We must create the climate necessary to the birth of the great undertakings which have made of our country, in spite of great handicaps, such as distance, climate and remoteness, one of the most prosperous in the world.
Of course, that psychological climate does not just happen, it follows action taken by a responsible government, seconded by understanding and support by a people proud of its freedom and anxious to contribute, in a climate of confidence, to the normal evolution of its social, economic and political life.
That is why, notwithstanding the stand taken by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), I will support the present government with regard to its farm policy and I will give it my confidence tonight because it is creating, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a climate of confidence which might give new life to our country's economy. That, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska feels it well-


Clément Vincent: I do not think so.


Rosaire Gendron: He feels it well-


Clément Vincent: I do not think so, and neither do you, for that matter.


Auguste Choquette: He will grow older, he will
understand.
Eastern Agricultural Assistance


Rosaire Gendron: -because-and I shall close my remarks on that-within one year, we have brought forward all the legislation and all the departments really capable of controlling the ailment and giving this country a new economic development. I think the whole nation recognizes that.


Mr. Vinceni:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member? I think he has two more minutes to go.
Can the hon. member tell me what pieces of legislation relating to agriculture have been put on the statutes of Canada within the last year?


Rosaire Gendron: I advise the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska to read the order paper. I earnestly hope that having read it and having found out what has been put on it, he shall endeavour to convince and to advise his colleagues and opposition members to co-operate fully, so that this legislation can come into force as soon as possible.


Mr. Dupuis:: It will not take long.


Clément Vincent: Just name one or two legislative measures.


Yvon Dupuis: It will not take six years.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, on hearing the speech of the hon. gentleman who has taken his seat I can only conclude that he has neither been in his constituency recently nor in this house, for had he been in either place he would be well aware of the dismal record of the government ever since it took office, and particularly in this session of parliament.
To say it is a dismal record is the ultimate in understatement. It is a government that believes in smokescreens rather than action. We have seen this so often in this session already that not only we in the opposition but the country as a whole are fed up to the teeth with the type of government these so-called men of decision were supposed to provide.
Look at the smokescreens we have seen in this session. First of all, we had the pension legislation. We had mark I, mark II, mark III, and now we are going to get mark IV. But probably by the time mark IV comes along mark V will be proposed.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you speaking on a military basis, because I was an infantry officer and I know that each succeeding mark was better than the one before?


Robert Carman Coates: Not only do I hope that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is correct but I know this nation hopes this as well, because it was a poor piece of

Eastern Agricultural Assistance legislation to start with. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asks today whether the pension legislation is to receive priority over the flag legislation, what are we told? "We do not know where it is now; we have not heard all the answers from the provinces." This is the legislation which at the beginning of this session we were told was supposed to be paramount in the minds of the government.
The second smokescreen was the redistribution bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What are we debating?


Robert Carman Coates: We are debating the inability of you and your kind to run this country properly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought we were debating smokescreens.


Robert Carman Coates: You should know all about that. You have been spreading them all over this parliament for some time. The second smokescreen was the redistribution bill. Where is it now? It is like the maps which we do not seem to be able to find.
We are debating the flag issue more often than anything else, a flag design, when we should be spending all our time on subjects such as the one under debate at present, the agricultural policies of the government. But, Mr. Speaker, the government is devoid of ideas and devoid of action. What do we have to fill the vacuum? We find an emotional issue placed before this country, an issue that can do nothing but damage to the unity of the country, instead of having action in the field of agriculture and other fields.
This party has done everything in its power to see that the flag issue would not come before this house until action was taken in fields such as agriculture, would not come before this house in a political partisan way- which seems to be the ultimate objective of the government-would not come before this house at a time when this nation can ill afford the type of emanations that are developing throughout Canada from people who are not yet ready, I submit, to make a firm decision on a distinctive national flag that will be acceptable in all parts of the country.


Auguste Choquette: Are you against the flag?


Robert Carman Coates: I am against the design you put forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I think the Chair has been somewhat lenient toward him in allowing him to say a few words about the subject he has brought to the attention of the house, but I would entreat him, now, to return to the subject matter which is now before us.


An hon. Member:: Agriculture.


Robert Carman Coates: Well, I do not pretend to be the great authority on agriculture that the hon. member may be, but at least I happen to be standing on my feet in the House of Commons and he happens to be sitting in his place, as he has been doing all through this debate. At least I am making an effort to put forward a contribution which will be of some assistance to farmers and to those associated with agriculture in eastern Canada.
I go back to 1962, to the election campaign of that year, and in particular to a meeting which was attended by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who was then minister of agriculture. He spoke in my constituency and at that time he outlined a six point program for agriculture in eastern Canada. During that meeting my hon. friend read from the statements he made in western Canada. Those statements were the same as the statements he made in eastern Canada. He was a minister who had a good appreciation of the problems of agriculture across this country. At that time he said our government would go forward and take special steps to correct the inequities which could not be overcome by national legislation. He told the people of eastern Canada what he was endeavouring to do as minister of agriculture and as a member of the Progressive Conservative government to correct the inequities which needed to be corrected if agriculture in eastern Canada was to have a healthy future.
After the election campaign we came back to Ottawa as the party forming the government, and among the statements contained in the speech from the throne presented to that new parliament was the following:
The prosperity of agriculture remains essential to the well-being of the entire Canadian economy. Canada is blessed this year with very large crops of good quality, and export markets for Canadian agricultural products have been very greatly enlarged.
My ministers recognize that livestock is occupying a position of increasing importance in Canadian agriculture. They propose that a program be instituted to ensure the availability of storage facilities and continuity of supplies of feed grain to match the expanding requirements for livestock production, particularly in the areas of British Columbia and eastern Canada where supplies of feed grain are normally deficient.
Before that session ended-and it did not end because we asked that it should end, but because the combined opposition voted that parliament out of existence-the minister of agriculture had his legislation ready. He was ready to move, and move quickly, in an endeavour to eliminate the inequities which he knew existed in agriculture in eastern Canada.

Another election campaign ensued. The promises made during the 1962 campaign were reaffirmed. We were not re-elected as a government-


An hon. Member:: Good.


Robert Carman Coates: -and that is a mighty sorry story for the people of eastern Canada. For what have we seen since? We have seen such fumbling and bumbling in agriculture as no one could ever have imagined. In this connection I wish to quote a few paragraphs from the April 9 edition of the Family Herald -an article written by Dave Suderman entitled: "Will Three Heads be Better than One"? Mr. Suderman writes:
Speed is something that has been needed. It is still not clear what Mr. Pearson intends to do with the farm department. After a third cabinet measure-the second one cancelled the first

Mr. Sauvg now has responsibility for the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, the eastern feed grain program and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act-
Undoubtedly this delay is partly the cause for the Liberals' faltering record in agriculture. Since they took office, not a single piece of farm legislation has been passed by parliament. The measures that have been taken were by cabinet orders in council and these were few in number.
The dairy program is due for another overhaul at the end of April, but any changes are likely to be minor in view of the evident success of the program which is now in existence.


Mr. Beer:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Carman Coates: When I have finished speaking I will answer all the questions the hon. gentleman has to ask. The article continues:
Stacked against these measures of relatively minor importance is the Liberal record in wheat sales which prevented the government's performance in agriculture from being viewed as a complete disaster.
The Liberal record in agriculture was hardly helped by the legacies of the last two election campaigns. None of the Liberal farm planks have been adopted and many have been dropped. The two-dollar guarantee on wheat won few adherents in the west and was quickly and quietly buried. The promise of an east-west ministry of agriculture has also been dropped despite claims to the contrary. The proposal to make support payments on eggs quarterly and regionally was dropped. The promised feed grain program, which included subsidized loans to co-op built storages, also did not make its appearance. The school milk programs, improvements to the crop insurance program, expansion in farm credit facilities-all promises of the "63 campaign"-could show up in the present commons session.
The three-way split in agriculture responsibilities opens the government to cross-examination by the opposition. When Mr. Hays was reported to be in opposition to a buying and selling feed grain board, questions were immediately directed at Mr. Sauve and Prime Minister Pearson. Was Mr. Hays speaking for the government? Neither Mr. Sauve nor Mr. Pearson was able to answer. Sources close to cabinet were equally unclear. Some said that Mr. Hays was obviously expressing government policies. Others, pointing to Mr. Sauve's
Eastern Agricultural Assistance plans to study the question again, said there was no policy for or against such a board. Who is right?
Well, with regard to agriculture a great many people have asked that question ever since this government took office. Who knows what is going on in agriculture? Today we see one of the three ministers in his seat in the house. Where are the other two? Can we be certain that any statements which one of them may make will be corroborated by the other two. I, for one, had hoped that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) would be in his place today, in view of the fact that he recently made a tour of ARDA installations in the Atlantic provinces. I was hopeful he would make a statement so that we might have some idea of his future plans for ARDA in the maritime provinces.
But he is not here. We do not know whether we may accept what the Minister of Agriculture has to say with regard to ARDA in view of the fact that he no longer has responsibility for that program. But I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that never has there been a greater indication that one man should be responsible for our agricultural policies in this country than since this government took office. No one knows what the other fellow is doing. But we all know this, that the government are not doing very much, if anything, except marking time and throwing out smokescreens rather than providing policies, action and helpful measures which will be of benefit to agriculture.
Yesterday the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) put before the government a six-point program and asked them to give very serious consideration to it. I should like to add one specific item to the program of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and I ask the government whether they would give consideration to it. I have a constituency which is one of the best grassed constituencies in Canada. We could be producing a great deal more livestock than is evident today. One of the problems we face is that while we have some very excellent farm operations in existence there are too many marginal farm operations and vacant farms which could be utilized in a very efficient manner if the right type of individual was operating them. I have noticed over the years that the Dutch immigrants who have come into this country and who occupy many of the farms in my constituency have made a tremendous success of their operation. I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture would urge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) to do his very best to see whether he could attract more Dutch immigrants to the maritimes to take over these vacant farms and once again make them operative.

Eastern Agricultural Assistance
Another of the problems which we encounter in my part of Canada is that a great many of the farmers are older men whose sons have grown up and probably secured a good or a satisfactory education; an education sufficient to allow them to go to the bigger cities, the bigger population areas of this country, and secure jobs in factories and things of that type. The situation we see is that no matter how much credit we might make available and no matter how lucrative we might make it for farmers to accept the credit available, they are not going to accept it because there is no one on the farm willing to assume the obligations, should illness befall the farmer who is presently operating it. In view of this I think it is most urgent that we try by every means possible to interest young boys to stay with their fathers or to secure adjoining farmland so that they will continue to have an interest in agriculture and in the unit their parents are operating. In this way it may be possible to enlarge our holdings and to enlarge the livestock capacity of the farm.
It may be of some interest to note that when I placed a question on the order paper and asked for information about which programs were being carried out in Cumberland in relation to ARDA, I was told that the only one which had been finalized was one associated with the Minudie community pasture. There is another area in my constituency which should, in my opinion, be developed into a community pasture. It has been suggested that the east Amherst marsh could be developed into a wholly different type of community pasture from the one at Minudie in that different farmers in the area could be apportioned a certain acreage in that community pasture, and made responsible for its use. It would be available to them as long as they indicated an interest in, and a desire to improve and to use, that land. I put out those two suggestions as ones which might assist in bettering economic prospects in my constituency.
Now I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) and to ask the minister whether he would explain the very apparent differences in the prices of oats, wheat and barley which were paid for these products when the policy of assistance was announced on April 22, compared with the price which the farmers were paid for the same products in the latter part of September. If the minister will look at the figures he will find that there was a tremendous increase in the cost of these products to the producer. The western producer did not receive this increase; the eastern producer paid for it. Where did the money go? There can only be one answer: it
IMr. Coates.]

went to someone other than the farmers in either eastern or western Canada. This was a state of affairs which the minister was supposed to eliminate by the policy he laid down in the order in council of August 22.
There has to be in my opinion a very substantial and determined program put forward by this government if it is to lift agriculture out of the doldrums it so evidently is in in the maritime provinces. There cannot be any piecemeal type of program. There has to be a concentrated program that touches every facet of agriculture. There is no evidence whatsoever, absolutely none, that this government is taking any substantial steps to do anything about our problems in eastern Canada in relation to agriculture or in relation to anything else. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) today asked a question of the Minister of Labour. He was asking this question as the result of a statement the minister made in St. Catharines, Ontario, to the effect that the only hope of any unemployed Canadian of finding work is to move to another part of the country, and the fare would be made available by the government. We heard this a long time ago in the Gordon report, and now we hear it from a Nova Scotian. It does not make it any more palatable because it comes from a Nova Scotian. It is what we told the people in our area would happen if this party were elected to office.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with agriculture.


Robert Carman Coates: It has a great deal to do with agriculture, Mr. Speaker, because there is not any work on the farms and there is not any work anywhere else in the maritime provinces. This is because this government have refused time and time again to take any action of any kind related to the Atlantic provinces, and in fact have eliminated some of the work we did have in relation to their defence policies.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude by reading a short editorial which appears in today's Ottawa Journal. I think it confirms what I have been saying regarding this government and the smokescreens it set up in place of action. This editorial is entitled "Blame is government's" and it says:
Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Douglas, who do not often agree, co-operated for a moment In the Commons the other day. They proved that the Liberal government wants to blame others for its own mistakes.
"Don't blame us for parliament being slow", the Liberals cry. "Blame the irresponsible opposition".
But see, on the 64th day of the present session, the Prime Minister giving a long list of business the government hopes to get through, as he said.

"before summer". Mr. Pearson asked for cooperation and brought from Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Douglas the reasonable objection that they had to know where co-operation was required before they could give it.
Mr. Diefenbaker commented there was little on the order paper to guide the official opposition on the government program and Mr. Douglas added: "One of the ways in which the government can discharge its responsibility is to get some of this legislation on the order paper so that members will have an opportunity to study it".
It is only a year since Mr. Pearson's cabinet- called "a cabinet of all the talents" by Liberal enthusiasts-took office. It has shown a persistent and distressing inability to manage the legislative program efficiently. The responsibility for inefficiency is the government's.
I make the final plea to the Minister of Agriculture to try and give the type of leadership, the type of hope and inspiration to the farmers of eastern Canada that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) gave them during the period in which he was minister of agriculture.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on the amendment to the supply motion proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). Since this is a debate I presume it is appropriate to discuss some of the statements that have been made by other hon. members in this house, and particularly those made by the proposer of this amendment. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle in his address yesterday started out by dealing with the flag and at one point mentioned that he was in favour of a distinctive flag, but that reference seems to have been completely deleted from the Hansard record. Then he went on to suggest that probably an election was imminent. Then further in his address he proceeded to attack the dominion bureau of statistics by making this remark:
Let those who disseminate information disseminate the truth and not this type of meaningless claptrap.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle was referring, of course, to information on farm income made available by the dominion bureau of statistics, and I think it is ill becoming of any member in this house, and certainly of any former minister in this house, to castigate diligent and assiduous members of the civil service by referring to their work as claptrap. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the defence of the civil servants who prepare our statistics for us, and whose information is regarded as reliable at all times, by reading-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Bruce Silas Beer: -into the record this statement. It is quite evident that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-
Eastern Agricultural Assistance


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bruce Silas Beer: -does not look with favour on the farm income figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics, especially the cash income series and the so-called net income series.


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, where in the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) can the hon. member who is now speaking indicate that the former minister of agriculture referred to the civil servants as issuing any claptrap? The hon. member for Qu'Appelle may have referred to information sources, but he did not pinpoint any civil servants in his remarks.


Harold Edward Winch: Read Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think it should be generally recognized that if, when an hon. member is speaking, he makes a statement to which some other hon. member objects, unless it refers to the hon. member personally it is not a point of privilege. If the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) wishes to refute anything now being said, I am sure he will have an opportunity if he wants to take part in the debate.


Donald MacInnis: I definitely refute the statement that has just been made by the hon. member in reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, the former minister of agriculture. No such remarks were made by him. If the rules of the house provide that I must accept what he says as factual, then only the rules provide that I should accept it. It is not because the hon. member is speaking the truth in this case at all; it is only because of the rules that I have to accept what he is now saying.


Mr. Aiken:: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: -this question of privilege-I am sorry-I am sure the parliamentary secretary does not wish to misquote the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. If he will read page 3539 of Hansard, from which page I assume he is quoting, he will see that in the second column the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was referring to the statement of the minister when introducing his estimates, and he was not referring in any way to the dominion bureau of statistics. The paragraph to which I refer starts:
At this point I should like to go back and read the statement the minister made in introducing his estimates in this house on April 24, I believe, just about a month ago.

Eastern Agricultural Assistance
Then, as is reported in the last sentence of that paragraph, he said:
Let those who disseminate information disseminate the truth and not this type of meaningless claptrap.
There is no point in setting up this man of straw and then knocking him down. I am sure the hon. member for Qu'Appelle had no intention of referring to the dominion bureau of statistics in this way, and he did not.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I should probably put on the record a few more sentences from the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, which I think will pretty well establish the intent. In addition to the passage I quoted a minute ago, the next paragraph begins as follows:
What is the truth? Let me quote some figures that X think make sense. First of all, the Ethiopian in the woodpile in so far as these figures are concerned is the fact that they refer to net income. Net income is meaningless. It is the silliest sort of thing you ever saw, and I will illustrate that statement hy dealing with the figures for the province of Saskatchewan.
I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of hon. members-


Clément Vincent: What is he attacking there?


Bruce Silas Beer: -that the intent of the statement was to imply that some of the material made available from the dominion bureau of statistics was unreliable.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, surely to goodness the hon. member is not going to go on making that sort of statement. No such inference can be drawn from the statement he has just quoted. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) was referring to the way in which statistics were used by the minister, and surely the parliamentary secretary will be gentleman enough to admit that.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I will proceed with my statement and the house or you, sir, may judge whether I have been the least bit unfair.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on this and request the hon. gentleman to withdraw his words. He has implied that the former minister was insulting the civil service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must say again to the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) that he may indeed disagree with the interpretation made by the parliamentary secretary but if he wishes to refute that statement he has the right to do so when he rises to speak. At the moment I do not think there is a question of privilege.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the house prevent any member from imputing intentions to another member that he does not have. It is on this basis that I am asking that the parliamentary secretary withdraw his affirmations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I think the parliamentary secretary is interpreting what was said but I do not think he has said anything that needs to be withdrawn.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He has definitely said that the former minister of agriculture insulted the civil service. I was here and I did not hear the former minister of agriculture say anything that was an insult to our civil servants.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for your ruling. I regret that hon. members opposite are so sensitive on this particular point, but I did feel that in fairness to the civil servants, who are not able to speak for themselves, I should place this statement on the record.


An hon. Member:: Is that a statement by you or by civil servants?


Bruce Silas Beer: I also wish to state that I will take responsibility for the statement I am about to present. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, however, by strong inference-


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Bruce Silas Beer: -favours the realized net income series-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order which is one that should be raised more often in the house. I refer to the rule against the reading of speeches and I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would rule on the point of order now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I have to agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South and I hope that the parliamentary secretary, while referring to his notes if he needs to do so, will do his best to carry on without referring too much to them.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: He would do better without them.


Bruce Silas Beer: I wish to thank the hon. member, of course, but as this is a very sensitive matter, as I want to be very careful in my presentation and as I am presenting a statement for which I take responsibility I prefer, with the indulgence of the house, to refer closely to my notes in order to be accurate. I do not wish to misquote the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in any particular way.
I repeat that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, however, by strong inference, favours

the realized net income series which, by the way, is also published by the dominion bureau of statistics. One does not have to look very far-


Donald MacInnis: Further on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Bruce Silas Beer: -to realize why the hon. member finds the cash income receipts unpalatable to him.


Donald MacInnis: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was called to the hon. member's attention that he was breaking the rules of the house by reading his statement and he said he would prefer to stick closely to his notes, but he is drawing nothing but inferences from these notes. If he is going to refer to notes and refer also to what the former minister of agriculture has said in the house he must quote the minister and he cannot read from a prepared statement and draw inferences. If he wishes to say something with regard to what the former minister has said he must quote him. If he is not going to quote him, why does he not put his notes away and have some regard for the rules which do not permit him to read from a prepared text?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the hon. member recognizes that we hope all members of the house will make their own speeches, but at times it is necessary for them to refer to their notes.


Mr. Peters:: These are somebody else's notes; they are not his.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I would hope that the hon. member who is now speaking will not refer to his notes any more than is absolutely necessary.


Bruce Silas Beer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will endeavour not to refer to my notes any more than is absolutely necessary. I mentioned that the realized net income figures were more compatible to the hon. member. The cash income figures show an increase and are at an all time high. He quibbles about a small variation of .1 per cent in the increase between 1962 and 1963, that is, 2.2 compared with 2.1. Surely he must realize that the preliminary provincial totals were published in February and the final in May when further information for the year 1963 had become available.
In the report on cash income, No. 21-001, published on May 22 it was pointed out that the net income report would be published in about two weeks time. This net income report, as is the case each year, will present figures on realized net income and total net income from farming operations. An advanced preliminary statement for net income only was published in February.
Eastern Agricultural Assistance
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle drew particular attention to the net income figures indicating the wide variation between the year 1961 and 1963 in net income and comparisons of net with the realized net series. I am sure he is fully aware that the realized net income series does not take into account inventory changes. He also knows that Saskatchewan had a poor crop in 1961. Cash receipts and realized income levels were fairly well maintained because farmers sold accumulated carryovers of grain from previous crop years. The inventory adjustment, however, was quite large and therefore caused a sharp decline in the figure for total net income.
A word about these series. It will be apparent that the choice of one or the other will depend in large measure on the use or abuse to which people wish to put them. Series like these are produced by the United States and most developed nations of the world. Underdeveloped countries include them in their pressing need for statistical data.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle completed his address he referred to eastern agriculture and his amendment is based on the failure of the government to do anything about the problems of eastern agriculture. I want to thank him for being so charitable as to refer to this particular subject, because if we had been choosing a subject to suggest to the opposition as one on which they should propose a motion of non-confidence we would have suggested the program of the government with regard to eastern agriculture.
Some reference has been made to the needs of eastern agriculture. I think I am safe in saying that no group could be more sensitive to the needs of eastern agriculture than the present government. It was this particular sensitivity to the needs that caused the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to propose that a special minister, who would assume responsibility for ARDA and for some aspects of eastern agriculture, should be appointed. I am happy to say that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) has now visited every province in the country. He is currently visiting the prairie provinces. He was in Manitoba last night, is in Edmonton today and will be in Regina tomorrow.
The purpose of these visits is to ascertain the peculiar needs of the provinces with regard to rural development, and to assess the ways in which our ARDA program may be adapted to those respective provinces. It is the expectation of the minister, after this appraisal has been made, that amendments to the policy may be necessary. These will be presented in this house and the program

Eastern Agricultural Assistance will be proceeded with in order to meet the various needs of the provinces within this country.
It has been suggested that this government has not done anything for eastern agriculture. I suppose it would be reasonable to say that we must have a starting point, a point at which we commence to make our comparisons. I suppose such a date would be April 22 when this government assumed office. We all recall that within hours after assuming office a new dairy policy for Canada was put into effect. We all, of course, remember with some displeasure the mounting butter surplus which existed prior to April 22. We also know that there were substantial demands for cheese, for which we were not able to supply a suitable product. It was the opinion of the government, therefore, that there should be a new emphasis placed on the production of cheese and a declining emphasis placed on the production of butter. This was done within hours of this government's taking office.
I believe that today the minister indicated the extent to which this policy has been successful. For the first time since 1956, the production of butter and the consumption of butter are in line. As a matter of fact, there has been a deficit in production as compared with consumption. In addition, our cheese production is up approximately 18 per cent. I believe that if this government had done nothing else but institute the dairy policy that was instituted within hours after taking office, this would be a very commendable approach to agriculture problems in eastern Canada.
Then, too, it has been suggested nothing has been done, but within a few weeks of taking office a new feed grain policy was announced. This policy has done several things. It has assured eastern users of a constant supply of grain at all times. As a result, there has been an adequate supply of grain at all times through the winter which has resulted in a uniformity in price.
The minister referred to some of our livestock improvement works. He mentioned the r.o.p. policy in connection with dairy cattle. I should like to make some comparisons here because it is only by comparison we are able to indicate the extent to which this government is meeting the needs of eastern agriculture. When this government assumed office, as indicated by the minister, there were some 115 dairy farmers in Canada waiting to be accepted on r.o.p. lists. Within days, or within a very few weeks, the necessary provisions were made to enable these farmers to be serviced, and this program was put into full effect.

This is a worth-while policy. Canada is noted the world over for the excellence of her dairy cattle. This reputation has been built up over a substantial number of years as a result of careful selection based partly on the r.o.p. program. The former government, in the name of austerity, had issued a letter indicating that it was going to be necessary to cut down on this essential service to farmers and they would not be able to accept applications as they came in. The result was that, in order to save an estimated $250,000, this valuable service to farmers which has over the years kept the excellence of our dairy cattle at a very high level, was held in abeyance. This government immediately took action to institute a policy which has given a real lift to our r.o.p. program in this country.
Immediately after taking office the government dispatched a team of experts to Europe to study the swine industry for the purpose of discovering better methods of production, better techniques in feeding, and to bring back a report to this country. The recommendations of that team will be put into effect in a swine improvement policy for this country.
Within a short time of taking office, a new veterinary college was established in western Canada which will result in a general improvement in the health standards of our livestock. This, I believe, is a very commendable step. The minister mentioned the action that had been taken with regard to water policies and indicated that more had been undertaken since this government assumed office than had been undertaken for a number of years prior.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) suggested that this government has not fulfilled its mandate from the people. I want to suggest that in one year of administration you do not expect to be able to fulfil the mandate from the people. After all, this government has only been in power for one year and I have outlined a notable list of accomplishments that have been achieved by it. How can anyone ask the question, what has been done, when these things are obvious and are working to our mutual advantage?
Then, the Department of Agriculture has additional responsibilities. Not only is it concerned with the operation of these various policies which tend to keep the farmers solvent and agriculture in balance, but in addition the department has substantial responsibilities in connection with promoting research in order to improve our agriculture, in order that agriculture may better serve the farmers and provide better food at reasonable prices for the consuming public. I should like again to refer rather closely to the notes I

have before me in elaborating on a research program which will be proceeded with by this government.
The Canada Department of Agriculture seriously entered research with the establishment of five regional experimental farms in 1866. The primary task was to introduce the best of European agriculture in terms of plants and animals, select those best adapted to our conditions and learn how to manage them. Over the years, as our knowledge of our climate and soil has increased, more and more time has been devoted to developments specifically to meet Canadian conditions.
In so far as soils are concerned, for instance, originally we made progress, for example, in connection with fertility on a trial and error basis. Gradually we are learning more and more about our soils, their nature, their fertility, their response to drainage and irrigation. Today we are achieving some independence of soil through our ability to define its limitations in terms of the requirements of a particular crop and to manage it and supplement its fertility to provide an optimum medium for the crop. As our knowledge and understanding of our soils and of the nutrient requirements of each specific crop increase, we will come nearer and nearer to achieving independence from the soil. In other words, we will be able to manage the soil in such a way that it will not be a limiting factor in crop production. Unfortunately we cannot hope to achieve such control over temperature although we are making good progress towards ensuring adequate moisture.
With regard to plants, in the beginning we depended on varieties developed for conditions other than our own and were limited to selecting those which did best under Canadian conditions. Farmers paid little if any attention to variety, because oats were oats and timothy was timothy. Since we developed Marquis wheat specifically for our Canadian prairies we have gone ahead until today we have many varieties of cereals, forages and horticultural crops developed in Canada to meet the specific requirements of the farmer in a specific delineated area.
Each province makes annual variety recommendations on the basis of varieties tailored to its conditions. Farmers do not plant wheat, or timothy or alfalfa. They make their selections on the basis of specific recommended varieties. Tomorrow we will know much more about the requirements of specific crops in terms of light, of heat, of water, of nutrients and about the genetic make-up of plants in relation to the physiological response to environment and disease. The plant breeder will thus have the knowledge about 20220-229
26, 1964	3605
Eastern Agricultural Assistance tailor-made varieties by direct selection of the genetic material which will carry the desired characters.
With regard to animals, in the early days we brought in European breeds of livestock and fed them on the feeds readily available on individual farms. There was no measure of efficiency in terms such as feed/grain ratios or profit factors. Through research we are gradually defining the nutrient requirements of stock for each stage of growth and production. We are developing techniques for evaluating and describing feed-stuffs in terms of what they will contribute toward these nutrient requirements. Today, our feed manufacturers and our farmers have been given considerable information for use in planning rations which will come close to exploiting the potential of a particular class of stock for growth or production. This information permits them to substitute individual ration components on a basis of current market prices and still meet nutrient requirements.
Today we are starting to accumulate new information on the profit factor in feeding high energy rations to meat and production classes of livestock, and are learning something about increasing the economy of maintaining and housing breeding herds and young stock prior to coming into production.


Mr. Nasserden:: Would the hon. member tell us what document he is quoting from?


Bruce Silas Beer: I beg your pardon?


Edward Nasserden: I wonder would you tell us what document you are quoting from?


Bruce Silas Beer: I am quoting from a statement that I have prepared. If the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) were to present statements such as this it might not be necessary to name the source.
Our studies on non-pathological diseases such as bloat, acetonemia, and urinary calculi are giving or will give the anwers we need in devising management and feeding practices which will eliminate these conditions. We are approaching the day when all breeding stock will be selected on the basis of performance in terms of both quality of product and economy of production.
Crop protection will probably interest the hon. member for Rosthern. Developments in agriculture have increased and will continue to increase the numbers of pests affecting our domestic crops and animals and their significance in terms of economic losses. This introduces an increasing hazard and degree of gamble into the farmers' operation which can only be eliminated by control of pests, whether insects, diseases or weeds.

Eastern Agricultural Assistance
Much of our research has gone into understanding the nature and habits of pests and devising control programs. The control programs have developed to the point where, for example, we can ensure a scab-free apple, or that an epidemic of grasshoppers will not eliminate the cereal or forage crop.
We have a big job ahead of us if we are going to continue to place quality products in the consumer's basket, protect the farmer from wide fluctuations in his income, and at the same time ensure that we do not build up harmful residues in our soils or exceed residue tolerances for pesticides in the consumer diet. Not the least of the problems is the development of resistance in pests to control agents. Thus, we are and will be engaged in controlling pests through breeding resistance into our crops, by introducing biological control agents, by the genetic introduction into the pest of factors limiting the increase of the species, and by developing chemicals more specific to the pests and less hazardous to warm blooded animals such as ourselves.
It is the opinion of the minister and the government that our research stations should be set up in such a way that they will meet the immediate needs of the farmers in the areas which they are intended to serve, and a substantial approach has been made in this general direction.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the following statement should also be read into the record from the statement by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
I could go through the list of the provinces, but let me just leave this one figure with you; that in all the provinces of Canada, with the exception of two, realized farm income went down last year, and those two provinces do not include Saskatchewan and Alberta.
These are the words used by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle yesterday.
We went down too, but we know why we went down and we will correct that. I give those figures because this is the truth and not this meaningless gibberish that comes from the d.b.s.-
I believe that that corroborates the statement which I made earlier, that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle had undertaken to speak disparagingly of the work of the d.b.s. upon which we have relied with great confidence for a great number of years. So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by expressing my own personal confidence that it will be the wish of the house that the amendment, as presented by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, will be defeated.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the supply motion that is before the house reads:
[Mr. Beer.)
This house regrets the continuing failure of the government to take effective action with regard to the pressing agricultural problems of eastern Canada.
We in this party agree that there are some pressing problems with which the government should come to grips, with respect to agricultural problems in eastern Canada, but I think the speech made by the mover of the amendment, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) was a condemnation of the policies that he and his government followed during the years they were in office.
I say that in spite of the fact that the hon. member has continuously-and he did it again yesterday-suggested that he is tired hearing members say, "Well, what did you do when you were in office"? If we look at the speech he made, pointing out some of the problems of the farmers and of the whole agricultural industry in eastern Canada, we can agree that there is some validity to what he said. He even took the trouble to have included in the Hansard record a couple of charts which made it clear that during the year 1963 there was a decided drop in the realized net income of farmers all over Canada as compared with the year before. Surely, if anyone must accept responsibility for a decline in agricultural realized net income during the year 1963, it must be the government which was in power during the period just preceding that decline. After all, the government we have today did not come to office until some time in April, four months after the year had started, and even if they had had a completely new agricultural policy to implement at that time-and I do not think they had one-it would be almost ridiculous to expect that the fruits of such a policy could have been realized during the fiscal year 1963.
So, while I agree with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) when he says that the agricultural policy of the present government is found wanting, I believe such a statement applies with even greater force to the previous government when we think of its performance in relation to the amendment before the house today. If there is any suggestion in this amendment that the present government is failing in relation to what the previous government did in the same realm of policy, then we have surely reached a new low in substance as far as amendments to these supply motions are concerned.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) complained that the present government did not tackle the question of expanding facilities for carrying grain into export position fast enough. This suggestion is certainly not borne out in face of the fact that more grain has been moved into export

position, using the facilities we have now, than at any time in our history. The same hon. member wanted to take credit on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party for all of the wheat sales which have been made, not only to China but also to Russia and other places as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: While the Conservatives are cheering I should like to point out to them that in this context they apparently did not believe in themselves. If they felt sales of this kind were likely to continue in the future they should have had sufficient confidence in themselves and in this policy to begin, at least, to expand the facilities needed to move grain into export position. The Liberal government, bad as it may be, even if its plans had been ready for expanding terminal facilities and improving rail facilities the day it took office, could not reasonably have been expected to push this construction work forward to completion by this date. So it seems to me hon. members to my right want to have it both ways.
There has been a significant expansion in sales and shipments of grain from western Canada, I agree. But I think we ought to recognize where the credit should lie. In my opinion it belongs to the Canadian wheat board, both while the Conservatives were in office and now while the Liberals are in office. I think the board has done a remarkable job, considering the railway facilities and terminal space we have, in getting these enormously expanded amounts of grain into export position.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) suggested we could have sold 200 million bushels more if we had had facilities to deliver the grain. I cannot think of any statement which is more critical of the policy of the hon. member's own government when it was in office. If there was a potential for sales of this magnitude and if his government had foreseen it, surely it should have accepted the responsibility for at least beginning to expand the facilities needed to enable us to sell 200 million bushels of grain in addition to the tonnage already supplied. Well, the hon. member and his friends may try to keep up this contention that these sales are the result of some action which the Conservative government took, but it seems to me this is a doubtful crutch on which to be leaning at this time. The Canadian wheat board, it seems to me, has done a fairly good job of selling grain under both governments. Let us not confuse the issue. Let us put both the responsibility and the credit where it belongs.
20220-229J
Business of the House
The hon. member for Cumberland said the former minister of agriculture had a complete policy ready and that he announced it to the people of eastern Canada, particularly in the maritimes, during the 1962 election campaign. Well, that is nice, if it is the case. I have never seen it. It is true there have been a lot of words, a lot of platitudes about what would be desirable. But we know from experience the lack of action we encountered when it came to implementing the ARDA legislation. We had all these policies and all these platitudes embodied in an act which was supposed to solve all the problems of agriculture in Canada. This act was passed in 1961. It was late in 1963 before the province of Alberta could get the government which passed this legislation to agree to one project. If that is the kind of program with which the hon. gentleman went to the maritimes, it is no wonder the people there rejected it. What the member for Cumberland failed to realize is this: No matter how good the words might have sounded in the election campaign, the people had reached the stage where they no longer believed them.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Dorchester: basis for figures respecting the number of unemployed; the hon. member for Bow River: continuation of policy respecting oil exports; the hon. member for Lotbiniere: disposal of radar station equipment.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr Hamilton.

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was discussing the amendment under consideration and the fact that

Eastern Agricultural Assistance the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) had in his supporting speech satisfactorily condemned the policies, practices and actions of the government in which he was minister of agriculture. Looking at some of the suggestions which have been made by the mover of the amendment before the house and relating them to what is contained in the amendment, we find that this is the position. As reported at page 3543 of Hansard the former minister of agriculture said that the number one pressing problem is for a feed grain policy for the farmers in eastern Canada.
I think it is fair to say that all members of this house agree that this is a pressing problem. I think it is also fair to say that this problem did not spring up overnight. I was a member of the committee on agriculture and colonization which sat during the last session and 1 am rather proud of the manner in which that committee conducted itself. They called in witnesses from the organizations representing the grain producers of western Canada. They followed this up with calling witnesses from the board of grain commissioners, from the Canadian wheat board, right through to the feedgrain purchaser in eastern Canada. There were discussions with the shipping companies which carry the grain from the lakehead to the terminals along the St. Lawrence river. The committee also called witnesses from the primary and secondary distributors in eastern Canada. I know of no other time when such an exhaustive review was conducted into the matter of feed grain policy in eastern Canada. I am not prepared to say that the committee came forth with any suggestions which would immediately solve the problem. However, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said that this was the most pressing problem facing the farmers in eastern Canada at the present time. If that is true it must certainly be a reflection on the agricultural policies of the government which held office during the years immediately preceding this date.
In addition to that the hon. member who moved the amendment said that we need some sort of pasture policy to get increased production off the grass in eastern Canada, a statement with which I could not agree more. But we also know if we want to be reasonable, that to reach a position where you have some beneficial results from a policy to increase production from grass, whether it be in eastern Canada or anywhere else, this policy has to be in effect for a number of years.
The hon. member also pointed out that we need water policies for the eastern provinces,

something similar to the P.F.R.A. and the programs which apply to the west. I can turn my memory back a number of years when the P.F.R.A. first came into being, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that not just one or two years went by, but a matter of 10 to 15 years went by before a substantially beneficial result took place from the water policy established in western Canada under P.F.R.A.
The hon. member also went on to say that we need a livestock policy in the country, making particular reference to the east. Here again we agree that this is true. But we also have to return to the same argument, that a livestock policy would require a number of years before there would be beneficial results.
The hon. member also said that we need a national dairy policy. I and the members of this party do not believe that the policy respecting the dairy industry in Canada today is completely satisfactory. But I think we will have to agree that it has improved substantially during the last few months.


Mr. Hamilton:: You are really doing a salvage job for the new government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle says I am doing a salvage job for the government. My main interest in this amendment and the vote immediately before me is-


John George Diefenbaker: Personal survival.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -that we in this parliament have an obligation to the Canadian people as a whole, and what the country wants most from this parliament is some stability in the administration of their affairs. While we appreciate the problems of the eastern farmers, an election at this time is not going to solve those problems.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Progressive Conservative members are babbling away again. They do not like to face these facts. Those same members have introduced want of confidence motions urging the abolition of sales tax, motions having to do with family allowances, water resources and a number of other matters. Every member of this house knows, and most of the people are beginning to learn, that supporting amendments to a supply motion, no matter what the wording, does not have the effect of solving the problems embodied in the literal definition of the particular amendment.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit one short question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Sit down and be quiet; your party have had plenty of opportunity to speak.

There are problems of unity and other matters before the country at this time, and I am sure that if we were to support this amendment tonight and thus plunge the country into another election at this stage the wording of this amendment would be lost in the minds of its supporters before the election campaign was two weeks old.


An hon. Member:: That's for sure.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Someone for the Conservatives says "Yes, that's for sure". I think that that reveals the intent of the party which has moved this amendment. They are not interested in the problems of the eastern farmers. They are just using this occasion-


Mr. Danforlh:: You are not either.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They are using this tragic problem on this occasion to base an amendment to a supply motion to further what they think might help their own political purposes, if they can fool the rest of the members in this house into supporting them.


Harold Warren Danforth: Why don't you move over?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we hear the same old babble-"Why don't you move over?


Some hon. Members:: Why don't you?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Let me say to the members over here that I have travelled back and forth across this country several times and have tallied with the people in my own constituency; and, by the way, there are almost as many Conservatives there as there are supporters of any party. People in that constituency have told me repeatedly-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member answer a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Yvon Dupuis: We hear enough of you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know, Mr. Speaker, that members of the Progressive Conservative party get a little incensed when they hear some of the truth, when they hear some of the facts of life.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They get a little disturbed. I was about to tell them that there are a large number of people in my constituency who have supported the Progressive Conservative party in the past few years, and I will tell hon. members this-


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -that even those people-
Eastern Agricultural Assistance


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) is rising on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: I raise a point of order at this moment, Mr. Speaker, to clarify my own position in this house and my duty as a member of parliament. I think this question should be cleared up, and the only person who can clear it up is the hon. member who is now speaking. I would ask that the hon. member explain his remark of a few moments ago when he said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: -"We in this cabinet". I would like the hon. member to explain the remark, "We in this cabinet".


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I know hon. members to my right do not like to hear these things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish I could hear some of these snide remarks. These people in my constituency who have supported the Conservative party have said to me on a number of occasions that they appreciate the fact that the Social Credit party in this house have provided the measure of stability that they want-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -in the administration of their affairs. So-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if X could have the attention of my hon. friends for a moment, I would tell them something they can think over for a day or two. It might help them.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think it is time for all hon. members of this house to comply with the wishes of the vast majority of the Canadian people. Those wishes are that this parliament should conduct itself in such a way that would restore to our national administration a measure of both dignity and stability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Yvon Dupuis: Very good.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being eight fifteen o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4(d) of standing order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and put forth with the question on any amendment now before the house.

Division
The house divided on the amendment (Mr.	Brown	Lessard (Lake St. John)Hamilton) which was	negatived on the fol-	Byrne Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Lessard (St. Henry) Lloydlowing division:	Cameron (High Park)	LoiselleCantin	MacalusoYEAS	Cardin	MacdonaldMessrs:	Caron	MacEachenLaprise	Carter	MackaseyAiken	Cashin	MacNaughtAlkenbrack	Latulippe	Chapdelaine	McllraithBalcer	Loney	Choquette	McLean (Charlotte)Baldwin	MacEwan	Chretien	McMillanBarnett	Maclnnis	Cote (Chicoutimi)	McNultyBeaule	MacLean (Queens)	Cote (Longueuil)	McWilliamBelanger	Macquarrie	Cowan	Martin (Essex East)Bell	MacRae	Crossman	MathesonBigg	McBain	Cyr	MatteBoutin	McCutcheon	Davis	MitchellBrewin	McIntosh	Deachman	MoreauCadieu (Meadow Lake)	Madill	Deschatelets	MorisonCardiff	Mandziuk	Drouin	MullallyCasselman, Mrs.	Martin (Timmins)	Drury	MunroChatterton	Martineau	Dube	NicholsonChurchill	Mather	Dupuis	NixonClancy	Millar	Emard	O'KeefeCoates	Monteith	Ethier	OlsonCooper	Moore	Eudes	OttoCrouse	More	Favreau	PattersonDanforth	Muir (Cape Breton	Forest	PennellDiefenbaker	North and Victoria)	Forgie	PepinDinsdale	Muir (Lisgar)	Foy	PickersgillDionne	Nasser den	Francis	PilonDouce tt	Nesbitt	Frenette	Prud'hommeDouglas	Nielsen	Gelber	ReganEnns	Noble	Gendron	RichardFairweather	Nowlan	Godin	RideoutFane	Nugent	Granger	RinfretFisher	Orlikow	Gray	RobichaudFleming (Okanagan-	Ormiston	Greene	RochonBevelstoke)	Pascoe	Groos	RockFlemming (Victorla-	Paul	Guay	RouleauCarleton)	Peters	Habel	RoxburghForbes	Pigeon	Hahn	RyanGauthier	Plourde	Haidasz	SharpGirouard	Pugh	Harley	StewartGrafftey	Rapp	Hays	TardifGregoire	Ricard	Hellyer	TeilletGundlock	Rondeau	Honey	TempleHales	Rynard	Howard	ThompsonHamilton	Simpson	Jewett, Miss	TremblayHarkness	Skoreyko	Kelly	TuckerHerridge	Smallwood	Klein	TurnerHorner (Acadia)	Southam	Konantz, Mrs.	WahnHorner (Jasper-Edson)	Starr	Lachance	WalkerHorner (The Battlefords)	Stefanson	LaMarsh, Miss	Watson (Chateauguay-Howe (Hamilton South)	Stenson	Lamoureux	Huntingdon-Laprairie)Howe (Wellington-	Thomas	Laniel	WhelanHuron)	Valade	Leblanc	Winch-130.Irvine	Vincent	Leboe	Jorgenson	Watson (Assiniboia)	Kennedy Kindt Knowles	Webb Webster Weichel	Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. Are there any pairs to be declared?	Lamb	Willoughby	Lambert	Winkler	CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ALLEGED	Langlois	Woolliams-112.	GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE	NAYS	Mr. Erik Nielsen	(Yukon): Mr. Speaker, IMessrs:	wish to raise a grievance this evening that	Addison Armstrong	Batten B6chard	concerns several cabinet ministers and, so that they will not be held in suspense as they	Asselin (Notre Dame	Beer	may wish to stay and hear what I have to say	de Grace)	Benidickson	in regard to them.	I shall name them im-Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe) Badanai	Benson Berger Blouin	mediately: the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gor-	don), the Secretary	of State for ExternalBasford	Boulanger	Affairs (Mr. Martin),	, the Minister of Labour

(Mr. MacEachen) and of course the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and I am very sorry not to see him in his seat tonight.
But I am sure that hon. members opposite will be very interested to listen to the subject matter of my grievance, if they will contain themselves for a moment in patience.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I cannot hear the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very glad that you are endeavouring to assist me in suppressing the catcalls of the hon. members opposite. I know they do not like to hear these criticisms of government inactions and actions in their last year in office, but I am afraid this is one they are going to have to stomach.
This grievance concerns the unwarranted and blatant interference by cabinet ministers with a crown corporation which has been set up to operate independently of government for a very good purpose. I refer, sir, to the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation system. In the last few months we have had more cabinet interference, by cabinet ministers and by the Prime Minister, with the independent actions of the C.B.C. than ever before in Canada's history.
All of these actions on the part of cabinet ministers are beginning to form a pattern, and we can start back as far as April, 1964 when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill) made a speech to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters at a meeting in Quebec city. At that time he advocated certain propositions which would have the effect of bringing the C.B.C. under the complete suppression and control of the cabinet. I believe that at that time the Minister of Transport was responsible to parliament for reporting for the C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman favour us by giving the date he is referring to?


Erik Nielsen: I will be very happy, sir. I am quoting from an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 10, 1964, by Dennis Braithwaite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman with his passion for accuracy would not want to get anything wrong. I had at that stage no connection whatever, except as a member of the government, with the C.B.C., and the channel of communication was the Secretary of State, who had not been myself since February 3.
Moreover, sir, I do not regard Mr. Dennis Braithwaite as the authority on what I may have said. I issued an official text-[DOT]
Alleged Interference in C.B.C.


An hon. Member:: Do you deny it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I deny that anything except the official text should be quoted as the text of anything that I said. Moreover, sir, to continue my question of privilege, the hon. gentleman made a great deal about my interference with the C.B.C. on a previous occasion and he was too chicken-and so were hon. gentlemen opposite-to move a vote of want of confidence on it when they had the chance.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Transport has mentioned chickens. I think he is an expert because it takes one to know one. Further, I think that all of these chickens should be brought home to roost and I am sure hon. members opposite will be interested, despite the minister's pious denials of what he might have said at the Montreal meeting-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It wasn't at Montreal.


Erik Nielsen: -in hearing what Mr. Braithwaite had to say. While the minister, in all his professed innocence, denies any channels of communication with the C.B.C., this is very difficult for us to accept on this side of the house because I can remember, as many of us can, the manner in which he imposed himself upon the C.B.C. when he, in a snit, went to the C.B.C. after he failed to announce his air policy in this house. He then, sir, went along to the C.B.C. in a great pique-as the leader of the New Democratic party described it at that time, Pick in a pique-and insisted on announcing his air policy over a national network to reach all Canadians when he was, as he put it, frustrated from announcing it in this house; but that was not the case and I will have a thing or two to say about that in a moment.
This is what the Globe and Mail said about the minister's announcement, and if there was a portfolio of culture in this house-and I am sorry the minister is not in his seat- if there was such a portfolio, the Secretary of State himself would be the person to hold it, since this involves that very feature of national affairs.
This is the way the Globe and Mail printed it up. Mr. Braithwaite said with respect to the speech made by the Minister of Transport in Montreal:
If broadcasting-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I made no speech in Montreal.


Erik Nielsen: If broadcasting is, indeed, a part of the press and therefore utterly free, does it need guidance? Has any cabinet minister the right to erect guide-posts?

Alleged Interference in C.B.C.
He is referring here to the guideposts, so-called, that the Minister of Transport urged should be set up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to rise again on a question of privilege. I made no speech in Montreal at all, and the rest of what the hon. gentleman is reading is just as accurate as that.


Erik Nielsen: Well, now, sir, I must confess that I mistook Quebec city for Montreal, but I am sure that the minister will agree that it was in Quebec. I come from 4,000 miles away, from the Yukon, and I am sure other hon. members will forgive me if I made a mistake on a matter of 120 miles, or whatever the distance might be between Quebec city and Montreal. But the fact is that the minister made this speech in Quebec city, which purported to erect certain circumscriptions within the C.B.C.-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Once more I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. When I spoke in Quebec city I was speaking to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Of course I am sure the hon. gentleman would not know the difference between them and the C.B.C.
I was not referring to the C.B.C. at all, but to broadcasting generally, and I was not seeking to make any suggestions to them of any kind as to how they should run their affairs. I was talking mainly about the inefficient way in which some of us in this house were running the affairs of the house, and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would have got honourable mention among those.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when I was sitting on the government side, watching the opposition of that day, of which the minister was one of the four horsemen, I said to myself, whom should I try to emulate so as to be as responsible in opposition as I could; and I can pay no greater compliment to the minister than to say he is one of those I have tried to emulate on this side of the house. But what I really want to do is to take the minister to task-to make him realize that this unwarranted interference with the affairs of the C.B.C. is not in keeping with those principles he purported to espouse when he was sitting on this side of the house. He should recall the various charges he made in this regard when he was sitting over here. In order that he may call to mind some of the things he said in Quebec city, I propose to return to what was said on that occasion as Mr. Braithwaite saw it.
Transport Minister J. W. Pickersgill told the broadcasters they should forget about being so impartial in their reporting of parliamentary affairs and should become more analytical.

At first flush, this might seem to be a praiseworthy reaffirmation of the freedom of the press and a declaration that broadcasting should partake fully of that freedom.
Mr. Braithwaite went on to say:
Coming from the cabinet minister who makes the ultimate decisions in federal regulation of radio and television, it would appear to rank only a little below Magna Carta or the Four Freedoms. But hold. It seems that Mr. Pickersgill had a particular kind of liberty in mind rather than liberty in general: the freedom he advocated was needed for a specific purpose. Certain rules that govern parliament must be changed, the minister said, if national purpose is to become national achievement. One such is the right to appeal rulings by the Speaker, which Mr. Pickersgill considers absurd. But who has most need of this right? The opposition. Similarly, who are the exhibitionists in parliament who the minister says gum up the works and should be exposed? Again, members of the opposition.
I am sure that when the minister said this in Quebec city he was thinking: What a wonderful Utopia it would be if we had control of all the crown corporations and all the media for the dissemination of public news, with no opposition at all. This is what he was advocating in Quebec city when he made those remarks. The article goes on-and the subject is, now, the Secretary of State-I was about to say the minister of culture:
This was scary enough, but he went on to say that he would need their assistance to help overcome Canada's so-called cultural poverty. To arrive at certain desired, but undefined, cultural goals, said Mr. Lamontagne, there should be not merely more Canadian content in programs, but better content, including better Canadian escapist entertainment.
I think the government is seeking many avenues along which to escape on several issues, and I do not blame the Secretary of State for making that observation. The key word, concludes Mr. Braithwaite, is the word "better". He goes on to say:
It isn't only broadcasters who should be alarmed by these ministerial attitudes. I am not suggesting the government is ready to take over radio and t.v., but at the very least there is a threat of encroachments which should be resisted.
I believe that was the beginning of this pattern with respect to the superimposition of the views of cabinet ministers and the government over independent decisions of the C.B.C. The C.B.C. was set up as an independent corporation to exercise independence in the dissemination of news to Canadian citizens everywhere. We cannot maintain that independence if the corporation is to be continually exposed to the imposition of the views of people such as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) with respect to these matters. This pattern was further developed when the Minister of Transport refused to make an announcement on air

policy in the house, as is the normal custom, when questions were called. He refused to do that and he was later denied by the house an opportunity to make a statement on the ten o'clock adjournment debate under the rules. So he went bustling to the C.B.C. in Ottawa and insisted on making his statement on policy over this medium, instead of presenting it to the house as is the proper custom. On the following Monday when a motion censuring the hon. gentleman was before the house he made his apologies. But that is not good enough. The minister made a mistake on that occasion, but that does not excuse this pattern which seems to be developing of the government overriding the independence of the C.B.C., an independence which it is so important to preserve.
We have further evidence of this pattern forming. I refer to the film which was prepared under contract by Intervideo Productions Ltd. for the C.B.C.-a film on the Prime Minister. This was a half hour program which cost the Canadian taxpayers $35,000 and it was previewed by cabinet ministers in five separate showings. The Prime Minister, in reply to a question I asked him as to whether or not this film received its showing in his office on five separate occasions, evaded the issue by saying: No, it was not seen there; it was seen in the C.B.C. studio in Toronto. The fact remains that the Prime Minister and his advisers reviewed this film in five separate showings and, in effect, imposed censorship on it.
I have certain newspaper comments in this regard as well. A private showing was attended by the Prime Minister, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, by the minister of trade, and by the Minister of Labour. I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs cocking his ear. He was one of those who saw one of these exclusive presentations of the film called "Mr. Pearson". I have as yet no knowledge of any other situation where a government has set up within the cabinet a committee of censorship, because that is what this amounted to. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the minister of trade, the Minister of Labour and the minister for culture-I am sorry; the Secretary of State- were all at these exclusive showings. This is what the Globe and Mail for Thursday, May 21, 1964, has to say about censorship:
The film-maker, co-producer of a highly regarded documentary on Playboy's Hugh Hefner that the C.B.C. carried two seasons ago-
That has nothing to do, of course, with the government or with the Prime Minister.
-defended the techniques used in making the Pearson film and said the result was a sincere and honest portrait.
Alleged Interference in C.B.C.
He said that the film was screened at least five times for members of the Prime Minister's staff and cabinet members. Among the ministers who saw it were Finance Minister Walter Gordon, External Affairs Minister Paul Martin, Labour Minister Allan MacEachen and Trade Minister Mitchell Sharp.


An hon. Member:: And the minister for external affairs.


Erik Nielsen: The minister for external affairs, I am sure, was there because he is particularly concerned with the external image the Prime Minister casts in the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I simply point out to the hon. member that I am not concerned with the external image, because the Prime Minister is respected throughout this country and throughout the world.


Erik Nielsen: That remark is very refreshing because it is the first time in 18 months that the minister for external affairs has admitted he is once again back in politics.
The article goes on to say:
Mr. Ballentine said he did not believe there had been government pressure on the C.B.C. but that the corporation had censored its own show in order not to embarrass the Prime Minister.
I wonder what can be read into a statement of that sort in view of the previous activities and statements of the Minister of Transport. However, the article continues-this quotation is from Mr. Ballentine:
"At one screening, some of Mr. Pearson's advisers admitted that they had to be concerned about his vote-getting image", he said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Erik Nielsen: Is that the reason the film was suppressed?


John George Diefenbaker: They might have been there for entertainment purposes.


Erik Nielsen: As has been suggested, I believe this film was suppressed, unless some other explanation is forthcoming from the Prime Minister or one of the cabinet ministers concerned. It may be they went for the same reason they went to see Mickey Mouse-for entertainment purposes. We have not seen the film. If it is entertaining I am sure we would all like to see it. It seems to me that a film which has cost the Canadian taxpayer $35,000 should be seen by all Canadians. They have paid the price of admission and they should see it.
I think I can do no better than to wind up by reading-


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend from the Yukon will excuse me but I am not too sure whether I should raise a point of privilege or a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.

Alleged Interference in C.B.C.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: I wish I could sit down, but the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet and others would like to know what is going on here. That is why I am asking Mr. Speaker this question, and if I am wrong I shall be corrected. I have been listening to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for a few minutes and he referred to the C.B.C. and matters like that.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer; I am just a poor guy who does not know exactly where the hon. member is going to. It seems to me that we have so many important matters to discuss that we are at least entitled to have an explanation as to where the hon. member is going. Because up to now-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: -we do not know where we are going.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is raising a grievance and I am sure he is doing his best to develop some sort of argument. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis).


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has referred to the fact that he did not know whether he was rising on a question of privilege, or what. I would draw your attention to the fact that neither he nor the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) three times previous to that were recognized by the Chair; what they have been doing is nothing less than making interjections, and it is about time someone raised a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is supposed to arbitrate, not enter into debate, and I assure the hon. member for Cape Breton South that I did recognize the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that I owe the Chair an apology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: There goes the snake pit again. Along with the apology I must remind myself to have my ears checked in the morning, because if the Minister of Transport was recognized I failed to hear it.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: May I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time for the hon. member for Yukon will be over at 9.22 p.m. and he should be given an opportunity on a statement of grievance to make his case.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with your ruling but I should like to know whether the hon. member for Yukon can differentiate between Quebec and Montreal, as I can between the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, because then I will listen to him.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, every time it starts getting a little hot and uncomfortable for members opposite, whether in this house or in the committee, up goes the smokescreen and out go the red herrings and they try to confuse the issue. I would tell the hon. member that I stated at the outset what my grievance was, and it was the unwarranted interference by the Prime Minister and his government in the independent affairs of the C.B.C. Had the hon. member been listening he would have heard the disgusting example which I quoted of the speech made by the Minister of Transport in Quebec city, the remarks of the Secretary of State, and the attempts of this government to suppress a film which the Canadian taxpayers had paid Intervideo Productions $35,000 to produce. If the Canadian taxpayer, as I said before I was interrupted, has paid the price of admission, then he is entitled to see the film, and I do not think the government should bring this pressure to bear on the management of the C.B.C. in an attempt to prevent the film from being shown.
I have before me a telegram from Intervideo Productions which was sent to me yesterday, and I want to read it to the members of the house because I think it deserves an explanation. It reads as follows:
Intervideo Productions has informed C.B.C. it intends to take all actions necessary to enable the film "Mr. Pearson" to be seen. This action taken because C.B.C. has not replied to Intervideo's letter May 21 requesting C.B.C. to implement immediately Intervideo's rights to prints of the film and otherwise to honour the agreement between them.
Why have they not honoured the agreement? What pressures have been brought to bear by the ministers who previewed this film in their little censorship gathering?
Inervideo can now only assume that C.B.C. for its reasons is determined to suppress film completely.
It is signed "Intervideo Productions".
I do not blame the C.B.C. for taking the decision they have taken. Unless a satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the Prime Minister, from the Minister of Transport, from the trade minister or from the Secretary

of State, we shall have to assume that this film was suppressed. We have paid the price; let us have a look at it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly and leave enough time for my hon. friend for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) to say a few words concerning the grievance which has been raised. My remarks may seem somewhat irrelevant, but I still believe that what I say and the grievance I want to raise are quite similar to the one raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
I noticed tonight, and many times before, that some hon. members raise grievances or make accusations, without being able to prove anything whatsoever, concerning either their grievances or their accusations. I mention this fact because it is not the first time that it has happened. In fact, the other day we heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) talking through his hat and levelling an accusation for which he was called a liar, and he did not dare challenge the statement.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Lapointe is not allowed to challenge the word of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is speaking to the grievance raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Because if he is, then it is not clear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite convinced myself that the hon. member is speaking to the same grievance, because he told me he wanted to do that. But in order to determine the question, is the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) speaking to the same grievance?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Besides, that was easy to see from my first remarks.
Mr. Speaker, my grievance concerns the one which was raised earlier and it is precisely because this is not the first time it happened that I wish to speak about it.
The hon. member for Yukon quoted newspaper articles and editorials to support his grievance.
I do not know if what he said is true, but I do know that in making his statement the hon. member did not bring forward any conclusive or striking evidence, in short, no proof at all. All he did was quote from press reports 20220-230i
26, 1964
Alleged Interference in C.B.C. and take Montreal for Quebec, which is rather insulting to us.
Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with this type of grievance today, because for several weeks, especially every time grievances have been raised in the house, it has become the custom to do so without giving any proof, to launch accusations in mid-air, and I am rising now to protest against this practice and against the grievance raised by the hon. member for Yukon.
We have seen that the hon. member for Yukon has proved absolutely nothing, and has launched gratuitous accusations, just like the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montealm has done.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The same old bunch, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montealm and by another hon. member whose riding I do not know but who is a front bencher on the other side. I see that it was the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle) who accused us of being with the Conservatives because we voted against the government. Now, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montealm says that we side with the Liberals. That is not so. The only thing we want is to try to keep some logic in the house after the outbursts we had a while ago.


William Arnold Peters: There is no difference. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: It is true that there is perhaps no difference between the two old parties.
As for a possible interference with the C.B.C., I am more specifically coming to the grievance raised by the hon. member for Yukon. It has been said that some ministers interfere with the authorities of the C.B.C. There is, however, one thing which should be established in this house. We see, for instance, Air Canada and the Canadian National sending their officials before a committee of the house, to explain their position, their principles, their objectives and what they propose to do. Now, this is not the case with the C.B.C.
Indeed, yesterday or the day before, we asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamon-tagne) to set up a committee of the house to inquire into the operations of the C.B.C., to enable us to get some information from the heads and officials of that corporation on
3616	HOUSE OF
Alleged Interference in C.B.C. some points which we may be anxious to clear up. Then, the hon. member for Yukon would be able to obtain the proof of what he just stated.
Mr. Speaker, we are denied such a committee, and that is why I take up the grievance of the hon. member for Yukon in respect to the affairs of the C.B.C. I should like to amplify that grievance, or at least raise one, since there was none a while ago, and ask the government to set up a special committee of the house so that the hon. members may ask the director of the C.B.C. how this crown corporation operates and then express their views and those of the people behind them- and 1 mean members in all corners of the house-on the machinery and administration of that corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is imperative, because it has been several years now since such a committee of the house was instituted. That committee would not be a clumsy interference on the part of members in the affairs of the C.B.C., but it would inform them on what goes on in that corporation. Besides it would also be a source of information for the corporation itself, because we would be in a position to tell them what the people really think of their operations.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is imperative. The Secretary of State (Mr. La-montagne) is not present in the house, but I think that there will be other members of the cabinet-


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my opinion, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is wandering away from the grievance raised by the hon. member for Yukon. Under standing orders, he should restrict himself to the grievance which has been raised, but he is now talking about a quite different matter. He should restrict himself to the subject-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words on that? The subject matter of the grievance in question is the interference of some hon. members of the house in the affairs of the crown corporation which is called the C.B.C. Now, it seems to me that that is precisely what I am talking about, since I am asking the government to set up a committee of the house to prevent such intrusions.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that my remarks are entirely within the scope of the grievance raised a while ago by the hon. member for Yukon. That is why I should like to continue-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to make a ruling as to whether or not the hon. member is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Inasmuch as I have been requested to render a decision, I think the point is well taken by the hon. member for Lapointe in that the grievance is interference with the C.B.C.-


Gordon Minto Churchill: By the government.


Mr. Speaker:: -and he was discussing reaching, I presume, some sort of conclusion in that respect.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I thank you, because it seems to me, after all, that the subject matter is broad enough, since the whole organization of C.B.C. is questioned and this is precisely what I am discussing.
I see that the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the C.B.C. is not here this evening but I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) can be the spokesman for the members of our party and many others in the house, I believe, to ask the Secretary of State to look after the institution of a special committee of the house on C.B.C. organization and affairs. It is not because we would necessarily criticize the C.B.C. On the contrary, in spite of the remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon, I think personally that the C.B.C. is doing an excellent job, that it is one of the agencies that works for the development of bilingualism in our country.
It may be that there are other administrative deficiencies in that corporation. Then, there might be some suggestions to be made, for instance, to appoint Donald Gordon as chairman-he knows about administration- and, since things may not go too well as far as bilingualism is concerned in the C.N.R., Alphonse Ouimet, who is doing a fine job of bilingualism at C.B.C. could be appointed there.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is again out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not share that opinion-


Douglas Mason Fisher: We do.


Mr. Speaker:: -but I believe that the hon. member for Lapointe had just about terminated his remarks. Am I correct?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by officially asking the government to appoint a special committee on the C.B.C., so that we may find out what is happening within that organization and, then, I believe that grievances such as those which were raised tonight, will be less justified.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to part of the grievance raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and that is this question of the film produced by Intervideo Productions Ltd. and called "Mr. Pearson". The other day, probably feeling he had scored a bit of a triumph, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), replying to a question with regard to the government's relationship to this film, said, "We do not censor films on this side of the house". There was a bit of a roar then. I was told later it was probably because in one part of this country, Saskatchewan, there has been some censorship, particularly of a film called "Tom Jones". I would like to suggest that "Tom Jones" and "Mr. Pearson", as films, are a little bit different. The film, "Mr. Pearson", even though it has been turned down by the C.B.C., is no academy award winner.
But I do think there are some points in connection with the film that are very interesting in so far as the relationship of the government and the C.B.C. is concerned. The reports of criticism of the film by the
C.B.C. that have appeared have suggested that the camera work is erratic and that the film is not up to C.B.C. standards. I want to make the point to the house that the man who did the camera work is the man who did the camera work for the very famous television documentary in the United States that showed the Kennedy brothers facing up to the civil rights situation in Alabama. That particular television film won tremendous acclaim for the fact that it introduced the exciting new technique of the wandering camera and wandering sound. While it gave a sort of uneveness to the film, once the viewer became accustomed to it he felt he was really inside things and it was an exciting experience something like, I suppose, when the first vista screens were introduced in the movie theatres. But this is the man who did the camera work.
Who was the producer? Was he some stumblebum off the streets? As a matter of fact, Mr. Ballentine has a very high reputation as a producer and he has been associated with a number of films that have won international awards. So the producer and the cameraman are people with real reputations. One of the terrible things about what has ensued is that their reputations are under a cloud because for some reason the C.B.C. changed its mind in a period of 12 hours on May 5.
The man who announced the turn-down is a man by the name of Reeves Hagan who is in charge of public affairs for the C.B.C.
Alleged Interference in C.B.C.
I think most members know him. The interesting thing about the project when it was first undertaken was that it was not to be done by the public affairs department. First of all it was to be done by the features section and was probably to be shown on "Telescope". As enthusiasm became aroused, Mr. Hagan was the C.B.C. executive who moved to bring the project within the grasp of the public affairs department. They were immensely interested by the prospect of this one hour film on the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) with this exciting new camera technique and filmed by this experienced cameraman.
So they started to work and various slash or rough prints were made as the project went along. There have been a number of screenings over the months. As long ago as before Christmas the Prime Minister with some of his advisers saw a screening. These advisers had nothing to do with the question whether what had been displayed to them should be revealed, because it was in confidence; but they were artistic advisers, if I may put it that way, people who have had some experience with television and who advised him on his appearance and so on.
These screenings were all arranged over some months. It is very obvious from the evidence of Mr. Ballentine, unless he is a complete liar, that Mr. Hagan was bound and determined he would show the film until he got the order to drop the idea. Why did he not show the film? Is it because Ron Fraser or Alphonse Ouimet are really the best judges, rather than the head of their public affairs programs? That is nonsense.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire) is talking about facts. I do not have any facts to nail down actually what happened, but I should like to suggest to the house a reasonable prospect of what happened. First of all, I want to know what business Tom Kent had seeing the film. I want to know what business some of the Liberal party advisers from headquarters had seeing the film.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Keith Davey.


An hon. Member:: Checking the acting.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is an important point. I think everyone can agree that the Prime Minister should have the right to view the film. I am prepared to concede his right to view the film because of the nature of the particular program and the fact that the cameraman was filming what has been cloistered and secret. From that point of view we have no disagreement with the screening for the Prime Minister. But what business have the party advisers at such a screening,

Alleged Interference in C.B.C. as distinct from the governmental advisers? What business have artistic advisers at such screenings unless the assumption is that the Prime Minister had the final O.K. on the film?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I understand that there was a vote taken. It has been reported to me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) thought it was a rather amazing or astounding film. I am told that Mr. Kent thought it was brilliant. I think that was the word he attached to it. But in the voting apparently their votes were lost. They were outvoted. I realize that even the inner circles of the Liberal party have their splits. But in this particular split the vote went against the film and somehow this decision was communicated to the C.B.C. Otherwise how can you explain the fact that Mr. Hagan told the government they were going to proceed with the film and actually set a date for it? How can you explain that, unless there was word from the Prime Minister's office that went to officials of the C.B.C. above Mr. Hagan? They looked at the thing and the story is, of course, that they agreed it was an inferior film.
There is no question that the C.B.C. backed down. They claim that this film does not measure up to their standards. I suggest that there is a legal question involved with respect to whether Mr. Ballentine will have to go ahead, in order to prove that he is not an inferior television film maker, and use a slash print in theatres and on other television stations that will take it or whether the C.B.C. is going to release to him the good prints to which he feels he has a legal right.
I should like to suggest that the government and the Prime Minister have got themselves into a real box, because whether they like it or not the film is going to be shown and it will be very unfortunate if it is an inferior slash print. I should also like to suggest that it is just through this kind of untidy arrangement of people voting on whether a television film should be shown that difficulties arise. I do not want to belabour this particular point very much, but the relationship between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and any government is always a delicate one.
We had a suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) of what might be called pre-censorship in connection with "The Open Grave". Now we have a form of post-censorship, but it is much more serious because it is on the side of the government. We can look back to the "Preview Commentary" dispute and "heads will roll", and we will recognize there is always a temptation
IMr. Fisher.]
on the part of a government to manipulate in a sense. One of the things that is most serious about this situation is that there is abroad among many people in this country-[DOT] I know I have the feeling myself-the feeling that many people in the C.B.C. tend to see themselves almost as agents to preserve the good reputation of the government. For this very reason I think it is most unfortunate that the C.B.C. has acceded, I believe, to information from the Prime Minister's office that this film does not satisfy the Prime Minister and his advisers because it shows him, they believe, in an unfavourable and petulant light. I think it is a disgrace that this situation has developed in the way it has. I suggest the only way to get out of it is for the C.B.C. to release the prints and let the rest of the country see the film on media that are less high in their standards. I think we will be able to form our own judgment then whether the $35,000 was wasted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,159,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,381,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including the administration of the Explosives Act and Canada's fee for membership in the Pan-American Institute of Geograph and History, $2,191,000.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,289,221,625 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 42, 45 and 50 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $799,648,500 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $3,917,825.

[Stage Direction]
2.	Departmental administration, $2,099,000.

DEPARTMENT OP SECRETARY OF STATE 1. Departmental administration, $363,600.
Proceedings reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East) for the second reading of Bill No. S-17, respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada.
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Antigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, when this subject was last before the house I drew the attention of Your Honour and hon. members to the importance of the subject matter to the people of most of the constituencies of the Atlantic provinces. Twenty nine constituencies in the Atlantic provinces are bordered by the Atlantic ocean, and the lives of the people in these constituencies are deeply touched by all matters affecting this great and historic industry, the fishing industry.
Now, as Your Honour knows, the scheme of the legislation is complicated. I know from what has been said by hon. members opposite, particularly by hon. members from that most westerly of our provinces, British Columbia, that there is in that quarter a certain uneasiness with the bill before the house. I think Your Honour should know that this uneasiness is not shared by the people of Atlantic Canada. We think that the scheme of this legislation is excellent. We see in this legislation a pre-figuring of an arrangement which will be highly beneficial both to our inshore fishermen and to those who venture out farther upon the sea.
Your Honour will recall that this legislation provides for the drawing of straight base lines. The waters inside those base lines will be the inland waters of Canada, and all legislation which applies to any of the inland waters of Canada generally will apply there. I think the importance of this aspect sometimes has been overlooked. Outside the straight base lines will be the territorial sea of Canada extending for three miles seaward, and immediately beyond that-


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


John B. Stewart: Yes.


George Louis Chatterton: I think the hon. member said the legislation prescribes base lines. Will he kindly refer me to the part of the legislation which does that?


John B. Stewart: I think anyone who has perused the bill knows that what this bill
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones enables the government to do is to describe a particular sequence of straight lines which will give to Canada the largest possible portion of sea for its use. I do not believe anybody in this house would demand more. I think I know to what the hon. gentleman is adverting in his question, and I shall come to his point later.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, the third aspect concerns Canada's fishing zones. These will lie beyond the territorial sea in a band of water nine miles wide, so that outside the straight base line there will be a 12 mile area for which the fishing regulations made by the government of Canada will be the regulating principles. I think anybody who is familiar with the oculated coast line of Atlantic Canada will appreciate how attractive this legislation is to us.
Now, it has been suggested that this is not the juncture at which this particular bill should have been brought forward. We have been told that it would have been better for the government to have done one of two things, either to have proceeded with those negotiations, which I am sure every hon. member in this house would wish us to conduct with friendly powers, and at the conclusion of those negotiations embalm the result in a statute of parliament, or to proceed by drawing up now a bill to be enacted declaring prior to further negotiations what our base line would be.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that neither of these courses of action would be as desirable as the course which the present government has elected to follow. As we know, the question of the rights of other powers to have their fishermen fish in our waters is a complicated one. It is not likely that the governments of other countries will lightly give up any claims which they may make. I do not wish to pass upon the validity of these claims. I am sure that in some instances they may very well be regarded by some of our international lawyers as exaggerated. They make these claims both on treaty grounds and on historic grounds. I think everybody in the house would insist that before taking the definitive action, which this government is prepared to take eventually if necessary, there should be complete and amicable exploration of the claims of these other countries.
This exploration, we have been told, has been under way for several months and can be expected to continue for some time. What the government is now asking for is really very simple. The government is coming to this house and is saying, we want you now to give us a mandate to proceed. We have engaged these other countries in negotiations. The negotiations have proceeded to that point
3620	HOUSE OF
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones at which we are now prepared to ask parliament to give us a mandate to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. We believe that this negotiation has proceeded to the point at which we should be able to inform those powers with whom we have been negotiating that we indeed have the statutory authority to make a final settlement in this whole complicated affair.
Now, sir, in the circumstances I do not see how any other course of action would have been reasonable. I suspect that even had there been no change in government a year ago, parliament today might very well find itself in exactly the same position that it is in now, and I would hope that hon. members who happen to belong to my party would not in that case chastise the government for coming to parliament at this juncture to ask for a mandate to establish a straight line base system and a 12 mile fishing zone, both of which would be so beneficial to our people.
I have almost concluded, but there is one more thing I want to say. It is that I hope, as the debate proceeds on this important issue, that nothing will be put on the record which will cause any misconception in any quarter, within this country or without this country, as to our determination to establish for Canada a 12 mile fishing zone extending beyond waters which are ours by undoubted right. I think this is something on which, despite our minor disagreements, we are emphatically agreed. I think no one in any quarter should have any doubt about this matter. This is one issue on which the Canadian people are enthusiastically unanimous. We are going to have this. We prefer to have it be achieved by amicable negotiation, but we are going to have it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, any measure dealing with the fishing industry is of vital importance to Canadians generally, and especially to representatives from the Atlantic provinces. I listened with considerable interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) when he made his statement relative to the government's proposal unilaterally to establish a 12 mile exclusive fishing zone off Canada's coasts.
While this action is commendable from a conservation point of view, there are still some questions unanswered, questions that require clarification by the government. The most important question in the minds of many Canadian fishermen today deals with the problem of friendly relations that may or that may not exist between Canada and the United States as a result of the government's action.
On the east coast we are concerned with the preservation of our traditional fisheries 

markets in the United States, markets that are of vital importance to our maritime economy and to our east coast fishing industry. I ask the minister and the government where are the safeguards for these markets? What are the results of the negotiations that have been carried on in recent weeks and months by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you asking me to answer now?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, I would like to have that statement on the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As this is a very important matter I do not want to interfere with my hon. friend making his speech, but he asked the question. As he knows, there are negotiations under way between Canada, the United States, France and a number of other countries. Those negotiations have not concluded and it is because they have not concluded that it has not been possible-as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken indicated-to proceed definitively and completely with the establishment of the straight base line system.
The negotiations are still under way. These negotiations are friendly, and there would be no justification in anything that has taken place for any concern on the part of anyone in Canada about our relations with the United States or with any other countries. We are proceeding as friends in our negotiations.
There is no intention to interfere with the treaty, or historic fishing rights of the United States, with whom the particular negotiation has been put in question by my hon. friend, and there is no justification for creating the suggestion that anything involving Canada's interests stands in jeopardy. Coming as he does from a fishing district I am sure my hon. friend joins with my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) in saying it is desirable that we should have a 12 mile fishing zone to protect our fishing industry.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am grateful to the minister for his explanation, but I would like to tell him that I expressed my concern in the manner, which I did a moment ago, as a result of his very own words which he placed on record in Hansard on May 20 at page 3409, as follows:
I am convinced that in taking this action now- as the government is doing, unilaterally-Canada is acting in accordance with present day international law and practice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The government is convinced that we are following the wisest course in immediately seeking

agreements with the countries affected by our action. We are equally convinced that we must carry forward our negotiations with these countries before we proclaim the base lines for our entire coast.
Then a little further on he stated:
When the government took its decision to establish a 12 mile fishing zone and straight base lines, we did not minimize the problems involved in some of the negotiations lying ahead of us. Nor do we minimize them now. These negotiations may be difficult and we must accept this fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is because of those words and the very doubts that the minister raised in the minds of many Canadians over the results of these negotiations that I spoke as I did. He states that the government is convinced, but I question whether he has yet convinced the United States who have traditionally rights in these waters. It is in the United States market that we must sell so much of our fish, and this is why I raise this doubt.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I am pointing out to my hon. friend is that what the United States are concerned about has nothing to do with markets at all. This is a point of law. It does not in any way involve Canada's markets in the United States. These do not stand in jeopardy at all and the very suggestion that they do, which my hon. friend makes, is one that I suggest to him- as the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) pointed out the other night-is not helpful to a very important negotiation under way now between Canada and the United States.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last in the house to say anything that would not be helpful in the negotiations, because I represent a constituency which has undoubtedly the largest fishing fleet in North America, and therefore I want my remarks to be helpful. But when you are dealing with an industry like the fishing industry, that will have a market value in my province of Nova Scotia alone, this year of approximately $70 million, this house and this industry need facts about the protective measures that are being taken for its future.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the place for any fast, slick promises that may have been made during the last two election campaigns by hon. members who now occupy the seats to the right of Your Honour and who form the government, promises made about the value of a 12 mile fishing zone. We in the Atlantic provinces know that conservation measures must be taken, but we are also a practical people and we know that at present some 70 per cent of our entire catch of fish must be sold on the
26. 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones American market. The Lunenburg county fleet alone can catch sufficient fish to feed the entire population of Canada, some 19 million persons.
So I say we need and must maintain the United States market for our fishing industry. In speeches I have made on this subject from the day I entered the house I have taken this stand and I reiterate it tonight because its importance cannot be underestimated. It is for this reason I wish to impress on the minister, for the benefit of thousands of Canadian fishermen and for the benefit of an equal number of processors and handlers of the fish we land on the Atlantic coast, the importance of maintaining this market and assuring us that the Americans are in complete agreement with the negotiations and with the establishment of this limit.
The subject of fisheries conservation is not something new. It is a problem which has plagued various governments since the early days of this century. In fact, we read in a royal commission report on fisheries in 1928- the exact date is May 4-that the following resolution was passed by the House of Commons on February 6, 1911:
That in the opinion of this house, as the mode of fishing known as steam trawling prosecuted by ships of different nationalities on the coast of Canada outside Canadian waters is destructive to fish life, it is expedient in order to conserve the deep sea fisheries, that negotiations be opened wih the view of securing an international agreement-
And you will note it specifically states "international agreement"-
-prohibiting this mode of fishing in such spawning grounds for deep sea fish as the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence and the banks of the north Atlantic adjacent to the coasts of Canada and Newfoundland.
That was way back on February 6, 1911. Then, in the same report on page 91 it is stated:
In order to protect further the shore fishermen, the Canadian government in 1915 enacted a regulation under the Customs Act, whereby the master of any steam-trawier is required before he is granted a clearance for the fishing grounds to give the customs officer a declaration that he will not fish within at least 12 miles from shore, this regulation to apply to all steam-trawlers clearing from a Canadian port on the Atlantic coast. Since that time no further restrictions have been placed on steam-trawlers operating from ports of the maritime provinces.
It is this latter regulation which has plagued the Canadian fishermen over the years and as a result we find the anomalous situation in which Canadian fishermen have, since 1915, been required to fish 12 miles from the Canadian coast while fishermen of all other nations have been permitted to fish within three miles of our shores.
I might add that the three mile limit has never been agreed to among the nations of the

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones world, as far as I can see from the literature I have read. Such a limit was proposed many years ago by two great international powers, Great Britain and the United States, the idea being that the three mile range of their cannon would establish sovereignty over their coastal waters. However, when the league of nations convened a conference at The Hague in 1930 to consider regulations concerning the law of the sea there was so much disagreement on what should be the breadth of territorial water that no resolution or proposal could even be put to a vote. Interest in this matter seemed to lapse until 1958 in which year the United Nations called a conference in Geneva to consider the law of the sea. It was evident that fishing rights and territorial limits had become more important over the years since representatives from 86 states attended the conference. A Conservative government was in power in Canada and under the able leadership of the then minister of external affairs, Hon. Howard Green, a Canadian proposal supporting a 12 mile limit was put forward. Here, again, I pay tribute to the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) for his remarks in commendation of the action taken by Mr. Green at that time. I think it is praiseworthy that the minister should in this way have done justice to one of Canada's great ministers. We put forward at that time a proposal for a 12 mile limit. Our proposal was known as a "six and six" proposal-six miles of territorial sea and six miles in which fishing limits applied. The present proposal calls for a three mile territorial sea and a nine mile fishing zone. In effect, we advocated what we will refer to as a 12 mile limit proposal. We, the Conservatives, hoped to establish this 12 mile limit by international agreement bearing in mind our trade and treaty commitments. We Conservatives believed in international agreement because a principle is at stake in this problem-the principle that the rights of states in international law depend on the consent of other states. However, although the conference was successful in reaching agreement on 113 articles of the law of the sea, after six weeks of intensive debate the contest between those who wished a three mile territorial sea and those who wished a 12 mile territorial sea failed by one vote to gain the required two thirds majority which would have resolved it. Accordingly, there is still no agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea among the 86 nations represented at that conference.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the leader of the house if he can forecast the business for the rest of the week.


Mr. Favreau:: I will forecast the matters to be taken up tomorrow. First, we will resume debate on the second reading of the bill respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada. Second, we will proceed with the resolution introducing the measure to amend the National Housing Act. I hope, somewhere, somehow, we can deal with item No. 7 on the order paper, second reading of a bill to authorize the construction of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river between the city of Ste-Foy in the county of Quebec and the municipality of St. Nicholas. I believe, subsequently, we will be taking up item No. 14 which is a resolution introducing a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, the question I raise tonight concerns an item published in the newspaper Mont-real-Matin on May 20, 1964, and entitled: "Who is right?" I quote:
The number of claimants of unemployment benefits reached 597,000 on March 31, according to the d.b.s. official unemployment statistics showed 403,000 unemployed throughout Canada on April 18.
The discrepancy between those two figures, the former based on reports of the unemployment insurance commission, and the latter on a sample survey, has never been clearly explained.
As a preliminary to the question which I directed on May 20, 1964 to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), I quoted the figures which had appeared in the article of the said newspaper.
The question read as follows:
Could the minister clearly explain the discrepancy between the two figures, since one is based on a report of the unemployment insurance commission and the other on a sample survey.
By computing the difference between the figures provided by the unemployment insurance commission and those of the sample survey, we obtain the rather interesting and high figure of 194,000 unemployed over or below, whether we refer to one of the official sources concerning unemployment.

How can a reduction of 194,000 unemployed in Canada within 15 days be explained?
The sixty days of the present Liberal government having proved to be a disaster for the whole Canadian population, could it be that they were offset by the first 15 days of April, during which the government would have created all the jobs promised during the election campaign?
I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, that we have there the explanation for this tremendous gap.
Where then are we to find the answer to that question? We might have to look for it in the meaning or definition given to the word "unemployed".
What is meant by "unemployed"? Is it only those who are lucky enough to get unemployment insurance benefits, that is to say, if I may, those unemployed on a full-time basis, who are not allowed to have a little sideline and earn a little money without always feeling the sword of Damocles hanging above their heads and which might come crashing down the moment it is discovered that they are earning a few cents on top of their unemployment insurance benefits?
On the other hand, is the word "unemployed" used to mean those who, while drawing their unemployment insurance benefits, in whole or in part, can earn a maximum amount of money during the week? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that some people can earn up to $20 a week without this being detrimental to them as far as their collection of unemployment insurance benefits is concerned. I do not believe that they draw those benefits in full but they draw at least an important portion of the benefits due to their condition. These people are usually classified as part-time workers.
Could the minister tell us whether, in computing the number of unemployed registered at the various offices, the statistics officers consider as unemployed those people I just mentioned or described?
Finally, are investigations made to establish the number of persons unemployed, many of whom, knowing they have no chance at all of being put on the list of unemployed who get unemployment insurance benefits, do not even try to get on that list?
Finally, are those who are denied during two or even six weeks, unemployment insurance benefits as a penalty for their failure to follow the required procedure at their local unemployment insurance office, included as unemployed?
In that last case, I could say that if those people are not considered as unemployed, we
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion must blame certain little aristocrats who, sitting behind their desk, are making game of those poor people who do not understand that awkward unemployment insurance legislation. They go back home with empty hands simply because they were taken in by those little squirts who sometimes interpret the act as they please to save the government the payment of too many benefits.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what, in the opinion of the minister, is an unemployed and second, why there is such a discrepancy in the official figures from the unemployment insurance commission and the d.b.s.
I should like the Minister of Labour, who as I notice now is absent tonight to explain to me those figures.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) has asked me to express his regret at his inability to be in the house this evening at this period. The hon. member has introduced several more questions which of course it would be impossible for me, or for anyone else for that matter, to answer within the three minutes provided under the new rule. However, I point out to the hon. member that he has answered some of these questions himself.
In order to explain the discrepancy in the two figures I would first refer the hon. member to a report of the committee on unemployment statistics that was set up by the former administration, which committee reported to the house in August of 1960. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would simply state that the 597,300 active unemployment insurance claimants reported by the unemployment insurance commission as of March 31 include those persons referred to by the hon. member who are employed part-time but do receive some measure of benefit.
The dominion bureau of statistics labour force survey, on the other hand, of April 18 as opposed to the earlier date of March 31, does not include such persons. In addition, the unemployment insurance figures provided by the unemployment insurance commission are an average of the number of people drawing benefit during the whole month, while the d.b.s. figures are an estimate of the number of people unemployed during the third week of the month; that is to say, ending the 18th day. The 194,300 discrepancy may be further explained, or rather is self-evident, when one has regard for the significant dates when employment seasonally increases at an accelerated rate.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The other matters, or assertions, that the hon. member has brought forward are impossible to answer in the short time at my disposal, but I would certainly refer the hon. member to this report, which he may obtain in the library. It will, I am sure, accurately show him why there does appear quite often to be a large discrepancy in these two figures.



TRADE-CONTINUATION OF POLICY RESPECTING OIL EXPORTS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on May 21 last I asked a question which is to be found at page 3431 of Hansard. I want to make it very clear that when I mentioned that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) was absent that day, I know he had absolute justification for being absent; he was no doubt engaged in duties in reference to his own department even if he was not in the house. Therefore I directed my question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). The question was in reference to an article-I do not want to take the time of the house by reading from the newspaper-which appeared in the New York Times and was requoted in the Calgary Herald. I read it in both newspapers. The article was in reference to the petroleum industry, and in particular concerned the acceptance by the Soviet union of petroleum and other oil products in return for Canadian grain. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said that there was no justification for the statement. His actual words were:
Not to my knowledge, but it is important, Mr. Speaker, and I shall look into it.
The next day, May 22, and I am not criticizing the Prime Minister because only a day had elapsed, I asked him if he had any information. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) had not returned from his duties elsewhere and the Prime Minister said he had no information but he again emphasized that it was an important question.
I am not complaining about the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at all but I had a supplementary question I wished to ask because if we did get into a deal with Soviet Russia in petroleum products there would be repercussions from the United States. Even before the minister became a member of the house he was no doubt active in the enterprise when he was deputy minister of trade and commerce, and we know that the eastern market is open to the entry of Venezuelan crude. In this case these companies are United States companies. If we introduced quotas for the eastern market there would be repercussions in the United States.

I think this is a very important question. It may be that I owe the Speaker some apology for the way I spoke the other afternoon when he brought me to order, but with the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, it is an important, urgent question, and in saying that I have in mind some of the other questions asked that day. When we realize that a year ago we were able to bring our payments position closer to balancing because of the petroleum industry may I say I was rather shocked when I was prevented from asking this question.
We can look at the Canada Year Book for 1962 and 1963 particularly, and I am sure the minister will not have any argument in that regard. I am not saying this because the Conservatives were in power then. I want to keep this matter out of politics. It is too important to get it into politics. It affects the economy of western Canada. A national oil policy was developed whereby we could ship our crude petroleum to the western states. Discussions were carried on with the proper authorities in the United States and their purchases of our crude petroleum were beginning to accelerate. The only way we can keep the oil industry of western Canada healthy is either by consuming the product domestically or exporting up to 800,000 barrels of crude petroleum a day. The Canada Year Book will show that we brought our exports up to 668,000 barrels daily. In other words, we were near the target.
Prior to the Suez crisis we had trouble. Then the Suez crisis came along and we were able to accelerate our exports and to keep our petroleum industry healthy. But then we got into trouble after the Suez crisis ended. We then went downgrade and we got into a serious situation indeed. Since the deal made in 1959 or 1960-I am not too sure what year -whereby the western states would buy crude petroleum from western Canada and we would leave the eastern market alone our industry has been fairly healthy. So I felt that my supplementary question was very important.
I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that if we did enter into a deal with Soviet Russia in respect of crude petroleum there would be repercussions in the United States that would cramp our whole industry and bring about a serious depression in the industry, not only in western Canada but throughout Canada as a whole. The repercussions would not only be felt in the industry but in respect of our balance of payments position with the United States.
When you prevented my asking a supplementary question of that calibre and importance, Mr. Speaker, and allowed other

questions of lesser calibre and with really no national importance, then it was only natural that I should want to take up the matter at this time. I am not criticizing the minister's answer to my question. He said there was no truth in the statement and that they were merely negotiating. There is nothing wrong with negotiating as long as the government of Canada, whether Liberal or Conservative, does not bite.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) for giving me an opportunity of saying one or two things about our national oil policy. If I may refer to the question the hon. member did ask, I shall quote from page 3536 of Hansard for May 25, 1964:
Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce continuing the national oil policy so that we may accelerate our exports in this field to a target of approximately 800,000 barrels of crude petroleum a day, taking into account the amount we use domestically?
I am sure my hon. friend does not read all my speeches, but perhaps I may refer him to a speech I made in Calgary on February 3 in which I said, amongst other things, that I agreed with the national oil policy which had been enunciated by the previous government. I agreed that this was a good policy. I went on to say that as soon as possible after this government took office I made clear that this policy would be continued and carried forward.
I then went on to say in the concluding part of this speech that I thought it was necessary to establish new targets. At that time I said I thought it was feasible and desirable to establish a target figure for 1964. I quote from that speech:
After considering the prospects for growth in the domestic market, for additional displacement by Canadian oil in the Ontario market, and for exports, we think average production should reach about 850,000 barrels per day.
I think my hon. friend would like to know that production for the first two months of this year was well in excess of this target, so that the figure of 800,000 barrels he somehow considers fairly satisfactory has been well exceeded. It seems to me that the industry is well within reach of the target, looking at the whole of the year, but to achieve it the industry will have to exert strong and continued efforts to supply Ontario west of the Ottawa valley with products of refined Canadian crude. I feel confident that the industry will do this and achieve its objective.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say anything except to thank the minister.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



CROWN ASSETS-DISPOSITION OF EQUIPMENT OF CLOSED RADAR STATION

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) because, within a week, it is the second time that he is here for this question period between 10 and 10.30 in the evening to consider the matter of the radar station in St. Sylvestre.
That name has become quite familiar to the ears of hon. members and they are all aware that this famous station is located in the riding of Lotbiniere.
Mr. Speaker, here is the matter I want to call to the attention of the minister in his capacity as Minister of Defence Production: there is in St. Sylvestre some material and equipment worth quite a lot of money and I would like to know what the Minister of Defence Production intends to do with it.
Is the minister willing to dispose of that material and equipment which would not have any military use and, in such a case, is he willing to set what I would call a nominal price for it, in order to stimulate the interest of the industrialists or other people who might be interested in operating the existing facilities?
The minister is aware, I think, that an association that goes by the name of "Centre d'initiative de Saint-Sylvestre" was created recently. It is made up of the following members: the mayor of the parish of St. Sylvestre, Mr. Ondsime Nappert, a well known citizen because last year he won the title of maple king of the province of Quebec, Messrs. Henri Dion, Andre Huppe, Edouard Cotter, Arthur Barbeau, Louis R. Ruel, Paul Th6-berge, Yvan Dallaire, of Levis, and Gaston Blais, of Lauzon, who would like to set up a recreation centre in St. Sylvestre.
That project is just as good as any other, and if the minister were willing to sell all the equipment at St. Sylvestre for a reasonable price, I am sure that that would encourage some organization to operate that centre for the welfare of the people who live in the riding of Lotbiniere, who enjoyed a certain prosperity after the establishment of the radar station. In fact, the closing down of that station is causing some worry, and that is why I insist so often on this subject in the house. That is why I spare no effort to convince the minister of the urgency of maintaining the local economy at the level it reached because of the radar station.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Defence Production is a man of great honesty and competence. If I speak of honesty, it is because, at one time, some people expressed
3626	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the fear that the disposal of equipment by the Minister of Defence Production might lead to speculation. We must prevent that, and if the government is willing to get rid of the equipment in question, I hope it will do so to the advantage of the St. Sylvestre area and in such a way as to prevent certain financiers, who always find a way to profit from such situations, from running off with everything. The proposed centre would be quite advantageous for the residents of St. Sylvestre, since the radar station is in the immediate neighbourhood. That is why I would like them to have the same chance as big speculators.
That is the question I wanted to put to the minister. I thank him for his kindness, since this is the second time he comes to the house to speak about St. Sylvestre during this period.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members are well aware of the situation concerning the radar stations at St. Sylvestre and elsewhere. The government knows quite well how important is the problem of disposing of the assets represented by the radar stations and other national defence establishments which are about to be closed for major policy considerations.
What the government is trying to do is to find a means, both in the parish of St. Sylvestre and elsewhere, to maintain the activity brought about by the establishment of radar stations.
In the case of St. Sylvestre, it is obvious that, because that station is located in a rural area, at a good distance from railways and highways, it is quite difficult to find an

industry willing to establish itself there. However, it is possible that some organization will be found which could use that equipment. My department is now looking for such organization.
For example, there may be some public education institution which could use it, because it could shelter the students, and it would not cost too much.
Again, a public health institution could establish a sanatorium there.
But, I must say to the hon. member that, for the time being, we have little hope that an industry will want to set up shop in that radar station. I will admit frankly that up to now efforts we have made along those lines have been to no avail.
We are now considering with the authorities of the province of Quebec and officials of public institutions suggestions which, we hope, will lead to the utilization of that radar station.
I wish to commend the hon. member for his suggestion that the equipment of the radar station be turned over to an initiative centre. The establishment of such a centre is definitely what is needed and I hope its directors will succeed beautifully. The officials of the development agency will surely help them to find the means to use that radar station-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -but the hon. member will understand that we cannot give equipment to an institution-

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, May 27, 1964