1964-03-30

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), that this house do now adjourn.


Mr. Nugent:: Till April 6?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to the motion?


Mr. Howard:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and the house adjourned until 2.30 p.m., Monday, March 30.
1541
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 30, 1964


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail in which the editorial writer has made a personal attack on me in connection with the discharge of my duties in this house last week. I should make it plain at the outset that I have no objection to the cartoon above the editorial. I recognize the figure, if not the face.
The editorial itself is the type of attack that I think any member should take objection to because, first, it is highly prejudicial; and second, it makes allegations which are unsupported by the facts and indeed insulting to me.


Mr. Winch:: You ought to hear what I think about you.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have many opportunities of hearing the hon. member, and I am not always so sure that they are welcome.


Harold Edward Winch: I am changing my mind about capital punishment.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The particular line to which I take objection is the one that says my action was taken in defence of no principles. I feel that the story on the front page of the same paper, if the editorial writer had bothered to familiarize himself with that even without bothering to read Hansard, would have informed the writer that the charges were not supported. The principles involved, as any member of this house would recognize, were very clearly stated. They were that the government is not mightier than parliament. There are others; that no government can get away with trying to use a club on parliament; that individual members in this house have a responsibility which they must discharge as their conscience dictates, no matter how unpopular that might make them; that co-operation of parliament and government is not a one way street.
I think the editorial writer, if he will bother to read Hansard the next time, will realize that if he is incapable of being fair he should at least try to be accurate.
20220-98J



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the terrible catastrophe that struck Alaska just before the week end and also brought serious damage to Vancouver island and other parts of the Pacific coast, I would ask the Prime Minister whether any request has been received from the province of British Columbia for the country as a whole to assist in the serious losses suffered by the people in the areas in B.C. that were affected.
At the same time I want to say to the Prime Minister that we join with him in the message of sympathy that was extended to the United States on the terrible catastrophe that took place.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been appointed by the government to co-ordinate the activities of the federal government with a view to assisting the province of British Columbia and the area concerned in the tragic damage that area has suffered. Perhaps, if the right hon. gentleman agrees, I might ask my colleague to make a report on what has been done.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I was in Vancouver on Friday night, and early Saturday morning I had a communication from the Prime Minister's office asking me to contact Premier Bennett with an offer of federal assistance if the extent of the damage was beyond the capacity of the municipalities and the province to carry.
I endeavoured to contact Premier Bennett, without avail; then Attorney General Bonner; then Hon. Mr. Kiernan, and finally I spoke to Hon. Leslie Peterson, the provincial minister of labour. I informed him of this offer and he told me that quite probably investigations were already under way but, if not, he would see they would be undertaken at once and he would reply. We have not heard anything yet, and to this moment the government of Canada has not had an application for assistance from the government of the province of British Columbia.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I might add that we have had requests for assistance from the mayors of the two cities of Port Alberni and Alberni, and latterly a second request for the use of army engineers stationed at Chilliwack. Our reply to them has been that we would be glad to give such aid and assistance, and indeed lend personnel, if the request comes from the government of the province of British Columbia. I want to assure the right hon. gentleman that the Department of National Defence has been working very closely with us on this, and is quite prepared to act upon a moment's notice. Also the emergency measures organization, the Red Cross and other agencies in the province of British Columbia are either working effectively now or are prepared to act on a moment's notice if they are required.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. gentleman. As I see it the matter now rests with the government of the province of British Columbia to request assistance in the event that the damage was such as to constitute a national disaster. I would also like to ask the Prime Minister whether, with a view to showing Canada's general attitude, a contribution will be made to the Red Cross for use in the devastated areas of Alaska.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In our message to the President, to which the right hon. gentleman referred a moment ago, we have indicated not only our sympathy for the victims of the disaster but our desire to assist if assistance is called for, and we have intimated to the President that we are making preparatory arrangements in the event that such a request should be made. May I say that I would be very glad to take up with the Red Cross, apart from this message to the President of the United States, the possibility of assisting the Canadian Red Cross if their help is required by the agencies concerned.


Mr. T. S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to ask a related question on the subject, but first, perhaps, as the member representing the constituency which has suffered the damage, might I be permitted to express my appreciation of the offer which has been made by the Prime Minister and the government to provide assistance should the province request it.
I should like to direct my related question to the Minister of Public Works and ask whether he or his department has yet received any report as to the damage which may have been sustained by federal harbour installations along the west coast of Vancouver island; and, if damage has occurred, whether measures are being proceeded with to effect a speedy repair of the installations in ques-

tion which are, of course, of great concern to the fishing fleet and other users along the west coast.


Hon. J. P. Deschaieleis (Minister of Public Works):: We are looking into this matter at the moment. I have no special information to give the hon. member at the present time, but officials of my department are looking into the matter.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Is the Prime Minister aware of the report to the effect that an atomic explosion in the Pacific caused the disaster last Friday in Alaska and in British Columbia, and that an investigation is being held in that connection? [Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I am not aware of those rumours, but I am aware of the scientific information which has already appeared and which indicates that it was an earthquake. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister recognize that an earthquake can be caused by an atomic explosion.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Caribou):: May I ask the
Prime Minister if his attention has been called to an article in today's Gazette which states that Mr. Dan Campbell intends to ask the department of municipal affairs that Port Alberni and Alberni be called a disaster area, and that a committee of some kind is being set up to investigate the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I saw that report. It indicates that the provincial government is looking into the matter and, as already stated, if the provincial government, having declared this a disaster area, require federal assistance they will receive federal assistance.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and may I take this opportunity to welcome him back to the house after his attendance at this very important international conference relating to trade with underdeveloped countries.
In view of the report this morning of shooting incidents in Cyprus, does the hon. gentleman have any information to give to the house in relation to the Cyprus situation as it affects Canadian troops and the authority they have for carrying out their responsibilities as peace keepers?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: I thank the hon. member for his preliminary observation. I had thought that when we get to the items in my supplementary estimates it might be possible to deal with this and with other matters which engaged my attention last week when I was in Geneva. I may say, however, that the directive and terms of reference to the force, which have been discussed with the secretary general and with the commander of the force, General Gyani, are such, in my judgment, as to make possible the successful functioning of the United Nations peace force and participation in that force by the Canadian contingent. When we get to the items in the estimates I shall be very glad to go into the matter further.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefle-L'Assompfion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, as the minister responsible to this house for the affairs of the C.B.C.
Since religious authorities and parents are greatly concerned by the fact that the C.B.C.'s network is showing both immoral films and films which put the accent on crime at a time of day when children are watching television, does the minister intend to compel the C.B.C. to submit those films, before they are presented, to a body composed of parents, religious authorities and educators?
[T ext]


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest this is a question for the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that question to be most urgent. Moreover, I know the minister is willing to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that the question is important, but not so pressing or so urgent that it should take up our time at the moment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can he tell the house whether the censorship of movies broadcast by C.B.C. comes under provincial jurisdiction?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be against the rules of this house for me to give a legal opinion to the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not against the rules of this house, and I ask the minister to answer my question. It is an urgent one, and I think it is my duty to ask this kind of question.


Mr. Dupuis:: Go to bed early.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I think it is my duty to ask this question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -and I think we face the same old bunch.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has in effect put his question three times but my decision is still the same, that there is not that sense of urgency in his question that we should take the time of the house on this particular occasion to get a reply. Would he put it on the order paper? The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I ask the hon. lady what is to be the fate of the hospitals operated under the Indian and northern health services branch of her department. Are they to be treated in the same way as the veterans hospitals?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the policy that has been followed in recent years. If there were to be such a change it would be announced as part of government policy.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the critical hospital bed shortage in metropolitan Toronto, could the minister inform the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Maurice John Moreau: -whether a formal request has been received from the government of Ontario for an increase in federal government hospital construction grants?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt. This is a question for the order paper. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott).


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Speaker, I had a supplementary to the question you suggested should be placed on the order paper.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise on a point of order with regard to the question of urgent importance which was raised by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. In view of the fact that in the past you have permitted us to raise this matter on orders of the day, and in view of the fact that we have evidence that a citizen died in Toronto on the week end because he could not get into a hospital, I am wondering why the matter was urgent last week but is not urgent today.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may put it in this way, I am in the happy position of not being obliged to answer that question.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It relates to an answer the Prime Minister gave me about a week and a half ago on orders of the day concerning the hospital shortage in metro Toronto, at which time the Prime Minister indicated that he would make a decision one way or another whether the federal government would give any assistance to metropolitan Toronto in the construction of hospitals. Has the Prime Minister made a decision and, if so, is he in a position to indicate it to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend, and I am grateful to him for his patience in this matter because I know how important it is and how interested he and other members are in it. The answer I might have

given him last week would have been perhaps more negative than he would have liked. Since that time I have become aware of the fact that this whole matter will be discussed, I hope, in Quebec with the provincial premiers including the premier of Ontario, and perhaps I will be able to give the hon. member a different answer after that conference.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether radio reports are correct that the government is now in full retreat from its announced intention to transfer the veterans affairs hospitals to other levels of government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Just partially.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister supplementary to that of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that if arrangements are made to let other interests use some of the hospital beds now under the control of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the actual control of these hospitals will be left with the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it would be the intention, Mr. Speaker, that the hospitals be left in the control of the department. I can also assure my hon. friend that if any change of this kind were made the interests of the veterans would not in any way be prejudiced.
[Later:}


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to clarify two conflicting answers he has given this afternoon. He indicated to me that the veterans hospitals would be transferred to other authorities, and he indicated to the hon. member for Middlesex West that it was not the intention of the government to do so. What is the situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend
has misinterpreted my answer to him, as I think he will find out when he reads Hansard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Prime Minister was whether the government was now retreating from its announced intention to transfer the veterans affairs hospitals to other levels of government and his answer

was no. He gave a different answer to the hon. member for Middlesex West. I would hope that we could rely on the Prime Minister's statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has now misquoted his own question. His question was whether the government was in full retreat, and I said no.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a related question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in the hope that it may help to clear up the matter. Are week end reports correct to the effect that in the case of the tri-service hospital here in Ottawa the intention is to keep the hospital within the Department of Veterans Affairs but possibly to make some of its empty beds available for civilian patients? If so, may I ask the minister whether this is a pattern that might be followed in the case of some other veterans hospitals?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance the tri-service hospital in Ottawa is not under the control of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is administered by the Department of National Defence. I heard the report that came out over the week end and I have a transcript of the report as it came over the wires. I see nothing in the report which is incompatible with the statement I made in the house the other day.
I have tried to indicate as clearly as I could that there would be different applications in different circumstances. It is a matter of reaching the objective of maintaining the quality of medical services. This is our objective, and it may mean that we will seek to attain this end in a different manner in different localities. So far as the tri-service hospital is concerned, the Department of Veterans Affairs uses these facilities for our veterans. We have our own staff there. I have heard no comments to the effect of the report. I have attempted to check on the report in the department, and as far as I know the report comes from no one within the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. R. W. Prillie (Burnaby-Richmond):: supplementary question to the Prime Minister on the question of veterans hospitals. Are we to interpret his answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as meaning that there is a partial retreat from the announced policy, and will the government make a complete statement on this subject shortly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the statements already made by the minister in the house are, I think, perfectly clear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are far from clear.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he will investigate the situation at Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, where veterans are kept waiting while the facilities of this hospital are made available to civilians.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I have asked for a report on that matter as a result of the hon. member's question about a week ago. It has not yet come to hand.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister replied to the question in a rather off hand manner. I have not asked this question before, so how can he say he made an investigation on the basis of a question I had asked?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I do not think it is necessary to make a reply. I had grave doubts whether the original question was in order, but in view of its humane aspects it was allowed.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should apologize. Someone did ask that question and I did ask for a report, but I may have been mistaken; it may have been another hon. member who asked the question.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister in connection with the prospective prime ministers' conference. There has not been one now for a year and a half, and there are very important matters connected with the commonwealth that require attention.
Is it a fact, as reported in the press, that there has been tentative agreement among the prime ministers to the holding of the conference in July; and would the Prime Minister at the same time say whether he has given consideration to inviting the prime ministers to hold the conference here in Ottawa, with a view to bringing about closer relations within the commonwealth and assuring that the various capitals in the commonwealth will have the opportunity of having this important conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as the latter part of the question is concerned I indicated to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when he was last in Ottawa that if and when a

Inquiries of the Ministry prime ministers' conference was to be held, that conference would be very welcome indeed in Ottawa. Since his visit to Ottawa the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has made certain informal soundings of members of the commonwealth as to the desirability or otherwise of a prime ministers' meeting in London, and I understand that as a result of these informal soundings Sir Alexander Douglas Home is now about to send formal invitations to all prime ministers of the commonwealth for a meeting to be held in London this summer.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Seeing that on Wednesday next the tax on building materials will be hiked to 8 per cent, can the government say whether it is taking any measures to prevent profiteering by firms or individuals who may have accumulated building materials before the imposition of the hike and who may now be passing on this increase to consumers although they have not paid the tax?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I fancy that most consumers have heard quite a good deal about this tax. I would not think there were many who did not know that the increase would become effective on April 1, and I would think they would make their own arrangements.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Has the minister considered postponing for a fortnight the application of the 4 per cent additional tax on construction materials, in view of the great demand for such materials during the last few days?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, that does not come within my authority. The law is clear.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to

direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does he intend to appoint General Jean-Victor Allard to the supreme command of Canadian troops?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker; it is a proper question, and I would appreciate an answer.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of Naiional Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated I propose to recommend to the governor in council, if and when parliament passes the necessary legislation, that Air Chief Marshal Frank Miller be the first chief of staff of the Canadian armed forces. When further appointments are recommended they will be made public in the normal course.



ARMOURY GUARDS-REQUEST FOR VETERANS PREFERENCE IN APPOINTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has some official status been given to the people who have been hired as guards for armouries? Why does the veterans preference not apply to those people who have been chosen for guard duty?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I will take that question as notice.



INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I understand that tomorrow there will be quite an egress of ministers from the house and the Prime Minister will not be here for several days. Therefore I should like to ask him whether the government has yet given consideration to the calling of by-elections in Nipissing and Saskatoon. With regard to both of these constituencies, we rely strongly on the view expressed by the Prime Minister that no delay should take place and on the very salutary example given in the Montreal by-elections, and we hope the Prime Minister will give consideration to the holding of these by-elections at the earliest possible date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as the preliminary part of the right hon. gentleman's question is concerned, I hope to be back in the house Thursday afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, good.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the date of the holding of the by-elections is concerned, I can assure my right hon. friend there will not be the delay we have become accustomed to in the last six or seven years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now we are back to normal.


John George Diefenbaker: I am certainly glad we are not going to be without the Prime Minister throughout the balance of the week, and that we will have him back on Thursday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Or Friday.


John George Diefenbaker: I assure him that his absence last week was deeply felt by us and we are glad to see him back in his place. With regard to the suggestion at the end of his statement I ask him this question. Does he intend to proceed with the same celerity and determination in providing an early opportunity for these two constituencies to elect members as he did in the case of the vacancies in Montreal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we expect to proceed with all possible celerity, and we expect to have the same kind of result as we had in the by-elections in Montreal.


John George Diefenbaker: That is another example of false optimism.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE CONSIDERATION OF INCREASED CONSTRUCTION GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister relating to an urgent matter and having to do with a statement he made over a year ago during his visit to Brandon College. Will he De discussing with the provincial authorities during the conference which gets under way tomorrow the subject of increased grants for construction purposes on our overcrowded university campuses?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing in Quebec, I think, all shared cost programs, and the very important program to which my hon. friend has referred will come within those discussions.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister has spoken about retreats, will he be making a retreat in regard to some of the shared cost programs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. gentleman would make a retreat from this kind of question, which he continues to ask in the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



SHARING OF DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a direct question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister agreed to share the responsibilities of his department with another minister? Yes or no?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have asked a direct question of the minister and I expect to receive an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Directly out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no doubt about the importance of the question in the mind of the hon. member, but under our rules the minister is not obliged to answer unless he wishes to do so.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The same old gang.



REPORTED U.K. INTENTION TO INCREASE IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent, Onf.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the government of Britain is reported to have increased the quota on butter imports into that country, can the Minister of Agriculture state whether any immediate steps are being taken by his department to increase the export of Canadian butter to that market?


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Once more, this should be put on the order paper.


Harry William Hays: -this matter is under consideration, and I hope we will have an announcement to make in the not too distant future.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has he anything to report on the situation in the gulf of St. Lawrence with regard to the conditions under which seal hunting is being carried on, and the slaughter of young seals? What requests

Inquiries of the Ministry has he had from the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals and other organizations to take action to prevent the type of slaughter that is being carried on?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I answered a similar question asked by the other hon. member for Queens, and I may add that I expect to issue a full statement on the matter later this week.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. Yesterday the New York Times had only one item about Canada so far as I could see, and it had to do with the cruelties perpetrated in the killing of seals. The article said that the season opened a week ago. Is there not some action that can be taken to prevent the cruelties that are being perpetrated under the law as it now stands?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As I have stated on many occasions in this house, every means that could be utilized under our jurisdiction has been utilized during the present season. It is our hope that this matter will be discussed fully at the next meeting of the international commission on north Atlantic fisheries which will take place in Hamburg this year. As the right hon. member knows, there are many countries interested in this type of fishery, and there are international complications. The matter will be discussed at the meeting which will be held next summer.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with the minister that beyond the three mile limit an international situation is created. However, reference was made to cruelties perpetrated within the three mile limit. Is there not provision in the Criminal Code today to cover just this situation?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to repeat that some of the statements that have been made with regard to cruelties or methods used have been somewhat exaggerated, and I expect to have a full statement later this week which I hope will cover the situation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the word "retreat" seems to be very popular this afternoon. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can give any indication to the house that there has been a retreat by the government in connection with the thought that there will be a parliamentary recess this week.
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will find out if he looks at the order paper.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I had a similar question for the Prime Minister. In view of his statement that he intends to be back on Thursday afternoon, has he gone back completely on his word that there will be an Easter recess until April 6?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No one regrets more than I do the fact that I was not here last Thursday afternoon. I hope the hon. member will accept my word that it was not my fault I was not here.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the house leader if consideration will be given to payment for members of the house staff who worked on the statutory holidays of Good Friday and Easter Monday?


Guy Favreau: This will surely be taken into consideration.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration-To extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the gift detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of $60,000.
Mr. Vincent:: 
The Chairman:: There is, of course, no provision for the tabling of that kind of document. The hon. member can leave that on the table for all members who may want to look at it, but that is as far as he can go.


Clément Vincent: When I raised the question Thursday last, the minister replied that he was not aware of such a situation.
Well, we have in the house representatives of every Canadian party and every time a member raises a question the government turns a deaf ear. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to instruct his officials to listen or consider carefully what the members say in the house, because when we raise a question, it is not only because we like to speak, but because our constituents are asking us to intervene.
With regard to the point I am raising now, the farmers say that they have not seen such prices since the 1929 depression; the minister tells us that this is a regional problem. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is not a regional problem and, to prove it, I have here a letter from a farmer, Mr. Josephat Jolin, from Amos, in Abitibi. It was published in La Terre de Chez Nous on February 12, 1964, and reads as follows:
I am writing you to ask on behalf of all farmers if it would not be possible to add market prices for cow hides.
Last February 14, X went to Amos, in Abitibi, with a cow's hide in perfect condition, without any knife cut, well salted, weighing 60 lbs. and I get $1.50 for it. For a calf's skin weighing 12 lbs., also in perfect condition, 50 cents.
I see that Liberal members are making fun of my remarks. As a matter of fact, the province of Quebec is represented by 46 Liberal members in the house and not one of them saw fit to raise that question and to make suggestions to the Department of Agriculture. They have failed in their duty and instead of laughing at the remarks we make in this house, they should help the farmers. They should rise and point out to the Minister of Agriculture the problems prevailing not only in our province but throughout Canada.
Supply-Agriculture
I shall proceed with the reading of this letter for the information of the Minister of Agriculture.
We feel this is unreasonable and that is why I think we would be in a better position to defend ourselves if we received market prices.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the problem is not only regional; it is nation-wide. If the price for calf hides, which was 42.Y cents per pound last year, is down to 7 cents a pound this year, it means that the price of meat to the consumer increases and the consumer has to pay 10, 15 and even 20 cents more per pound for the meat purchased from the butcher.
I raise this question once again and I ask the Minister of Agriculture to give it careful consideration because, believe me, Mr. Chairman, this constitutes a loss of $10 to $12 million a year for Canadian farmers.
I now want briefly to come back to the matter of feed grain. Last Thursday, for instance, the minister told us:
I do not have the latest figures at hand, but between mid-October and mid-March, there has been no significant change in prices.
Well, as far as feed grain is concerned, the Liberal party since the last election, did not keep the formal promises it made to every Canadian, and more particularly to the province of Quebec. Those promises had been made by an official spokesman of the party on the national television network, and anybody can still read them in an editorial published in La Terre de Chez Nous, under the headings:
Beware of Mr. Pearson's figure skating. Our farming industry is on the auction block in Ottawa.
The price of feed grain has increased by 30 cents a hundredweight between October and February, which means $6 a ton. This is hardly what we would call a stable price.
We want the government to take a decision at last. It is true that when the government decided to pay for storage at a cost of $1 million per year, there was some improvement; but, even if credit is given to the Minister of Agriculture for that improvement, it is still inadequate, and an efficient policy should be set up at the earliest possible date, so that we might say to the eastern farmers in Canada: "We are looking after your problems and we did find a solution to the feed grain problem".
The minister also discussed farm credit. On that matter, he said: "Some people claim we have not done much in that field." And here I quoted the minister.
If it had not been for the improved farm credit legislation introduced by the previous government, without the wonderful efficiency of the Farm Credit Corporation officials, how could the minister tell us there were loans made in 1963?

Supply-Agriculture
Surely, he cannot take the credit for that legislation, since no amendment was made. What we are asking for is an improvement of the act, instead of being told: "We have done something in that field." We want the minister to give us immediately his program and his views on the improvements to be made to the federal Farm Credit Act.
Since the hon. gentlemen opposite took office, that is since April 8, 1963, what have they done for farming in Canada? What have those same people done who, during the election campaign, said they were going to improve the farmer's lot? Where are the promises they made all across the country during weeks and weeks?
Where do our hon. friends stand with the crop insurance legislation, which was passed by a Conservative government and which they, the Liberals, were to improve in order to bring it more in line with the agreements concluded with the provinces? What progress has been made in the negotiation concerning crop insurance, a measure to be promulgated by the provinces of Canada?
Mr. Chairman, we could also ask the gov-vernment what progress has been made in the negotiations with the provinces concerning the adoption of a school milk program which we heard so much about, for such a long time, when the hon. gentlemen were sitting on this side of the house? However, not a single word was said about that matter up to the present.
Mr. Chairman, where are the improvements promised by this government to Canadian farmers, and especially to those of eastern Canada as far as dairy products are concerned? I have said time and time again in this house that while the price of milk in the province of Quebec last year was lower than in 1962, it should have been from 20 to 25 cents higher per 100 pounds, because the price of dairy products, including cheese, was higher on the market, thanks to the policies advocated by the Conservative government when it was in office. What progress has been made in the talks between the provinces and the dairy farmers with respect to the setting up of a dairy industry board?
Mr. Chairman, those are questions to which we should like to get answers, and it is certainly not by standing up and using phrases like "a lot of junk" or something like that, that answers can be given to sensible questions emanating not from us but from the farmers who submit them to us, so that we may find a solution to the agricultural problem.
Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I urge the Minister of Agriculture to welcome with open arms as soon as possible his colleague from Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), who will perhaps prove to be a
IMr. Vincent.]
terrific discovery for farmers in eastern Canada, although the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine during the year did not contain anything with respect to the agricultural issue.
We are looking forward eagerly for the Minister of Forestry to let us know exactly what are his responsibilities, the work he will have to do and what are his duties as Minister of Forestry as well as as minister responsible for the eastern farmers' problems.
Mr. Chairman, prior to the passing of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture, we should like to hear from the minister a clear and accurate statement on agriculture's future in general and especially on agriculture in eastern Canada. [Text]


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, we are sitting
here on Monday, March 30, a day when most of us would much prefer to be home, and I am sure that if the government had wanted to manage the affairs of this country in a reasonable manner we should have been home.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am speaking on agriculture and on the first item of the supplementary estimates, and I am about to inform the arrogant hon. gentlemen opposite that we still have not received the information for which we asked.
When this time first came up we asked that it stand because there were several matters which we, as responsible members of parliament, felt were important and had been left unexplained. There were grave doubts as to the legality of actions taken by the government between February 3 and February 20. We said that as members of parliament we could hardly be content to put our stamp of approval on what had been done when those actions might have been taken illegally. Money might have been spent illegally, and we as members of the committee might have been placed in the position of approving those improper expenditures.
It was not until last Thursday that we were finally given any statement on this matter. The Minister of Transport then read a statement by the Prime Minister touching lightly on the question. I use those words advisedly because the statement read by the Minister of Transport was circuitous, evasive, vague. The committee had asked that these items be allowed to stand because we were disturbed by the possibility of illegalities, and when we asked for a firm statement on the government's position the attitude we took was reasonable. We had stressed that the committee should not be asked to pass lightly over such questions as the legality or illegality of government action.

We did not go too deeply into certain other questions, though I am sure these aspects must have disturbed the public as much as they disturbed members of this house; namely, why there was such dissension within the cabinet to lead to such confusion; whether there was a battle going on within the cabinet; what was the effect of these orders in council, and how lightly must the government itself regard these orders if it could pass them, give them the effect of law, and then ignore them completely.
All the government has given us is this one vague statement, and I do not think the committee should be expected to content itself with an answer which takes refuge in technicalities despite the fact that a minister of the crown has signed agreements when he had no authority whatsoever to do so. For an opposition to condone such action would constitute a complete abandonment of its responsibilities.
I know that as late as the middle of March people in charge of the farm credit organization, the ARDA program, the P.F.R.A. program and so on were not sure who was the responsible minister. Perhaps it was unfair to ask them who was the responsible minister. Perhaps they felt that no matter who was the minister in charge, he was not responsible. I know that many telephone calls were made in an attempt to get a straight answer, in an effort to be sure which minister was responsible for those sections. But the people concerned did not know, and this was later than March 5.
To review briefly the actions of the government, an order in council passed on February 3 was revoked on February 20 and another order in council dealing with only some of those sections was made on March 15. Perhaps it was unfair to telephone as late as March 15 and ask who was the responsible minister because, judging from past experience, the government might have intended to revoke the order of March 5 or, in its own words, decide not to proceed with it. Certainly the answers given by the people working in those sections indicated that they were not sure whether the government knew what it was going to do.
I suggest it is part of the duty of members of this committee to seek from the government some information as to the morale of those engaged in the sections of the department affected by this classic example of administrative bungling. For a long time, I suggest, those sections had been operating, and operating very well, under a strong and competent minister during the life of the previous government. They knew what they were doing. They had a minister who took responsibility, who gave them guidance and made sure
Supply-Agriculture
that those programs operated and operated well. They have now been subject to what appear to have been weeks of wrangling. We have not even been given any firm statement by the government to reassure us that those weeks of wrangling are past. I suggest that if it is necessary to have a minister, if it is helpful to have a minister, then the department should be able to rely on getting some guidance from him. It is a pretty tough situation when they do not even know whether or not they have a minister.
I think we would like to see answered those two notices of motion for production of papers brought forward by the hon. member for Provencher. The statement read the other day by the Minister of Transport treats the whole question too lightly as to what went on. We are aware, at least, of the eight ARDA agreements which, according to the information given us in this house, are not now in effect at all. My leader gave a very strong hint to the government that we would cooperate; that the least we should see is remedial, retroactive legislation to make sure that these items are covered; that we on this side of the house will co-operate and see that is done, and we had not one word from the government on that matter.
I am sure that some hon. members feel we are perhaps taking a rather long time on this item. If we are, it is because we do not get any answers. I suggest that this is anything but lack of co-operation on our part. We do regard these matters as serious. We think there is a serious legal problem. The suggestion made by the Minister of Transport that he will have the Minister of Forestry sign these agreements indicates some realization on the government benches that there is a legal problem; and what we have suggested is that we will co-operate to help the government get over it. We just want a little frankness from the government. We want to know exactly what was done. We want them to initiate some step to make sure that this matter is corrected.
If this is being very stubborn, Mr. Chairman, then I submit I am being very stubborn. I may be old fashioned, but I would like to see government business properly and legally done. I would like to see the government come to parliament, not with a club in their hands saying "You will do this or else", but come to parliament and say "All right; we made a mistake. We want it fixed. This is what we would like done. Will you co-operate?" When we see this sort of action, we will co-operate. So long as the government is going to sit on its hands and say "Take it as is, and we couldn't care less how it is", then they are liable to find us being a little stubborn.

Supply-Agriculture
I do hope that before it is attempted to pass this item some member of the government will rise and give us a responsible answer to these questions; that they will give some reasonable satisfaction to this house, so that the business of this country can be straightened out, these questions can be answered, and we can properly pass this item.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we hear
many declarations of love and speeches on the Canadian farmer's lot. A few moments ago, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) dealt with the needs of our eastern farmers of which we are all aware. Those urgent problems, he said, are yet unsolved, and the government seems unwilling to provide a solution.
When my good friend was a member of the government, the same conditions prevailed. And they still prevail today. The statements made in this house are not so much meant to help the farmer as to draw the attention of Hansard readers. That is the main object of all those fond declarations and speeches. Farming is not considered an essential or basic Canadian industry. No, the farmer is just a football; for instance, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) just stated that this government does nothing for the farmers, though he knows very well that this government sold more wheat to the communists all over the world than even the Conservatives did. He must be aware of the fact. When the Conservatives were selling wheat to the Chinese and Russian communists, they were condemned by the Liberals. Today, the Conservatives are blaming the Liberals for selling more wheat than they ever did to those countries.
Mr. Chairman, all those statements and declarations meant for the farmer, in no way take into account that agriculture is, after all, Canada's basic industry. If that basic industry is not organized, if neither prosperous nor stable, it will be impossible to stop this nation from disintegrating entirely, and its economy from collapsing.
Quite recently, there were reports from Soviet Russia regarding the handing over of some land to private enterprise, because the government made a mess of the whole business when it meddled with farming in that country.
Now, we do not want the state to administer our farming industry, but we want our farmers to get some help from the government so that they would prosper and attain a higher standard of living than at present, because they are certainly struggling with a system that has become intolerable.

Mr. Chairman, we have reached a point where farmers have to emigrate to cities, abandon their land and seek outside work to support their families. In the face of such a situation we ask ourselves where agriculture is going, where the farmer himself is going?
Mr. Chairman, reforms have to be made. There is above all assistance to be granted farmers in eastern Canada. For instance, if we consider that farmers in western Canada earn more than $6,500 per year, whereas, in the province of Quebec, most farmers do not earn more than $2,000 a year, we may wonder what will be the fate of farmers, of those people who rise at four or five o'clock in the morning to milk their cows and who go to bed at ten or eleven o'clock at night. For what do these people work? For 5 or 6 cents per hour, whereas there are people who spend their time speaking in favour of farmers and who rise at ten o'clock in the morning to milk the farmers instead of the cows.
Mr. Chairman, the farmers in eastern Canada need assistance.


An hon. Member:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Why, for instance, when the Conservatives were in power-
I see my hon. friend from Pontiac-Temis-camingue (Mr. Martineau), in the corner of the house, over there, trying to interrupt me. What was done for farmers in his own constituency when the Conservatives were in power? What was done in Temiscamingue, a constituency with which I am very familiar?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Villeneuve just said I interrupted him. I did not interrupt him, on the contrary, I listened religiously to what he said.


David Réal Caouette: I apologize to the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. It is probably the member for Nicolet-Yamaska-


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not interrupt the hon. member for Villeneuve. However, I could have done so, for, at the beginning of his remarks, although he often speaks about things he does not know about, he told us I had been a member of the government. In this respect, Mr. Chairman, I must say I never had the honour of being a member of the Canadian government.


David Réal Caouette: Does my hon. friend acknowledge that he nevertheless was a member of the Canadian parliament, at that time?


Clément Vincent: I beg your pardon?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member has been interrupted anyway I think I might as well correct a statement of his. He referred to me incorrectly as the member for Edmonton West-I am the member for Edmonton-Strathcona-and said I had accused this government of having done nothing for agriculture. I did not say anything like that in my speech.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. There was no question of privilege raised.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member to read again what he said, as recorded in Hansard, and he will see that he charged the present government with failure to face its obligations in the case of Canadian farmers.
Having said this, I was asserting that our farmers have to take outside work to be in a position to keep their farms, that there is an exodus of farmers towards the cities, that the Canadian agricultural policy no longer meets the needs of the farmers.
In view of the large sales of wheat to some communist countries, no doubt western farmers have earned an interesting income. In this respect, the farmers, regardless of the party in power, directly benefited from these important sales of wheat to other countries.
On various occasions, I called the attention of the house to this point: why should not the government set up or prepare a policy to enable eastern farmers, for instance, to buy feed grain or wheat produced in western Canada at the same price we sell those products to foreign countries?
Surely, if we can be generous to foreign countries, we ought to do the same for our own farmers. When we travel through farming communities, in the south of the province of Quebec, where in some cases, seven, eight, nine and even ten generations succeeded each other on the same farm, we readily realize that it is not because our farmers lacked courage or good will that after seven, eight or nine generations of hard labour, today's farmer is involved with provincial or federal farm credit.
Why are our farmers faced with such a situation?
Let us take a look at the settlement areas where an attempt was made to place settlers and favour farming. In those regions, 20 or 25 years ago, there were settlements of 200 or 250 families, but today, after 20 or 25 years of existence, there are only 80 or 85 families left, the others having gone back to the city looking for means to make a living and get
Supply-Agriculture
a decent salary. And eventually, when there is not enough work, people become unemployed and have to depend on the government, the Department of Labour or the unemployment insurance commission.
To avoid that disaster for agriculture, why is not agriculture organized on a solid basis through assistance, for instance, to the establishment of farmers' sons who today, are not interested in staying on the family farm? Why not assist in the consolidation of old farms? Why not assist rural planning all across the province and the country, but especially in eastern Canada, where the problem is most acute and most urgent?
We must be assured that a farm policy is being developed, and that no advantages are taken away from an area to be given to another one, when both need help.
It is certainly possible to create a market in the province of Quebec. The government could guarantee the sale of food products and so on, help the construction of cold storages, in short help agriculture in eastern Canada as it does in western Canada.
The products of eastern Canada are as much in demand throughout the world as wheat. We should organize the agricultural production of eastern Canada and its exportation to southern countries. There are tremendous possibilities along those lines.
A short time ago, I met a man dealing in imports and exports, he gave me the inside story of what is happening today in the field of butter production and marketing. He suggested it might be interesting by using the means we have in this country, to put butter in small three ounce cans and sell it to southern countries which are interested in buying butter packed that way. The Minister of Agriculture was made aware of that. And do you know what the answer was? It was said that we could not do it, since we are not allowed to pack our butter in a different way; it was added however that industry is organizing such a marketing of Canadian butter, which would be exported to Germany where it would be packed in boxes and resold on the world markets. The Minister of Agriculture is well aware of that.
We might have created instead a new industry in the Granby area for instance, an industry that would have employed 2,000 or 3,000 men, while these 2,000 or 3,000 people will be Germans working in Germany to pack butter coming from Canada. Why? Because there are financial interests to be protected in the field of exportation and importation. The Minister of Agriculture is also aware of that.
We cannot make decisions by ourselves in Canada. We are afraid of assuming responsibilities, but we dare proclaim in this house

Supply-Agriculture
our love for the Canadian farmer, butter manufacturer or dairy producer, and so on.
Mr. Chairman, agriculture is an important item in a country. I said at the beginning that this industry is the very basis of a stable economy. If we are to have a stable economy- because without it all other social classes could not exist-we all depend on agriculture, because there we take the source of life, there we maintain the way of life that we have at the present time in this country.
We cannot be satisfied with making speeches, paying lip service to agriculture and doing nothing to help the farmers.
I do not come from a specifically agricultural area myself. True, we do have a bit of farming in our settlements, but I am from a mining region. On the other hand, the riding next to mine, which I represented in the House of Commons from 1946 to 1949, that is the constituency of Pontiac-Temiscamingue, is essentially agricultural. It is one of the most beautiful agricultural ridings in the whole province of Quebec. Now, that constituency has a problem concerning the settlement of farmers' sons and also one of consolidation to allow farmers to sell their products normally. There is an abundance of products, but nobody knows what to do with them.
And, with all that abundance, millions of dollars are giving rise to heated discussions; commissions are being set up to hold inquiries designed to set up more commissions; money is being provided to replenish the funds of the agricultural products board; salvage operations are being conducted right and left, with the result that the only one not being rescued is the farmer, who keeps on paying taxes and being overtaxed but does not manage to sell his products. And all the while we are keeping afloat a whole bunch of bureaucrats throughout Canada at the farmers' expense.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take more of the committee's time. Only, let us stop making speeches and referring constantly to the magnificent role played by the farmers of the province and of Canada as a whole, when we do not even have the courage to put forward legislation to assist Canadian farmers, while we provide millions of dollars for all sorts of other things but cannot even find the time, for instance, to think of organizing a stable agriculture which would give Canada a look completely different from the one it has now.
Mr. Chairman, the farmers need our help, they certainly do. They need our attention. Of all the classes in our society, they get the least recognition and the worst treatment all across Canada wherever you go. They may be better treated in western Canada-which is essentially a farming area-than in eastern Canada; all you have to do is to visit the

agricultural parishes and the farmers themselves to see that this is true. You cannot get a true picture by driving 60 or 90 miles an hour past well painted farm buildings; indeed not.
Let us go right into the farmer's home to inquire on the spot about the conditions prevailing in our province. Then, I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will assume his responsibilities with regard to the Canadian public, and introduce some legislation meeting with the approval not only of a single group, or of all hon. members, but of the whole Canadian people, because no social class, I am certain, has yet been treated as unfairly as the farmers.
Let us stop being facetious and let us try to serve them better in future.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I think there is more interest across Canada at this time in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture than at any other time when agricultural estimates have been brought before the house. Although the unfortunate circumstance of the transfer of duties between ministers directed special attention to this department, in my view farmers across Canada are more interested in the discussion of these estimates because they are waiting for the government to make a definite statement of their policy for the first time with regard to this important industry.
When the minister took office last May the farmers did not expect him to be able to come forth with a new policy at once. They understood that he was new in politics and new to the administration of the Department of Agriculture, one of the larger departments of the government. But after the passing of almost 12 months the farmers feel that they are entitled to a definite statement of policy. They were not aware, of course, of the idea of transferring responsibilities. They did not know that the minister was held up in the development of a policy first of all by the fact that, as we were given to understand last May, there might be a second minister of agriculture for eastern Canada and a certain hon. member was earmarked for that very important post.
We in the opposition waited very patiently to see what would develop. No legislation was introduced to create this most important post and it was during the recess between sessions that we learned that the Minister of Forestry was going to take on the additional duties of minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. Once again the entire farm population of Canada was left in confusion because the farmers saw that once again there could be delay in the formation of a policy.

The minister has had very few opportunities in the house to put forward a definite policy on behalf of the government. Such policy as we have had has been announced in bits and pieces. It is the hope of the opposition that the minister will avail himself of this opportunity to state the policy of the government on the various aspects of agriculture for the very first time.
In the few remarks that the minister made last Thursday he spoke of ARDA, which is considered by many in Canada to be one of the most important pieces of legislation so far as the future of agriculture is concerned. The minister spoke of eight employees in his department who would be transferred, in the event of ARDA being removed from his jurisdiction. We are beginning to suspect that the government does not appreciate the magnitude of the agricultural problems that can be solved by means of the administration of this most important act. Instead of the government having only eight employees engaged in the administration of ARDA, and in investigations under that act, there could profitably be 80 employees.
One field in which this act could be of the greatest benefit to the Canadian people is that of conservation. There are many areas in Canada today where the farmers lack water, that most important and necessary of all assets in producing grain and feed for the future. Surely at a time when other countries are talking about diverting the waters of some of the largest rivers in the world in order that there may be enough water for their people the government should be able to see that right in southwestern Ontario lack of water is one of the greatest worries facing agriculture. As a matter of fact, there is talk now of a water grid for southwestern Ontario in order that the municipalities and farmers may have enough water, and under ARDA the government has a splendid vehicle to develop and promote this very necessary asset for agriculture.
I was much impressed indeed to hear the hon. member for Port Arthur state that in his opinion ARDA was being neglected. Surely that is the opinion of the entire opposition. We have the legislation, we have the vehicle, and we have a government in power that has promised to help the farmers. Here is an area where they can move effectively and with real benefit to all of Canada. Yet we have not even had a statement of policy from the government. The minister says there is no clash of personalities and that if ARDA and its eight employees are taken from his department there will be no ill feeling. Perhaps there will be no ill feeling on the part of the minister, but there is
Supp ly-A griculture
certainly a great deal of confusion and ill feeling on the part of those in this country who are experienced in agriculture.
One thing the minister dealt with was the grain policy in the east. He referred to the number of tons or bushels of grain in the east this year, thanks to the policy of the government. It is true that there is 47 per cent more grain in the east, I believe, than there was a year ago. It is true that this will probably take care of the needs of the feeders in agriculture in the east. I give the government credit for this, they showed foresight. But once again this is not a policy: It is a stopgap promotion. They were faced with a problem which they met by an emergency measure, but this does not solve anything. They gave assistance in the transportation of grain, and this is fine. They built up the storage of grain, and this is fine. But, sir, we in the opposition feel that under this program there is a possibility that many of the grain merchants will derive far more benefit than the farmers it was designed to aid.
I should like to deal with farm credit for a moment. One of the speakers who preceded me stated that there is confusion in the department with regard to this important part of the responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture and that because of the transfer of responsibilities the department in effect did not even know to which minister it was responsible. How can responsible officials of a department carry out their duties when not only has no policy been laid down for them but they are not even sure under which department they come? It seems to me this is a most ridiculous position for agriculture to find itself in, in this day and age.
Under the present government the farmers of the country were led to believe there would be immediate changes in farm credit policy. It was stated that the amount of money available to a young farmer to keep him on the farm was not enough, that the ceiling should be raised and that legislation would be introduced to take care of this very important segment of the population. But here we are almost 12 months later, and there has not even been an announcement by the minister that such legislation is contemplated.
The price of land has gone up drastically in certain sections of Canada and we agree that the limit of $20,000 on the amount which a young farmer can borrow to buy land is not enough. We agree that something has to be done to take care of the situation and keep these young men on the land. The opposition cannot bring this about. We can only urge the government to introduce legislation, we cannot force them to do so. This is why we criticize the lack of policy today. Put the

Supply-Agriculture
legislation before us. We say to the government: Carry out your promises to the farmers, and with both sides of the house working together let us give the farmers of Canada the necessary legislation and assistance they need.
Reference has been made to crop stabilization. We have not had an announcement of policy in connection with stabilization since the minister took office, although we heard promises during the election campaign. I do not wish to go through all the promises that were made with regard to agriculture, but I should like to deal with a few of them.
I should like to speak about sugar beets for just a moment. During the last election campaign Liberal candidates said the previous administration had no policy with regard to sugar beets. One of the first things they were going to do was to formulate for the first time in Canada a definite sugar beet policy. It is now 12 months later and, goodness knows, we have had a crisis in connection with sugar during that time, but we have no policy announcement as yet from the Department of Agriculture. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said this problem is being considered. I am sure the new minister will take this problem under consideration. However the farmers of Canada want more than consideration; they want some action.
Then, what about soybeans? In my area, where soybeans are grown in large quantities, when hon. members opposite were on the hustings they said the support price for soybeans was far from adequate. They said the farmers were entitled to a support price of no less than $2.40 per bushel. Well, this government has got the price up to $2,17 per bushel, 1 cent more than it was under the previous administration. Is this the policy of the government? Is this all they intend to do? Is this the way they live up to their promises?
Today I asked the minister a question about butter, and he was courteous in his answer to me. He said they were looking into this question and it was being taken into consideration. This is not policy. We have heard today an announcement by the British government that they are going to increase the quota on butter coming into Great Britain this year by 2| per cent. This does not sound like very much, but when you realize the vast quantities of butter imported into Great Britain, 2| per cent really means thousands of tons of butter. If there is anything we have in surplus quantities in this country, it is butter. If there is anything this country can produce, it is butter. We would like the minister to say what the policy of this government is with regard to taking over a larger share of that market. We need this market, and we need this policy.

During the session last year we heard a lot about Bill No. C-5 introduced by the hon. member for Essex South. The purpose of the bill was to help farmers by guaranteeing their rights when they took their produce to canning plants. This bill was shelved. During the last days of that session the Prime Minister stood in his place and said the subject matter of the bill would be given consideration and when the Bankruptcy Act was amended provision would be made to take care of the farmers. The farmers need this protection, sir. As yet however we have had no announcement of policy; nothing has been done.
We are in the midst of the greatest evolution in the history of agriculture. Policies for agriculture that are introduced today are obsolete by tomorrow. It has been admitted that automation is creeping into agriculture. We hear about marketing schemes and about co-operatives. We hear about vertical integration, and these are new terms in connection with agriculture. As I have said, agriculture is going through a process of evolution.
The minister has mentioned what was done under the previous administration, and then he has said, "We have done this much more." This is not policy. This is nothing new. When the previous government introduced a policy for agriculture, that was not the end, Mr. Chairman, it was the beginning. The policy of this government seems to have been, whatever you were getting we are going to give you more. We have to have new ideas. We have to have new goals. We have to know what is wrong with agriculture and act upon that knowledge. This government has received briefs from the farmers' union, from the federation of agriculture and from the different commodity groups in agriculture. These men are learned men; they are technicians in connection with agriculture. They know what the questions are and what the answers are. But, Mr. Chairman, although these men have produced this information, they have produced the'studies and done the groundwork for the government, we have no policy announcements from the government as yet. The farmers are confused. We can understand why. The time is coming when the minister will have to stand in this house and say that this government has the following policy in connection with agriculture.
I am, myself, very disappointed that the administration of agriculture is to be divided. We are told that the Minister of Forestry will assume responsibility for some branches of agriculture, and that the Minister of Agriculture will retain some branches. There will be a committee of three taking responsibility for agriculture, a troika. The committee of three will be the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Forestry acting

under the chairmanship of the Minister of Agriculture. The government says this is a policy, to divide the responsibility for agriculture amongst three people, and agriculture will go forward as it never has before. This policy is inconsistent with the policy of the government in connection with the Department of National Defence because they are doing exactly the reverse in connection with that department. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot consolidate in one department and spread out in another department and call this consistent policy. I think the farmers of Canada have been very patient. They have waited for 12 months for a policy announcement to which they are entitled. These policies were promised to them. Hon. members opposite said that when they came into office they had the answers, and the farmers believed them. Now the farmers know for certain that hon. members opposite not only do not have the answers, they do not even know the questions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) in his seat, because it is not often that he is seen in the house.
We on this side of the house would be very pleased to hear him define this government's policy with regard to agriculture.
On the orders of the day, I asked the minister whether he was in favour of sharing his responsibilities with another cabinet minister? The minister refused to answer, and we want to give him an opportunity of replying to a most important question while announcing this government's policy.
Mr. Chairman, the farmers are going bankrupt under this government, because it has no definite farm policy.
We do not know where we are going. In fact, last week, I asked several questions on agriculture but did not receive any answer.
We want to know why the Minister of Agriculture makes statements in the west and the Prime Minister, in answer to a question put to him, said that the Minister of Agriculture was ill. We would like to know whether the Minister of Agriculture was actually in Winnipeg a few days ago or whether he was confined at home or in the hospital as a result of illness.
Mr. Chairman, the production of cigarette tobacco in Canada is an important sector of the agricultural economy of our country. And the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) made unfortunate statements against smoking.
The consumption of cigarette tobacco in Canada has been decreasing alarmingly for some time, and I suggest that the Minister
Supply-Agriculture
of National Health and Welfare is largely responsible for this situation because she contributed to worsen it.
For the fiscal year ending March 31 last, taxes on tobacco yielded $171 million to the federal government. When the consumption of cigarette tobacco decreases, this not only directly affects a large part of the farmers, such as tobacco growers of Quebec and Ontario, but reduces also the revenue of the federal government.
I am asking the Minister of Agriculture what policy he intends to set forth to repair the considerable damage suffered by the cigarette tobacco growers as a result of the unfortunate statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I read lately in a magazine that there is no evidence that tobacco is a cause of cancer, and I wonder why the Minister of National Health and Welfare ventured in such a field since she was entirely unqualified to do so.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, if consumption of cigarette tobacco decreases, the working class will be affected. I have here an article according to which the cigarette factories in Quebec are reducing their staff. That is the result of the statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
We, on this side of the house, would be pleased to learn from the minister what he intends to do in order to help farmers whose income is ever decreasing. All farm publications are giving the alarm to the government and asking it to take a definite stand. Mr. Chairman, how can the present government have a farm policy when the Minister of Agriculture is always absent from the house and when members of the opposition are unable to put questions to him and to ask him what he intends to do to help farmers?
Mr. Chairman, once again I am calling on the minister to answer this question: What does he intend to do to encourage agronomists and agricultural technicians from the province of Quebec to come to Ottawa to take their place in the federal Department of Agriculture?
I am also asking the Minister of Agriculture to give special attention to federal experimental stations in Canada to increase research, but not to forget experimental farms in the province of Quebec. In the last ten months, agronomists and agricultural technicians in Quebec have been leaving the experimental farms belonging to the federal government to work for the provincial government and in industry. There is, in the riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, an experimental farm which has been going downhill for some time, that is since the government came to power. I ask the minister to take the necessary steps in order to rectify

Supply-Agriculture
this situation and urge the agronomists and farm technicians to take their place in the experimental farms.
I also ask the Minister of Agriculture to increase the estimates for research in our experimental farms, and particularly in the province of Quebec.
In closing, I shall repeat in English the question I asked the minister on the orders of the day, so as to give him the opportunity to answer me:
tText]
I ask the minister if he agrees to share the responsibilities of his department with another minister? I ask him a direct question and give him an opportunity to answer right now.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Chairman. I directed a specific question to the minister and I think it is my privilege to receive an answer.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps the hon. member will have an opportunity later on, but it would be more orderly if hon. members made their speeches on this item and then the minister would have an opportunity to reply later.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am waiting for an answer.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, in order to allow the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) to consider what answer he should give the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), I shall take a few minutes to put a few questions concerning the agricultural policy of the government.
To begin with, could the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) explain satisfactorily his complete silence during his budget speech with regard to farmers' needs. I consider this failure on the part of the Minister of Finance a real disgrace. I should like to know why, to a question asking him for an explanation, the minister merely said in his usual offhand manner: "Well, farmers have children-" That was a reference to the fact that from now on, family allowances would be extended to students of 16 and 17 years of age.
But the Minister of Finance has refused to understand the needs of a basic industry in our country. Neither he nor the Minister of Agriculture have been able to give us satisfactory answers on that matter.
Mr. Chairman, I was dismayed, on Thursday, to hear the Minister of Agriculture take

the credit for the enactment of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. We have noted this completely unfounded assertion on the part of the minister. If he wants to take the responsibility and the credit for this legislation, he should give it the necessary understanding to make it efficient. I say, it has been one of the finest gestures on the part of the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton), to plan this legislation and later have it passed and, in doing so, to have prepared the ground for a renewal of the rural and agricultural development in this country. But it was not enough to have a grandiose plan and to understand the actual needs of the farmers; it was necessary, once that legislation was passed, to implement it, to reach the necessary agreements with the various provinces and to really make it one of the mainstays of the whole agricultural policy.
Well, the Minister of Agriculture, by his ill-founded assertions on that subject, saying that only eight people looked after the implementation of that act, proved that he did not have the slightest idea of the possibilities of the said act, that he could not care less and, what is even more serious, that he did not understand the needs of the farmers and the rural population.
Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago, I heard the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), with whom I seldom agree. I agree with him when he says that the farmers' needs are tremendous. He has singled out my own riding which is essentially a rural one. He expressed high hopes concerning the application of the ARDA program because, in his opinion, this legislation is one of the ways by which the now extremely urgent transformation of the agricultural and rural areas will come through.
Mr. Chairman, this does not only concern farm land as such, it has to do with a greater problem, namely the adaptation of the rural areas, including not only tillable and farm land, but also villages and the vast spaces surrounding the farm areas of our country, particularly in the province of Quebec.
With ARDA, we see the possibility, first of all, of transforming into profitable units farms which are no longer an economic proposition; second, the possibility of creating new rural industries; third, the possibility of employing advantageously farm labour and farmers' children.
The needs of the agricultural class in Canada's rural districts are immeasurable. The farmer is at the crossroads. He has to face an increasing cost of living, scarce manpower,

difficulties in supplying himself, at reasonable prices, with feed grains and in securing the machinery required for his farm.
All these problems are essential parts of the rural and agricultural problem. This government does not seeem to understand these basic problems, and that is the reason why the rural districts are still depressed.
Whether it is the present Minister of Agriculture who carries out the responsibility of rural rehabilitation, or whether it is handled by the Minister of Forestry-who is now sitting in his seat-it matters very little. Personally, I think that may be the Minister of Forestry is more capable of handling this problem and also to understand it by putting it in its proper perspective. But whoever is handling it, the government must face up to its responsibilities and must avoid deceiving the sanguine hopes that have been given the agricultural and the rural people by the former parliament when they passed the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act called ARDA.
That is why I join with all those who spoke before me and I urge the government to act resolutely and intelligently in carrying out this program and helping the many farmers scattered throughout the country, many of them in the province of Quebec and in my own riding, who were extremely disappointed by carelessness of the present government toward the agricultural class.
I feel that the government is confirming its indifference towards these problems by allowing the Minister of Finance to present a budget which ignores completely the rightful needs of the agricultural class.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question or two about the item under discussion. I do not wish to cut off the general discussion and I would certainly like, as well as other hon. members, to hear the answers to some of the questions asked during this discussion; in particular I should like to hear a little more about that period between February 3 and February 20. I should also like to hear more about ARDA and the other branches concerned.
However, I think that at some point either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Finance might say a word about the item before us. We are being asked to vote a supplementary estimate of $60,000 which breaks down into two parts, $59,604 for professional and special services and $396 for a commemorative plaque to the Food and Agriculture Organization. If I may take those two items in reverse order, we should like to be told about this plaque-its purpose and what the significance of it is. With regard to the other item, can we be told what these
Supp ly-A griculture
services are? Is this a salary or a payroll item and, if so, does it represent payments made to people in the public service, or are these payments to consultants or outsiders? Are they payments which have to be made before the end of the fiscal year and, if so, have they already been made despite the fact that the vote has not been passed? In other words, I should like some details as to the item actually before us, even though I do not wish to cut off the interesting general discussion we are having.


Harry William Hays: In answer to the hon. member's inquiry may I say that the amount of $396 is in respect of a gift to the Food and Agriculture Organization of a bronze plaque commemorating the inception of the FAO in 1945. It was presented at the recent FAO conference. The amount of $59,604 represents the cost of conducting a financial management survey of the department undertaken at the request of treasury board. The total cost of this survey is $79,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Finance if the item has yet been paid?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Chairman, it has not been paid.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the name of the firm?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Price, Waterhouse and Company.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the minister has started to answer some questions. The questions he answered were comparatively trivial. He has been asked for a statement on agricultural policy-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, I do not think that questions asked about items in the estimates, while the committee is scrutinizing the estimates, should be called trivial. That is what we are here for.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the hon. gentleman has come back to the view that these are matters of importance, and that is the reason for the stand we took the other day- not over a matter of $30,000 or $40,000 or $70,000 but over a matter of $140 million which the government endeavoured to have passed without opportunity for proper debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is $240 million.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, $240 million and I am glad the hon. gentleman joins with us now because, after all, these things are important.
I ask in what circumstances we were brought back here. Why should we have been brought back here? Because we decide to

Supply-Agriculture
take a stand and demand that full opportunity be given to parliament to examine this expenditure of $240 million? We were told, after gross delay on the part of the Minister of Finance: We shall sit tonight for a couple of hours and if you do not pass these estimates then in effect you will have to deny yourselves the holiday which is customarily allowed at Easter time. Indeed the carrot is still before us in the motion which rests on the order paper, reading:
That immediately after royal assent has been given to the hill providing for the appropriation based on supplementary estimates (E), this house adjourn until Monday, April 6, 1964.
The only reason for that motion being there is to dangle it in front of us as a carrot to bring about the passage of this vast amount of money.


Mr. Nowlan:: Is it a carrot, or a club?


John George Diefenbaker: I will come to that. It is dangled in front of us as a carrot to bring about the passage of this vast amount of money without the fullest examination, and we have had no information on these matters. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings said, "Is it a club?" They tried the club the other day, and it did not work. Now they have added the carrot to the club in the motion in question.
I intend to refer to the fact that here we are asked to pass these items, the indication being that we are to pass them before March 31. It is of interest to see sitting opposite the genial Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport. I like to look back and take the views that they expressed only two years ago-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Just before an election.


John George Diefenbaker: -for after all, by their past you can judge them. They claim, by inference, that these supplementary accounts have to be passed by March 31. Nothing of the kind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
right hon. gentleman whether he would assist my memory. Was not that just before the election?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman. See, the rules are different when the opposition indulges in this kind of action just before an election. We do not believe in that; we believe that the rules are the same before or after an election.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easi):: I want to be helpful. I just wanted to get some information.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just asking for some historical information. Was it just before the election?


John George Diefenbaker: I will come to that in a moment. That indicates the philosophy the hon. gentleman has always had; that if it is before an election, whether it is right or wrong, wrong as it is it is always right if it suits his purpose. He has apparently forgotten the situation. But I am here to say why, under this general item, parliament is not going to allow itself to be browbeaten by those people sitting opposite. Let that be clear. Let me point out also that there was no reason for the recalling of the house today by the pleaded necessity that these estimates have to be passed by March 31.
I shall refer to what happened in 1962. We brought in the final supplementaries in the middle of March. We started to debate them. Some $138 million was involved. We said they could be passed in a matter of three days, and they were debated on March 28, 29 and 30. The Liberal party that today is in office was then in opposition, and I may identify personally these distinguished representatives, if they feel it desirable that they should receive that attention. I point out that we did not take the stand they had to be passed. We said it was a fine objective that they should pass; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, "That is our objective", but in no way pressed the necessity of passage. They were not concluded in any way. The debate went ahead for three days. The then opposition, the government of today, debated these estimates at length. They did not have the views that the Minister of Justice has today, that parliament has to pass these items before the end of the fiscal year. That was not their view then. The debate continued on April 6, 12, 13 and 16. I think this has to be very definitely underlined and emphasized. As a matter of fact, the appropriation bill was not passed until after consideration on April 17 and 18. I mention this because there are some people endeavouring to leave the impression that because the end of the fiscal year is approaching, we have to pass these items; that they have to be passed before March 31. Nothing of the kind. I want to make that clear.
The only reason we were brought back here is that the government, and particularly the Minister of Justice, found themselves in an impossible position in moving that the house should sit on Good Friday and then again had to beat one of those retreats to which the government has become so addicted. It is a very interesting position. On Thursday, he did not know where to go, and said, "We will come back tomorrow". Then within an hour the Prime Minister, realizing the

nature of the step that was being taken, announced, "Of course we will not sit on Good Friday". Now we are back here, and we intend to examine these items fully and completely; let that be clear. We do not intend to accept the carrot now being held out with regard to the Easter recess. We intend to examine these items, and if we do not get any more information than we have got so far, it is going to take quite a while.
I can realize the position of the Minister of Finance. He has tried very hard; he has no doubt endeavoured to bring about reductions, and yet the harder he tries, the greater the increase in the expenditures. I can well understand the position of the Prime Minister. When speaking in Toronto on March 14 to a gathering of his party he said, "Poor Walter Gordon is going to bring his budget in on Monday. Surely we can spare him just a moment of silent prayer".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank all hon. members.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I thought he would be indulging in what the Prime Minister suggested would be a good exercise for the rest of us. Anyway that is the position; expenditures are multiplying. These people opposite said all that had to be done was to bring about a change of government and expenditures would go down. We are going to deal with these various items, but I am not going to deal with them now. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that I feel for him; he is in a desperate position. Everybody is taking away from him. As a matter of fact we do not know whether he was a usurper between February 3 and 20. Certainly I am using the word "usurper" in its finest connotation, as being a person who exercises authority which he has not got, and does it regardless of the rules. We want to know about this. We have not yet had the story from him. I feel very badly for him when I see the triumvirate-no, the diarchy set up for the purpose of controlling the Minister of Agriculture. They do not trust him; they have the Minister of Trade and Commerce taking over part of his duties, and then there is the Minister of Forestry, who made a speech in Winnipeg to which I shall refer later on, saying what he would do as minister of agriculture. I simply refer to that. It hurts me as much as it hurts him to say this, but I have to say it. I want to know, parliament wants to know and Canada wants to know what has happened to the minister. They should not subtract from him. Why, he does not know today what his powers are; he does not know what business he has. We do not know where these
Supply-Agriculture
things are. Where is ARDA? Is it under the Minister of Forestry? Before we get through, the Minister of Fisheries will have something to do with that. The way they shuffle these things around, they do not even know their own orders in council. We want to find out about these things. What we do know is that while all this monkey business is going on and this-what do they call this game of shuffling chairs?


Some hon. Members:: Musical chairs.


John George Diefenbaker: While this game of musical chairs, without the music, is going on the expenditures are mounting up-they are mounting up ever and anon. As a matter of fact I should point out that the Globe and Mail in its business editorial said that business deplores the spending rise at Ottawa, and the vice president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said:
There seems to be no end to the jumps in spending.
The economic adviser to one leading manufacturing and resources company said this:
Either the government has lost control of spending or it has become completely irresponsible.
I think he is wrong, because he provided an alternative. It is both. I could quote from others. The president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said, "It is disturbing". Certainly it is disturbing. Yet these people sitting opposite held a club over us and said: "Either you pass these estimates or sit on Good Friday". But they had to beat retreat on that one, because public opinion forced them to do so.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman when, where and how I even intimated that we should sit on Good Friday. On the contrary, I had to make three motions on the Thursday just to avoid that very thing, and in two of them I said expressly that it was to avoid sitting on Good Friday. The only reason we were called back on Good Friday was because one of the hon. members on the other side refused consent.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping for that propaganda alibi. What they are trying to do is to place the responsibility on one hon. member. The responsibility rests on the government. That was a smooth one, but almost anyone can see through its transparency. The Minister of Justice moved that we sit on Good Friday and then that we resume on Monday at the hour of 2.30 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order. I should like to ask whether

Sup p ly-A griculture
the debate which is now taking place is not both redundant and very much out of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps I can read the item which is now before the committee:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $60,000 be granted to Her Majesty for agriculture, administrative branch-
This is the item before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the item before the committee, and as always on the general item the widest discussion is permitted. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, it is always those people in the N.D.P.-C.C.F. who adopt an unctuous attitude in parliament.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, instead of this self-righteous position taken by the Leader of the Opposition I suggest we follow the rules of the house, that you draw attention to the fact that we are now on the agriculture item, and that we should stay on it until we have completed that order of business.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I never knew that being unctuous was unparliamentary. I do not think that the hon. gentleman knows what the word means; but I would point out this fact, that he himself contributed to this state of affairs. I refer to page 1534 of Hansard where, after the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona had spoken, the following appears:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for
Timlskaming (Mr. Peters).


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it six o'clock.
I simply point that out. I should like to read the rest of the record so that the Minister of Justice will not be able to befog the issue and place before the people a story inconsistent with the facts.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, again I rise on a point of order. Is it the intention of the Chair to direct the attention of the committee to the particular item which is before us?


Gordon Minto Churchill: So you can't take it.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member knows that the Chair has already done that. The suggestion was made that the Chair should bring to the attention of all hon. members the item presently before the committee. We certainly agreed before we started the study of these supplementary estimates that the widest possible discussion would be allowed on the first item, although I do feel we should perhaps limit ourselves to matters connected with agriculture, and to my mind we may be straying away a little from the item under consideration when we discuss the matters of procedure that preceded the debate which is taking place today.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, could I ask whether corn has anything to do with agriculture?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
always has the capacity to analyse things in a way that all of us understand. I always follow the course of co-operating with the Chair, but the Minister of Justice has tried to place responsibility on this side of the house and I will just read the balance of the record as part of the general discussion; I ask for that right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely we are not to be denied the right to explain what happened, and why we are here, when the responsibility rests on the government for endeavouring to bring about a situation unworthy of the House of Commons.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, surely the rules apply equally to the Leader of the Opposition. He is no longer the Messiah he was when he was in government.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know how the hon. gentleman knows anything about the Messiah because in the 1958 year book and parliamentary guide he described himself as an atheist.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege and point out to the Leader of the Opposition that, he is just as inaccurate in that reference he has made as he is in most other things. I would ask that he read the record and also that he stick to the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: Any more Messiah suggestions?


Frank Howard: How about King John; do you like that better?


John George Diefenbaker: I was just coming to the conclusion of this reference before I was subjected to these interruptions.


Frank Howard: Complete disregard of the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: Hansard continues:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the absence of any order of the house, if we adjourn at this point, then of course according to the rules of the house we will resume tomorrow at eleven o'clock.


Frank Howard: Complete disobedience of the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: 


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Guy Favreau: -having to sit on Good Friday, I suggest that the house give unanimous consent to adjourning until Monday, March 30, at 2.30 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Refused.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Since there is
obviously not unanimous consent, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
I wanted to cover the whole thing entirely and completely so that there would be no misunderstandings. Mr. Chairman, it is now five o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to leave the chair.
Progress reported.


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



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to provide for payment, in agreement with the provinces, for emergency ambulance services.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this private members' notice of motion I should like to review ambulance services as they now exist across Canada. In the city of St. John's, Newfoundland, ambulance services are operated by the government with the aid of a federal grant. In the province of Nova Scotia ambulance services are generally provided by the funeral directors in the province. This is also true in the province of Prince Edward Island. In the province of New Brunswick the major hospitals in the larger cities run ambulance services, but in the smaller towns these services are again run by the funeral directors. In the province of Quebec most of the ambulance services are provided by the funeral directors, and in the city of Montreal they are covered by police ambulances.
In the province of Ontario the provision of ambulance service is quite varied. In the city of Toronto the city itself owns and operates a municipally controlled ambulance service. In Oakville, the town in which I live, the ambulance service is subsidized by the town at a cost to the town of $12,000 a year. In addition of course the ambulance operator charges the normal ambulance fees, but the operation is still a losing proposition. In the town of Georgetown, also in my riding, the ambulance and ambulance quarters are provided by the municipality itself and the 20220-99
Suggested Provision for Ambulance Services ambulance service staff is made up of volunteers from the town. They are unpaid and provide a 24 hour, efficient, trained ambulance service.
In the province of Manitoba, Winnipeg has a combination of public and private ambulances. In the rest of the province ambulance service is provided, generally speaking, by funeral directors. In Saskatchewan there is some provincial legislation requiring that drivers of ambulances must be trained in first aid. In the cities of Saskatchewan the ambulance services are subsidized while in the rest of the province services are again provided by funeral directors. In the province of Alberta there is provincial legislation covering drivers and equipment but not the ambulance vehicles themselves. In that part of the province outside of the cities service is provided by funeral directors. In the province of British Columbia the situation is well taken care of in the city of Vancouver, but in the rest of the province there is a varied amount of coverage. In some areas coverage is provided by the municipalities and in other areas by the fire departments.
In reviewing the provincial situation I would point out that eight out of the ten provinces have no legislation on their statute books covering ambulance services, vehicles or the training necessary for the people who operate ambulances. The basic problem is a financial one and it is to cover the financial problem that I have proposed this notice of motion today. If the financial problems were solved, ambulance operators could provide good vehicles, adequate equipment and adequately trained personnel.
As I have mentioned, there are basically three types of ambulance service provided in Canada. The first is that provided by funeral directors as an extension of their funeral services, but funeral directors are gradually leaving the ambulance business because it is not profitable. For years dead people have actually been subsidizing injured people. The funeral directors have been providing ambulance service out of their other income and they are gradually drifting out of the business. The second group comprises those who provide privately operated ambulance services. These operations are so unprofitable that in many areas the operators have been subsidized by the municipalities. The third group is composed of the publicly operated ambulance services which are directly operated and controlled by municipalities.
As I have mentioned, the private enterprise ambulance operators cannot make a living, or if they do they find it impossible to provide proper vehicles and the proper training for their drivers in order to make the service
1564	HOUSE OF
Suggested Provision for Ambulance Services adequate. What is needed first of all is legislation regarding minimum standards of vehicles, equipment and trained personnel. This is a provincial responsibility and I am not going to discuss it further. However, I should like to say in passing that in Ontario a committee has been set up by the provincial government after representations from the ambulance operators, the medical association of Ontario and the chamber of commerce.
The second thing that is needed, and which I would hope to cover by this motion, is financing. I am convinced that if we can solve the financial problem the other problems will straighten themselves out. The resolution reads in part as follows:
-to provide for payment, in agreement with the provinces, for emergency ambulance services.
The resolution would bring emergency ambulance services under the terms of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. The words "for emergency ambulance services" are included to prevent ambulances being used as a glorified taxi service. This wording is used to ensure that those who suffer an accident or sudden illness will be transported quickly to where they can obtain medical aid and so that ambulance fees will not be covered in the case of people who may have to go to a hospital for a blood test or who are being admitted for something that is not of an urgent nature.
As I mentioned, generally speaking ambulance services in the past have been provided by funeral directors who are gradually getting out of the business. People who are involved in accidents are often not very eager to pay for ambulance service and their reason for not wanting to pay is a justifiable one. When people are injured in an automobile accident they do not call the ambulance and therefore they do not feel that they should be required to pay for the ambulance service. Statistics show that in some areas as high as 90 per cent of ambulance service fees, which would normally be collected as the result of the use of ambulances after accidents, are actually never collected.
While one does not like to speak of money with regard to such an important, humanitarian operation as the provision of ambulance services for the people of Canada, without fees dedicated ambulance drivers and operators cannot stay in the business. My answer to the problem, which is not the only solution but is one that would serve the purpose very well, is to include bona fide emergency ambulance services under the terms of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. This measure would also provide for better ambulance service in that proper vehicles would be used. I am not sure how many members are aware of the


situation but in some remote rural areas ambulance services are actually provided by jeeps or trucks or station wagons with a blanket and stretcher in them.
Some ambulance operators carry no emergency equipment at all. I believe most medical people feel that all ambulances should carry emergency equipment such as oxygen, first aid equipment and what is called suction equipment. It is also generally agreed that the people who operate ambulances should be trained in rudimentary first aid. Not very long ago in a riding close to mine a person was brought to a hospital who almost died on the trip there as a result of her injury. The fact is that her injury only amounted to a cut on her head from which she almost bled to death. The bleeding could have been stopped very easily and simply by the application of the most rudimentary first aid.
It is often said, Mr. Speaker, that "accident" is only a word until you have one. When and if you do have one, Mr. Speaker, this motion would see to it that you would be well looked after and it would help to provide the best of care for the people of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make some remarks on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley). The motion before the house is one relating to emergency ambulance services, and I think it should be distinguished from ambulance services merely for the transportation of a non-emergency patient from his home to the hospital or from one hospital to another. I think the definition of the word "emergency" given by the hon. member for Halton is rather imprecise. We have to be more precise in defining these words "emergency ambulance services".
After reading some material available on this subject, Mr. Speaker, the general view is that provincial legislation is required to set minimum standards for the training of the attendants of these ambulances and for the type of equipment necessary to handle traffic casualty cases and medical emergencies. There also has to be control, especially, of communications because many problems have arisen as a result of lack of communication between police centres and ambulance centres and the emergency departments of our hospitals. Many times we have seen ambulances bring traffic casualty cases or sick persons to a hospital and the hospital has had to deny the patient admission because of

lack of space or lack of the necessary equipment to deal with the particular case. We have found the ambulance had already left and we had to phone for another ambulance to take this patient to another hospital.
In Alberta legislation covering ambulance services has been provided through the department of highways. In Saskatchewan legislation covering ambulance services is provided under the public health act. In several municipalities civic legislation has been passed to deal with this problem. Some critics say that a firm, clear provincial policy regarding the financing of ambulance service is long overdue, and that this is really the main problem. The previous speaker stated that today many ambulance services are provided by funeral directors and so they are provided at the expense of the dead.
I am sure however that the members of this house are in agreement there should be a very profound study conducted of this whole field of ambulance services. These services provide not only transportation for the patient but also, in many cases, treatment. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) stated I believe that many people could die of haemorrhage or other medical complications while being transported from the scene of an accident or from a home to a hospital.
In discussing the financial implications of providing emergency ambulance service, we should review the principles of hospital insurance based on the traditional patterns in force at that time and which are still in force, when the present hospital insurance program was first being planned. Subsequent discussion with interested bodies involved in the provision of hospital services revealed that it was accepted as a basic principle of the Canadian scheme that the new legislation entitled the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act would have regard to the traditional patterns of providing hospital services, and the traditional patterns in relation to each of those services across this country. Thus the present plan, while financed from premiums of the public which have been supplemented by the federal-provincial governments, has respected the autonomy of the hospital.
This perhaps is not unrelated to the question of ambulance services. However, the traditional Canadian pattern of providing these services has been based primarily on private or public ownership, but not by hospitals. In a survey carried out in Ontario a few years ago, it was ascertained that 90 per cent of the ambulance services provided in that province were privately owned, and to some extent were carried out as sidelines 20220-99J
Suggested Provision for Ambulance Services to a principal business. The number of ambulance services owned and operated by hospitals in Canada is minimal.
Our federal-provincial hospital insurance program was designed to cover those services which by custom and by tradition comprised services normally associated with hospitals. Those do not include ambulance services. The pattern of separating ambulance services from hospital services is not an exclusive feature of the federal hospital plan. This nonambulance feature was also followed by its predecessor in the provincial hospital programs of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. The separation of the two services is due to the fact that while part of the duties of ambulance service have some relationship to hospital services, those are only a very small part of the over-all services. It has been regarded that ambulance services are closely related to other public services in a community, for example firefighting services and their ambulances, and police services, especially regarding highway traffic cases.
It has been suggested that ambulance services should be the subject of special legislation at the municipal or provincial level, containing provisions covering the licensing of the ambulance firm, the staff of the ambulance, the equipping of the ambulance, and communication facilities. None of these provisions would be in any way related to hospitals, but these services should operate under the direction or the supervision of the medical association. Under hospital insurance, costs which are included as shareable operating costs are those which form the normal part of the operating budgets of hospitals. Since ambulance services were usually not within the normal budgets of hospitals, those costs were excluded from those considered shareable.
In addition to the problem of costs, there are other problems associated with ambulance services and these mitigate against their inclusion in a hospital insurance program. These problems relate to the necessary controls which are essential in administering a program supported by public funds. I would suggest that these controls relate both to the utilization and also the quality of the ambulance service. With regard to the utilization of ambulance service, if associated with hospital insurance it would be necessary to define what distances and in what circumstances and under whose endorsement public funds could be used. In the absence of precise and enforceable regulations, the costs of hospital insurance for services not necessarily related to hospital care, which is the criterion for the receipt of insured services, would

Suggested Provision for Ambulance Services impose on hospital costs an element very difficult, it not impossible for the hospitals to control.
Second, the control of quality or the basic standards for ambulances is also a problem which has been recognized but which I think comes within the purview, of municipal and provincial governments. In Ontario, the provincial attorney general has recognized this need of raising standards and has recently given consideration to the demands of the Ontario ambulance operators association and the Ontario medical association. He stated that a profound study should be carried out to improve ambulance services in Ontario, and that this study is entirely separate from anything related to hospital insurance.
There is no doubt that ambulance services are urgently in need of improvement, including a satisfactory solution of the problem of paying for the ambulance services rendered, but this need should not be confused with the availability of funds for the program of hospital insurance. The royal commission on health services has been studying Canada's health service needs on a broad basis, and I expect its report will deal with the question of ambulance services. Meanwhile this problem should be reviewed on the local level as an essential need in the public service area.
There have been a few regional and two national studies of the ambulance services conducted in Canada. In 1955 there was the Montreal conference which studied the medical aspects of traffic accidents. In 1960 there was the Cornwall area traffic casualty study. In 1963 there was the brief of the Ontario ambulance operators association, and also in that year the communication services study in initial care and transportation in medical emergencies, conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. However, these studies have been rather limited in scope and did not result in significant action.
It is essential that more information be published on ambulance services, and these should be investigated in detail by the medical profession of Canada prior to recommending the courses open to governmental authorities in providing both improved and financially feasible ambulance services for Canadians. Among the things that should be studied are the ambulance services provided by the federal government.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are many federal departments which provide ambulance services. They include the Department of National Defence, the Department of Veterans Affairs which transports its patients from their homes to the veterans hospitals, the Department of National Health and Welfare which provides ambulance services in

remote areas, and the Department of Transport. As I stated previously, municipal governments in many cases provide ambulance services through their fire, police and public health departments.
Very few of the hospitals in Canada provide ambulance services. These ambulance services for emergency cases are very popular in many city hospitals in large United States metropolitan centres like New York city and Los Angeles. Such ambulances are provided by the emergency department of a hospital and are staffed by junior interns on duty in the hospital's emergency department.
With regard to the financial arrangements of paying for ambulance services, I must say that the fees are rather high. In the city of Toronto where I practised medicine for several years, the fee was $15 for a one-way trip from the home to the hospital or from the hospital to another hospital, no matter what the distance was within the city limits. At present in Toronto there are nine municipal public health ambulances and 29 ambulances provided by private concerns. Although the availability of ambulances is satisfactory, following the study and recommendations made by the Toronto city council's department of health, it has been shown that there is however a crying need for provincial legislation to provide better equipment for ambulances.
It is said that these days $12,000 is required for a properly equipped ambulance. As stated by the hon. member for Halton, only 8 per cent of the ambulances in Ontario are equipped with oxygen service. So far as I am concerned every ambulance should be equipped with oxygen service and personnel who know how to use oxygen equipment. It may be necessary for people who are severely breathless or who are in shock from acute coronary thrombosis.
Although as I have said, the ambulance services in Toronto are adequate, they are too expensive. A fee of $15 is a lot of money for a person to pay to be transported from his home to a hospital. I sympathize with the view expressed by the hon. member for Halton that some provision should be made to make it financially easy on patients to get ambulance services. However, in view of the fact that his motion states that this should be paid for through the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act I must say, apart from the point which I stressed before, that it was not the traditional pattern for hospitals to provide ambulance services. This whole area of hospital insurance will, we hear, be studied at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference in Quebec city.
Apparently many provinces wish to opt out of the shared programs, and the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act is one

of these shared programs. Therefore it is expected that this problem of emergency ambulance services will come solely under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and they will have to deal both with legislation controlling the quality of ambulances as well as paying for the costs.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this notice of motion, to the effect that the government should consider the advisability of amending the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, in order to provide, with the provinces, for the payment of emergency ambulance services, represents a new invasion in fields reserved exclusively to the provinces.
Such a legislative measure would impose new taxes on us, at both levels, federal and provincial.
It would create a double bureaucracy, an administration in Ottawa and an administration in Quebec or in any other province.
If the government, through this joint program, wants to give financial help to the provinces for the setting up of such a system, which is the responsibility of the municipalities and provinces concerned, and not of the federal government, it need not invent a new plan, or devise a new tax; all it has to do is to give financial help to the provinces to enable them to manage themselves as far as hospital insurance and all such details including emergency ambulance service, are concerned.
I do not believe at all that such a notice of motion is likely to facilitate the decentralization which everybody agrees should be implemented more and more in this country. Instead, we should introduce notices of motion which would definitely help the provinces.
Then, we could talk of respect for provincial autonomy, of federal decentralization, which becomes more and more urgent. We see in all these notices of motion a new invasion in fields coming under provincial jurisdiction.
As far as we are concerned, we object to the adoption of such a motion because we think it would be a duplication of jurisdiction which would impose new taxes.
Clearly, the Canadian people cannot pay any more than it does at the present time.
If, as I said a while ago, the federal government wants to be useful, I suggest it should supply the funds required by the provinces, while giving them full discretion to administer themselves with their own structures.
The federal government does not know where to get the necessary funds or credits to assist the provinces in the administration
Suggested Provision for Ambulance Services of such a deal. There is only one way out, the government must turn to the Bank of Canada, where it will find the credits required for the expansion and the administration of the provinces, municipalities and well organized public bodies, including the federal government.
Then, there would be no intrusion by the federal government into fields reserved to provinces, or in the administration of municipalities. Rather, there would be understanding, and I think the federal government would be giving assistance to the provinces. That way, the federal government would be carrying out the function for which it exists.
The federal government does not exist to penalize the provinces or take decisions for them, but to encourage their development in their own and respective fields.
The passing of such a motion, as such a piece of legislation would be neither more nor less than an additional infringement on that freedom which definitely belongs to the provinces.
I shall not labour that point any longer, because some other hon. members have indicated their desire to make themselves heard. I see that even Liberals are anxious to reach six o'clock so that the motion will not be passed. I leave it to them to talk out that motion.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Two of
the three previous speakers are members of the medical profession and you, Mr. Speaker, may have noticed the divergency of opinion which exists even in the medical profession on the question raised by this notice of motion.
I am not a member of the medical profession but I claim some knowledge of the ambulance situation as it exists in Canada today, and I wish to rise in protest against the implications of the motion before us. I note that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) commented on the fact that even members of the Liberal party appear anxious to have this particular motion talked out. I would not use that phrase myself, but I would advise the hon. member for Villeneuve that I am against the motion for reasons which I shall advance and which I hold to be good ones.
I do not like to talk about myself. On the other hand, one does get first hand knowledge from personal experience, and I must say that there is one word in this motion which causes me a great deal of difficulty, and that is the word "emergency". The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic
1568	HOUSE OF
Suggested Provision for Ambulance Services Services Act to provide for payment, in agreement with the provinces, for emergency ambulance services.
I have to ask: What is an emergency? I happen in private life to be connected with a hospital which maintains more than 240 beds, that is to say it is a fair sized institution. I only wish that we received 100 per cent cooperation from each and every member of the medical staff of that institution. There are more than 100 doctors on the staff and it is interesting to see what a few of them will resort to in order to put patients of their own into hospital. I know that the experiences I shall recite are not isolated cases but that they can be duplicated throughout Canada from coast to coast, day after day. We operate an emergency department-a division which not all hospitals possess-and doctors will call up with a paying patient who is really anxious to get to hospital. After all, the patient is paying his premiums under the Ontario hospital services act and feels he is entitled to a bed when he requires it. But there is no bed available in the hospital with which the doctor is connected. However, the doctor knows that emergency cases are admitted to hospital for immediate treatment, and if there is no bed available an emergency case will be taken in and put on a wheeled apparatus known as an emergency bed; it is not a full width bed but people connected with hospitals know what I mean when I talk about these emergency beds in which emergency cases are placed.
So a doctor calls up to see if he can get a patient admitted to hospital and he is advised that there are no beds available; the patient will have to wait for two days, or two weeks, or a month, perhaps. The patient is still screaming that he requires attention. The doctor tells the patient: If you have a relative who will call an ambulance and get you taken to the hospital in an ambulance and ask that you be treated in the emergency division, you are in. So, if a doctor has an elective case on his hands, medical or surgical, all he has to do is to advise the relatives to engage an ambulance and send it to the emergency division of the hospital he designates, and the patient is admitted. Is that an emergency case or not? It may be that there has been premeditation, possibly for hours, maybe for a day or two.
What is an emergency? I witnessed one case in the last 12 weeks which may interest hon. members. A man collapsed in a church I was attending. He was at the back of the building and the thud with which he fell attracted the attention of a doctor in the congregation. The doctor immediately went to the man's assistance. The patient was lying prone on the floor, and was carried upon a stretcher into the vestry. He was in poor condition and


the doctor himself telephoned for an ambulance to take him to hospital. The ambulance arrived in about 15 minutes and took this chap to the hospital where he was placed in the emergency ward, because there were no other beds available. I personally visited this man who had collapsed in church. I asked the doctors who were attending him about his condition and they told me the patient was in a highly nervous state; the man was in a state of shock rather than anything else. Nevertheless the doctor who had attended the man in the church had called for an ambulance when this man was lying prone on the floor. The doctors at the hospital said it was a case of high nervous tension. Was that an emergency case? I asked the ambulance operator whether or not he was being paid for this service and he advised me that when he spoke to the man in this case he was told he had no money, and since he had not called for the ambulance he did not intend to pay. This was quite all right with the hospital. When I spoke to the doctor who had called for the ambulance, he pointed out that many ambulance calls are never paid for and he regretted that he had been the one who had called the ambulance. The house might be interested to know that the only cheque I ever received from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

and that was for $25, less income tax of $1.25-reached me a week after this ambulance case, and I paid for the ambulance call myself because the ambulance operator stated he would not be paid for it; he could tell from the shape of things as they were.
There are two questions that arise here. Was the man an emergency case? I say he was not. The doctor who called him in the first instance thought he was. The doctors who treated the patient at the hospital said he was not, and no one was going to pay for the service until a volunteer came along. You cannot make a proper distinction of what is an emergency service compared with one that is non-emergency or elective.
I have the honour and pleasure to represent the riding of York-Humber, and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Gelber) and I share a municipality with a population of 130,000. The township of York is about equally divided between York South and York-Humber. Some years ago when a hospital was first constructed in the township of York, the York Lions club, who met at the Oakwood hotel, conceived the very, very charitable idea of providing an ambulance for the conveyance of injured and sick persons to the hospital. They took the idea of providing an ambulance from the East York Lions club, which is in the riding of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), and they raised the money, about $7,000, and gave a

brand new ambulance to the police department of York township. This was before the metropolitan Toronto amalgamation came into effect. The police department of York township-which co-operates in every way with the Northwestern hospital-agreed to operate this small ambulance as a police cruiser. It had an extension inside, on which an injured person could be laid as on a bed; the rear opened up, as ambulance doors do, and many cases were transported to hospital in this combined police cruiser and ambulance donated by the York Lions club. But when metropolitan Toronto amalgamation came into effect the police departments were amalgamated early and the new police commissioners for metropolitan Toronto stated that ambulance service was not one of the functions of a police department. They said, "We cannot have these policemen running around and going off to hospital with sick and injured people. There might be a bank robbery and, heaven knows it is better to protect money than take an injured man to hospital, so they will have to stop operating an ambulance service in the police department".
Faced with the position of having a fully paid for ambulance that the police commissioners said could not be operated by the police department, the good people of York township decided to approach the fire department. We now have in the township of York a small ambulance which looks somewhat like a district fire chief's car, but it is a combination ambulance and district fire chief's car and it gives very, very fine service to the people of York who are transferred to the hospital. The point I would like to emphasize in this connection is that of manpower. In trying to keep this ambulance, which had been donated in the first place by the York Lions club, available 24 hours a day it was necessary to contact men who would be able to answer emergency calls at any hour of the day or night. That is why the police were first contacted, and then we went to the fire department. It is now operated by the fire department of York. The mover of this motion wants the act amended so that ambulance services will be paid for by the province and the dominion; but one of the great costs here is that of providing service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
I am quite surprised that the member for Halton has brought this motion forward at this time, just when the dominion-provincial conference is going to be renewed at Quebec city. We are told that there are two items of great interest on the agenda. The first has to do with the Canada pension plan and the second has to do with shared costs of services rendered by the federal government
Suggested Provision for Ambulance Services and the provinces. To carry a motion such as this at this time would simply be adding extra expense to these shared costs, and anyone who is in touch with current thinking in this country of ours knows that there are at least ten provinces out of ten seeking to get more control of the shared costs which they now enjoy with federal participation.
I do not think the federal government should approach the provinces at all with regard to increasing the expense under the hospital insurance acts of the provinces or under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Insurance Act. Many of the hospitals in the Dominion of Canada do not conduct emergency departments of their own, and if there is an accident on the street, to what hospital are you going to send the case even if you have an ambulance at your beck and call? It is quite possible to send an emergency case to a hospital that refuses to take it in. I know hospitals in the city of Toronto that will not accept an emergency case because they are not staffed to handle emergencies 24 hours a day. If ambulance service were paid for under the insurance plans of the provinces and the Dominion of Canada, we would be receiving calls for emergency ambulance service at all hours of the day and night, with the patient directing the ambulance as to what hospital he was to be taken, whether or not that hospital had emergency service.
The problems that arise in connection with conducting an ambulance service are insoluble when you consider that not every doctor is allowed to practise in every hospital. If a doctor has privileges in one hospital, it is seldom that he has privileges in another. A man who considered himself an emergency case, called for an ambulance and demanded to be taken to a certain hospital, might be designating a hospital in which his own doctor did not have privileges, and he would be separated from the service of his doctor, whom he has possibly been visiting for 20 or 30 years.
I cannot see how the people of Canada can be expected to pay for emergency ambulance service without everyone demanding an ambulance ride to the hospital. Then how long would it be before they would be demanding an ambulance ride home from the hospital? I have enough contacts with the relatives of patients to be able to tell the house that if there was available free ambulance service under any insurance scheme, the relatives of patients would point out that we should send their father, their husband, their wife, their daughter, their nephew or their niece home in an ambulance because the taxi ride would be far too rough; and if they were taken home in their own, broken down car they would not know whether the car would make it
1570	HOUSE OF
Suggested Provision for Ambulance Services home. These people would say that the mother should be sent home in the ambulance. Therefore this service would not only be to the hospital but would also be from the hospital.
One of the main reasons for the shortage of hospital beds throughout the Dominion of Canada today is the fact that we have prepaid hospital insurance. People who never went to hospital before, in the voluntary pay days, are now covered by hospital insurance through the province or the dominion and are demanding hospital service when they have the slightest cold, the slightest itch or the slightest ache. Not only do they find doctors who will put them into hospitals, but they stay there for days and days unnecessarily. We have found that people who have prepaid hospital coverage squeeze it to the last possible drop, which creates a bed shortage in hospitals throughout the Dominion of Canada.
I can assure hon. members that if we had free ambulance service to hospitals, because every patient would be demanding ambulance service to hospital we would not have enough room on the highways for the ambulances that would be required to transport these patients to hospital and, in short order, to transport them home again.
I think this resolution would be incapable of fulfilment if it were passed. I agree with the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and also the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), who pointed out that this was an intrusion on provincial rights. I think the federal government should stay well out of this scheme as it has been advanced to us. We are told that funeral directors who operate ambulance services are going bankrupt, as well as people who operate private ambulance services. There are times when I think that that is the only reason that could be advanced for asking the federal government to step into the field; and I make the statement that if people will not pay for ambulance service when it is conducted by funeral directors or by ambulance service people when it is conducted by private entrepreneurs, there is no reason under the sun why they will be willing to pay for ambulance service through taxation under a federal-provincial scheme.
We have heard doctors point out that every ambulance should be equipped with oxygen and suction pumps. As a hospital trustee I have been quite interested in the number of times a hospital is criticized because it does not supply an intern to ride with every hospital ambulance which goes out on a call. Some people maintain that no ambulance should answer a call unless it carries a doctor to look after the patient on the way to the hospital. Pretty soon ambulances will be


running on as costly a basis hour by hour as the hospitals, and heaven knows the cost of that is breaking the back of the average Canadian taxpayer.
I am entirely opposed to this notice of motion and I sincerely ask the house to give it short shrift.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard many reasons advanced in support of the motion, although my colleague the hon. member for York-Hum-ber (Mr. Cowan) is apparently opposed to it. I feel that the hon. member who introduced the motion has done a great service in calling attention to a serious national problem. In addition to its being a national problem it is also a problem which has to be developed very carefully in light of our present day constitutional arrangements. However, I feel that the argument of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), who suggested that this was a provincial responsibility and that the federal government should stay out of it, but that the federal government should go to the Bank of Canada and get enough money to pay for an ambulance service, is as unique as anything I have heard for some time.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good motion. I think the intent of the mover of the motion to bring attention to the problem is an entirely worthy one. But as the hon. member for York-Humber pointed out, there will shortly be, in a matter of days, an important federal-provincial conference, and one of the items on the agenda of that conference is the future of the shared-cost programs. The principle of shared-cost programs is inherent in the motion itself, because it calls upon this house to-
-give consideration to the advisability of amending the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to provide for payment, in agreement with the provinces, for emergency ambulance services.
Not very long ago in this house during private members' hour I personally opposed the extension of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to the field of tuberculosis hospitalization. The reason I opposed it is exactly the reason why I think this motion is a good one. It is because the whole role of federally granted aid funds should be in terms of encouragement of the development of services, to cover the gaps which currently exist and to encourage the development of standards in a co-operative arrangement, which means the signing of an agreement between the federal and provincial authorities which pays regard to variations from one province to another, from one circumstance to another, and from one coast to another in this great and diversified country which is Canada.

The principle of grants in aid was a device by which better standards were developed, by which we overcame deficiencies in our welfare and health services. When we talk about grants in aid of tuberculosis today we would not require another dollar for care. It would simply be a measure of fiscal relief to the provincial authorities, because there are now adequate beds to take care of those afflicted with this illness. Standards have been developed to attack this problem which have shown encouraging results.
I feel it is wrong for the federal authorities to move purely in the direction of fiscal relief. Fiscal relief is a matter for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to discuss within the framework of federal grants to the provinces. But when we talk of development and extension of services-in this instance I think this principle is fundamental-it is surely an area for the use of the grant in aid device.
We have heard various hon. members describe the great gaps existing in the provision of ambulance service today. In some instances they are provided by funeral directors. I submit that the skill required for the normal exercise of the function of a funeral director is rather different in nature and quality from the skill one would expect from the operator of an emergency ambulance service. In other instances this service is provided by private firms, in some other cases by municipal sponsorships, and in other cases on an irregular basis by fire and police departments.
I was formerly, Mr. Speaker, a member of the council of the city of Ottawa and I was surprised at the degree to which some private operators, who really believed in the work they were doing, put up with inconvenience and serious personal financial loss to provide the standard of service which they felt was very much needed in their community. I had the opportunity of reviewing at one stage the financial statement of a private operator, and I was astonished at the cases in which it was simply impossible for this private operator to collect bills which he had rendered, for reasons such as those so eloquently described by previous speakers in the house.
I think it is quite clear that we cannot expect such a service to be provided, logically and completely, by private enterprise, which would meet the standards we require. When the United Kingdom, in a logical pattern following the second world war, set about providing a health plan with broad coverage, they did not decide that ambulance services should be part of hospital services. This became a local authority service and it was given a very different type of structure and
Supply-Agriculture
made subject to controls. I do not share the concern of my colleague for York-Humber, much as I admire him in other respects, about the abuse of such a service. The British experience and the experience of many other parts of the world shows that it is possible to develop this kind of service in a logical pattern.


William Arnold Peters: Question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I think the use of the grant in
aid device in Canada is an orderly and proper way to tackle this problem, and I hope that in the future when the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act is considered, this whole question will be reviewed. We have had some indication of the extent to which mental illness can be considered.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I also hope consideration will be given to the provision of ambulance service. I think the mover of this motion is to be congratulated for bringing it before the house. Should no action be taken in a field in which there is an important provincial responsibility and nothing further is done, I think the matter should again be brought forward to the house. I would also congratulate the mover of the motion for bringing the matter to national attention. May I call it six o'clock?


David Réal Caouette: Well disposed of.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock the time allotted to private members' hour has expired. As the business at eight o'clock will be the consideration of supplementary estimates, will the house agree to go into committee of supply now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in committee of supply, supplementary estimates (E) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, vote le, Department of Agriculture.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I was dealing with the general item and now I come

Supply-Agriculture
down to the particulars asked tor with regard to the Department of Agriculture. I am dealing now with the bifurcation that took place in respect of which we have so far had little or no information. I should like to know what arrangements have been made in connection with this division of power. Who today administers the various sections that were removed from the Minister of Agriculture? Subsequently the order in council of the 3rd of February was repealed on the 20th of February, but as yet we have had no information as to what actually took place during those 17 days. In particular, we want to be furnished with a record of all the directives and orders made by the Minister of Agriculture between those two dates in connection with the branches which were transferred to the Minister of Forestry.
The law in this connection is set forth in the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, section 2 of which reads in part as follows:
The governor in council may
(a) transfer any powers, duties or functions or supervision of any part of the public service from one minister of the crown to any other minister of the crown, or from one department or portion of the public service to any other department or portion of the public service.
This transfer of powers is one of the most peculiar and unusual things that have taken place since I have been a member of the house. There have been transfers made before but never has there been such an element of mystery. One really does not know what went on. Never before was so much power bandied between so few to the detriment of the public service in general.
What we are trying to find out is who had the power. What happened? What were the circumstances under which this irresponsible game of transfer and retransfer took place? The committee will understand that there is a bit of mystery about this matter because the Minister of Forestry went to Vancouver and there he explained what had happened. We have not had that explanation here. He said, as reported in Le Devoir on March 25:
The department of forestry and rural development which the federal government is going to set up will be independent of the Department of Agriculture, Hon. Maurice Sauve, Minister of Forestry in the Pearson government said yesterday. The minister stated, "a brand new, autonomous department, with one or two deputy ministers, one for forests, the other for rural development" will be established.
I would ask this question. Is it a fact that as a result of the uncertainty in these two departments employees did not receive their pay in the regular way as they should have? I refer to the employees of the animal diseases research institute of the animal pathology division located on Gamelin boulevard in
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
Hull. Did they have to wait five weeks for their pay cheques and, if so, why? Was it because no one knew whether this matter came under the department of forestry and rural development, the latter part as yet unconstituted, or under the Department of Agriculture?
It is this information for which we ask, and naturally as soon as the information is received we will be able to go on to another department. There are some very important questions to be answered by the minister but the general questions that have been asked are still up in the air. So far all we have seen is fumbling attempts to field the questions on this problem. We have seen the shifting of powers over a period of days of indecision during which one minister or the other must have been in doubt as to which was in fact to discharge certain functions. It was a case of off again, on again. Taking the most charitable view that one can of this series of episodes, that view is that this is just another case of crossed wires in the cabinet, of faltering leadership, of disregard for proper, effective and decisive procedure.
It is these things we are anxious to find out about. This group of supplementary estimates involves a tremendous amount of money, a quarter of a billion dollars, and in addition we have this clumsy, ineffective and doubtful transfer of powers which after three weeks ended up leaving everybody where they were and with no one knowing who exercised the authority that had to be exercised during the period of uncertainty.
There are other matters I shall deal with later. The other day the minister made some references to the way things were going in agriculture. He also referred to the cattle situation. I feel he should give us information as to the prices of cattle in 1961, 1962, 1963 and during the first months of 1964 up to the present. It would also be very helpful if we had-he has all this information at his fingertips-information as to the number of cattle exported to the United States in 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 to date.
I am sure the minister is desirous of cooperating in every way and wishes to give the committee the benefit of his knowledge. If he will just answer these questions rather than rising and bumbling away on something we have not asked him about we will make progress. We have a great many important items to deal with which will require examination. There is one particularly large item about which I know he will want to give us the fullest information. Therefore, without further delay I leave the matter with him, knowing he will bring together in his own inimitable manner these threads of uncertainty, these threads of authority, some of

which have disappeared, others of which have been broken and some of which have been reassembled, so that order will be brought out of the chaos of two departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, with some of the things the Leader of the Opposition said both prior to five o'clock and since eight o'clock, we agree. We have already made it clear that we feel we are in the squeeze, to quote one of the Ottawa newspapers today, that we are now in because of the introduction of four days of the budget debate into a schedule that was already crowded. We think there are other examples of the mismanagement of the business of the house by the government, but they can be dealt with at some other time. We agree also that when supplementary estimates are before us they should be examined carefully. They should be scrutinized. We think this job should be done decently and properly. We should take whatever time is necessary, although we should not waste time.
However, Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition in this house indulged in a display this afternoon that I cannot let pass without putting the record straight. I wondered for a time during the supper hour whether or not I would let it pass, but an editorial which I read during the supper hour in the Ottawa Journal made it clear this was something concerning which the record must be put straight. When he was speaking prior to five o'clock, the Leader of the Opposition stated categorically that the Minister of Justice tried to force this house to sit on Good Friday. Later, the Leader of the Opposition put on the record most of what was said at six o'clock on Thursday. If anyone reads carefully what was said at that time, it will be very clear that the Minister of Justice, far from trying to force this house to sit on Good Friday, was doing his best to help the house avoid sitting on Good Friday. I think the Minister of Justice still has a few things to learn as house leader. I think he has made a few mistakes, and he probably would admit that himself. But, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this house, and as one who is in a position to know what went on, I refuse to let the Minister of Justice be blamed falsely, as he was this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition.
Everyone in this house knows that there is a group of people known as house leaders. They consist of the Minister of Justice for the Liberals; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for the Progressive Conservatives; the member for Winnipeg North Centre for the New Democratic party; the hon. member for Fraser Valley for the Social Credit party, and
20220-100i
S upp ly-A gr {culture
the hon. member for Lapointe for the Rallie-ment Creditistes. We meet from time to time to try and arrange the business of the house. Sometimes we succeed, and sometimes we do not. Last Tuesday, March 24, at six o'clock, a meeting of these five house leaders was held in the office of the Minister of Justice, which is on this floor just out in front of this chamber. At that meeting which took place shortly after six o'clock the Minister of Justice, as house leader for the government, informed us he had filed a notice of motion with the proper authorities so that it would appear on the order paper. He told us that the wording of the notice of motion was to the effect that when the house adjourned last Thursday it would stand adjourned until this Monday. I wish to make it quite clear that we were told that notice of motion had been filed. The member for Winnipeg South Centre objected. I am putting it mildly, but I am sure he will not quarrel with that statement. He objected to that motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Now that the hon. member is disclosing what happened in what have always been considered to be confidential meetings, I suppose he will not object if I subsequently disclose some of the troubles he has at these meetings?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all; I might even disclose some of them myself.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I raise a point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Malcolm MacInnis: My point of order is this, Mr. Chairman: This afternoon hon. members belonging to the party of the hon. member who is now speaking made a great hue and cry about the rules of order. They continually raised the points of order because no one was adhering to the item with which we were dealing.
Now, we have an example of hon. members, when they think things are going their own way, members of the Liberal party and the other group, being quite satisfied to sit quietly while the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre breaks the rule about which the members of the Liberal party and the New Democratic party squawked so much this afternoon.


Mr. Lloyd:: May I speak on the point of order? May I observe that the buttons were taken off the foils by the Leader of the Opposition I think just before five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest this matter was raised this afternoon and it is appropriate

Supp ly-A griculture
for me to clear it up. If it were necessary,
I could raise it as a point of privilege because I, personally, am involved in the charges that were made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition.
I was pointing out we were informed at six o'clock last Tuesday that the motion to which I have already referred had been filed for the order paper. This was objected to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I did not share the reasons for his objections, but I joined with him in objecting. I suggested that it might be better if this motion were withdrawn rather than let it appear to be giving the house a threat. The Minister of Justice said, "What do we do about Good Friday; I want to be sure we do not sit on Good Friday." We all said, the representatives of all parties, "We can handle that by making sure that you will have unanimous consent not to sit on Good Friday. It is not necessary," we said to the Minister of Justice, "to have that kind of motion since it is going to seem to be a threat to some of the members of the house. If you withdraw the motion, we will undertake that you will have the unanimous consent that will be necessary so that the house will not have to sit on Good Friday."
The Minister of Justice, at that meeting at supper time last Tuesday, told us he would give consideration to our request and that he would carry on any consultations with his colleagues which might be necessary. We were invited to meet in his office at ten o'clock that same night. We went to his office at ten o'clock that night. To keep the record perfectly straight, I was a minute or two late getting there. As I got there, the meeting was breaking up. I had thought it might last an hour, but I was told the minister had informed us he had withdrawn the motion, so any need for a further meeting that night was avoided.
There is the story, Mr. Chairman; the motion to adjourn the house from Thursday night to Monday was withdrawn. The motion the Ottawa Journal said the government should have introduced was filed, but it was withdrawn at the request of representatives of the opposition, led in fact by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre; and I suggest in the light of that it is crystal clear- certainly it is clear beyond peradventure of doubt to me-that the Minister of Justice is the last man in the house to be accused of trying to force the house to sit on Good Friday.
We met several times after those meetings of last Tuesday, and on almost every occasion the question came up, what about Good

Friday? I admit the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said I might have some difficulty. In fact I admitted at the meeting that I might have difficulty with one or two of my members who might not want to give unanimous consent but I stated I would do my best, that I would take the matter up in our party caucus, and I later reported we had unanimous agreement in our caucus not to object to any motion necessary to avoid sitting on Good Friday. As late as the last meeting we had on Thursday I was able to say there would be no difficulty so far as we of the New Democratic party were concerned.
Certainly at those meetings of house leaders we had a number of disagreements about house business, but on this point there was no disagreement whatever. A sitting on Good Friday was to be avoided, and it was to be avoided by all parties undertaking that there would be unanimous consent to any motion necessary not to sit on Good Friday. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, last Thursday evening when I heard the Leader of the Opposition twisting the words of the Minister of Justice into a suggestion that we sit on Good Friday I could hardly believe my ears. I wondered if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had not been reporting to his leader what had taken place. Then a little later, as if my ears were not already hearing enough that I could not believe, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre himself said, "Now the present group are asking us to sit on Good Friday." I repeat that this came from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who was at the meeting of house leaders, who protested against this motion and at whose request the motion was withdrawn. So, in the light of that, to upbraid and criticize the Minister of Justice, as the Leader of the Opposition did this afternoon, is to accuse him of something which is the very opposite of what he tried to do for three or four days on end, and is a performance not worthy of the right hon. gentleman who was formerly prime minister of this country and who is now leader of the official opposition.
Now, I repeat, we have our difficulties. We had our difficulties about what we were to do before we adjourned, but there was no doubt in my mind about what the government was asking for-that the government was asking for both interim supply and supplementary estimates. The hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre would not accept this; he would not agree, but there was no doubt what the government wanted.
We had various other disagreements, and I still hold to the view that the government made a serious mistake when in the first place it brought down the budget. I think it has made a number of mistakes. In fact I am

keeping a list of them and some time when I have 40 minutes to speak I am going to read out its mistakes; but on this one issue of who was responsible for the house sitting on Good Friday the record itself is clear, and certainly the one person to whom no blame attaches for that sitting is the Minister of Justice. Nobody did more than he to try to avoid it, and I think the Leader of the Opposition, the Ottawa Journal and any others accusing him of this, owe him an apology.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you will give me an opportunity to reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to correct some of his erroneous statements. I first take objection to the disclosure publicly-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of the truth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member has objected to the disclosure of the truth. I will show the falsity of his statements, but I object to the disclosure publicly of confidential meetings, and the meetings of the house leaders are confidential. Here we have an hon. member who purports to be familiar with the procedure and the routine of this House of Commons, who has been a member of house leaders' committees on more than one occasion, now disclosing a meeting which was confidential, a meeting at which no minutes were taken.
He gives his recollection of a meeting of last Thursday, and his recollection is faulty. This is one way to destroy forever the work which normally goes on in a house of commons behind the curtains, behind the Speaker's chair, as it is called, where people representing the various parties try to come to agreement, and 90 per cent of the time a great deal of the work is put forward and moved along because of confidential meetings and various arrangements that leaders of the various groups make behind the Speaker's chair. But now the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has destroyed the value of those meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I just ask you what happens at the next meeting if a person's opinion is asked and he gives it frankly, though it may not correspond to the opinion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He will disclose this to the public and he will say, "Well the person who caused all this trouble was the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre". And in my turn, what happens when I come here publicly and say the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not agree because he could not get
Supply-Agriculture
agreement from two members in his party, the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timmins?
If this is not well known let it be well known now. This is what he has said on many occasions in these confidential meetings.


Murdo William Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has his members straight?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, I beg your pardon. I apologize to the hon. member for Timmins. It is the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming; those are the two who prevented the passage of business through this house on so many occasions, as one of them did on Thursday night, calling it six o'clock when the house was consulting openly trying to get a solution to the problem. He called it six o'clock and the Speaker had no option but to adjourn the house.


William Arnold Peters: And prevent bloodshed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will deal with the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who purported to say, and did say, that at the confidential meeting on Tuesday the house leaders all agreed that the Minister of Justice would have unanimous consent for the house not to sit on Good Friday. That is not my recollection of the meeting at all; and the hon. member says subsequently he consulted with his colleagues and reported back unanimous consent would not be refused. I was not asked to do this or to report back.
There was none of this at all. There was a general expression of opinion that it would be unlikely anybody would refuse assent not to sit on Friday, but there was no agreement made, and time and time again the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, "Well, I cannot commit all my party. You know I have two chaps there who are a little difficult, so I will have to consult, or perhaps if they are out of the house when the time comes we can get the thing through without their knowing anything about it." I declare as false the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that there was an agreement that no one would object to unanimous consent being given with regard to Good Friday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was, if the word agreement means anything.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He mentioned the fact that the government house leader in the meeting on Tuesday advised us that he was putting on the order paper a motion that the house should stand adjourned from Thursday until Monday the 30th. Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that at my

Supp ly-A gricu Iture
request this motion was withdrawn. I made no request at all. I said to the government house leader: You do that and you are in for trouble; you are breaking the word of the Prime Minister of this country-and this had been done. The Prime Minister had announced the term of the Easter recess, and I said: You are holding a gun at the head of the opposition and if you put that motion on the order paper there will be considerable debate, and if you compel us to come back, as apparently you intend, on Monday, I doubt very much if the house will make much progress. There was no request.
We are quite prepared for anything. Let the government lay out its business. We are equal to it. But the house leader took cognizance of the statement I made and, having, apparently, consulted with his colleagues, he finally reported back that the motion had been withdrawn. Then he was unable, in the course of the ensuing days, to arrange things with his side of the house in order that the work might be done in a suitable manner. I warned him on at least three occasions that it would be almost impossible to get supplementary estimates through the house in the time he had suggested. In fact he asked us if we would put through the supplementary estimates and interim supply on Friday, March 13. I told him that this would be altogether impossible. I said: Look back at some of the debates in the past and you will find that the Liberal opposition took anywhere from six to eight days on some occasions to pass interim supply, and that on supplementary estimates the Liberal opposition took, on one occasion, 12 days to pass a series of them. That was in the early part of 1962; and in the middle of April of 1962 the Liberal opposition took seven days on supply and two days on an appropriation bill.
So I said: You are asking us to pass in one day both supplementary estimates and interim supply, which is just impossible. I do not know how many warnings a person needs. I told the leader of the house that it was simply ridiculous to attempt to have the budget debate completed in its entirety before the recess. But of course the hon. gentleman was under the gun from the Minister of Finance who was annoyed with last year's house leader for tripping him up in the budget debate by not having that debate running continuously. So there is a good deal of dissension on the other side of the house and the house leader was, apparently, unable to persuade the Minister of Finance to abandon his way of thinking. In consequence we had four days of the budget debate before the time for recess, days in which we could have been dealing

with the supplementary estimates if, in the opinion of the government, they should have been passed by March 31.
It has been normal to pass these estimates by March 31, but the Liberal opposition two years ago decided that this was not necessary. We did not force the issue. It has already been related that two years ago they took three days in March and another four in April, plus two days on the appropriation bill to get through final supplementary estimates. That experience obviously indicates that if supplementary estimates are not passed by March 31 the world does not come to an end; the position can be set right by the Appropriation Act.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who, I think, should immediately join the Liberal party instead of playing around at the game as he is doing-I now believe some of the stories in the press about the consultations going on between the Liberals and the N.D.P., because here you have the apologist for the Liberal party once again rising in this house to explain things away and help them out; I do not know what he is aiming at-


Stanley Howard Knowles: One man against the truth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It may be he wants to become permanent Speaker. I do not know.


Mr. Douglas:: That is about as cheap as you are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Now we are hearing from the toy soldier-the man who was telling us all about toy soldiering the other day in this house, and I said then, and repeat it now, that if he had smelled gunpowder he would not talk that way. But he bounces up and down like a little jack in the box and has nothing to contribute to the debate.
Well, the apologist for the government sitting with the New Democratic party has attempted to point out that no blame attaches to the leader of the house. Quite a bit of blame attaches to the leader of the house, in fact, and more blame attaches to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport sat here on Thursday and allowed his colleague to be destroyed. The Minister of Transport was Acting Prime Minister. Fortunately we have the minister of external affairs back, a minister who is senior to him, and if the Prime Minister is away in the next day or two we shall have this experienced hand at the helm and he will keep things under control. But on Thursday, the Minister of Transport, the Acting Prime Minister, sacrificed the leader of the house, because all that the experienced Minister of Transport had to do, having had experience as house leader himself, having been here

for a number of years, having been in the cabinet before, having worked behind the scenes, knowing parliament as no one else knows it-all he had to do was to rise in his place on that occasion when the house was facing a crisis and say: The word of the Prime Minister of this country will be kept and the house will stand adjourned until April 6. But he did not do this. He sat silent and the poor house leader fumbled and bumbled his way through.
Let me draw attention to the fact that at five o'clock on March 26 when the house leader was dealing with the business of the house there was an exchange of opinion as to what we would do. The house leader wanted us to see how much we could get done between five and six, omitting private members' hour. In rather vague phrases he asked us to see how much we could get through. I asked him: What happens if we do not complete the business which the government has in mind? I said, as will be found reported on page 1523 of Hansard:
Let us be clear about this. What happens if by six o'clock we have not finished the program which the government have in mind?
Time was beginning to run out. Then the hon. gentleman said:
May I suggest to the house leader for the opposition that we reserve decision on that point till then, if we get to that point.
I do not know what that means. At any rate, I said "No", as Hansard reports. Subsequently, the house leader said, and I quote:
I propose to ask unanimous consent of the house, when we reach that point, to sit later this day to see how far we can go with these sup-plementaries.
The hon. gentleman was uncertain as to what he was about. I said this:
-let us settle this matter. The minister says "to see how far we can go." What happens if we do not get very far? Do we complete the business and have an Easter recess or do we not?
To which the hon. gentleman replied:
X think it would be proper if I were allowed to confer with the hon. gentleman while the next hour proceeds.
Then from five o'clock until ten minutes to six I was here watching, waiting for a call, to be summoned to another "confidential" meeting. Time was running out, and at ten minutes to six I went to his office and others appeared, and nothing was accomplished because the house leader did not know what to do. He was going to ask if we would sit from six o'clock on, and see what we could accomplish, but he had no plan and he did not know how he was going to get himself out of his difficulty.
This is no way to run a government; it is no way to run the business of the house. I
Supply-Agriculture
thought that the experienced people on the other side would assist the Minister of Justice; but they have sacrificed him. They do not care. I thought the Minister of Finance would come to his assistance, or the Minister of Transport. But oh, no; they did not do that. Then the minister really got himself into difficulty at six o'clock by saying, "This house will have to sit tomorrow, Good Friday". Of course, he said he did not agree with that, but nevertheless the house would have to sit unless there were unanimous consent to proceed, and he was holding the club over our heads to proceed Thursday evening to complete-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, may I ask the hon. gentleman to quote in extenso the text and to read into the text the words which I clearly remember having added, namely, "a procedure with which I personally do not agree"; that is, sitting on Good Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will accommodate the minister, Mr. Chairman. This is what he said, as is reported at page 1532 of Hansard:
May I have permission to draw to the attention of the house the fact that unless, somehow, we have unanimous consent to proceed, then otherwise, under the rules this house will have to sit tomorrow, Good Friday-
Up to that point-


Guy Favreau: Then, "a course with which"-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will continue, but this is what he said up to that point. He was threatening the house that unless something happened by unanimous consent, the house would be compelled to sit on Good Friday. Then, of course, he said:
-a course with which I personally would not agree.
He was keeping an escape hatch, of course, for himself; but nevertheless the threat was there, "Continue during Thursday evening, and unless we have unanimous consent we will have to sit on Good Friday". He would not cite a terminal date for what he might want to do on Thursday evening, and had we sat again at eight o'clock on Thursday and continued until ten or eleven o'clock, another three hours only would have been given to the estimates. I had so frequently warned him that the "supps" could not be passed in that time and all he had to do was look back in Hansard or ask some of his colleagues -for example, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Up to that point on Thursday evening we had spent seven hours on supplementary estimates. Two years ago the Liberal opposition spent seven days. So things were to be railroaded through this house and the opposition, of course-and properly-would have been subjected to criticism for rubber

Supply-Agriculture
stamping the largest group of final supplementary estimates that have been presented to the House of Commons in 14 years. If hon. members look back at the record, they will see this is so.
That is what we were faced with on Thursday evening. So we have reached this stage where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre attempts, once again, to save the government. I wonder what he is afraid of and what his party is afraid of.


An hon. Member:: An election.
Another hon. Member: It isn't you, anyway.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, the N.D.P. and the Liberal party have tried to destroy me for a number of years, without success.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will leave it to you from now on.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You are destroying yourself.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have heard this story for a number of years, and I am still here. I realize that the Liberals do not like it; they would like to see me out of the house. But I happen to be still here, and while I am here I assert my right to be heard and I deny the false statements of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I deplore the fact that he has now destroyed the confidential meetings of the house leaders.


Mr. Bell:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggest that the only course now open for the government is to select a new house leader on their side and attempt to make better progress in the future. I make one further appeal through the Acting Prime Minister. I make one further appeal to him, the diplomat, to approach the Prime Minister and suggest to him that the word of honour given in this house has been broken by the action of those who were left here to carry on the business last Thursday. If we cannot rely upon the word of the Prime Minister of Canada, what assurance have we for the future?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The same old gang.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do suggest that the Secretary of State for External Affairs do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, will my hon. friend permit me to observe that I am sure he will agree that if there is one hon. member of this house whose word we can accept, it is that of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish we could accept the word of the Prime Minister, but I drew this to the attention of the house the other day.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I refer to his statement with regard to the Easter recess, and this afternoon in the house his statement with regard to the veterans hospitals-one answer to me; another answer to another member. Those answers being contradictory. What reliance can we place on him? Until the Prime Minister takes control of and directs the affairs of the government side, the House of Commons will gradually be destroyed. I could point out, again, what reliance are we to place on the Prime Minister's word with regard to what went on with the Department of Agriculture; the statement read to us the other day by the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I make one final appeal to the Secretary of State for External Affairs: Let the word of the Prime Minister be observed. On page 1358 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as having said this:
Mr. Speaker, I thought it had already been indicated to the house that it is our hope and intention to adjourn Thursday evening and resume our session on April 6. There is one reservation to that, of course, and that is on the understanding that interim supply is passed by the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. gentleman permit a question. Will the hon. gentleman read the comment that he made immediately after that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said:
No, you did not say that the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The "other day" the Prime Minister had-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who talks about accepting the Prime Minister's word, then?


Gordon Minto Churchill: When the Prime Minister first referred to the Easter recess he did not indicate the necessity of passing interim supply. These are his words. I gave them on Thursday, and this will be found on page 1533 of Hansard. These are the words of the Prime Minister:
I Informed the house the other day that today I would announce the plans for the Easter recess. It is proposed, Mr. Speaker, that the house should adjourn at the end of business on Thursday, March 26 and reassemble on Monday, April 6.
Subsequently he repeated that statement and added the rider or reservation that interim supply be passed by the house. He had not said that earlier, and we passed interim supply very quickly on Thursday. We lived up to the suggestion of the Prime Minister and accepted his reservation because we realized that interim supply is essential so that government business may be

carried on and salaries may be paid. We lived up to our part of the bargain and I ask the Prime Minister to live up to his.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre indicated that it was his purpose to draw attention to the falsity of certain statements which I had made when I spoke earlier, will he indicate precisely what statement I made which was false.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not mind the question and I am sorry the hon. member was not paying closer attention. I direct his attention to two false statements. One was when he mentioned the motion which the house leader was putting on the order paper. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that I requested that it not be put on, and I dealt with that. I said that I made no request whatsoever. What I said was: "You put it on and you are in for trouble".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They were prophetic words. He has been in trouble without that and he has been sacrificed by his colleagues.
The second false statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was this. He said that we all assured the government house leader that he would have unanimous consent not to sit on Good Friday. I say that is false; no such assurance was given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just point out that when I spoke earlier I said with respect to the notice of motion that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had objected to it and that I myself made the suggestion that it be withdrawn and that we proceed by unanimous consent. So I suggest that any attempt to say that this is false has been treated by the house in the manner in which it deserves to be treated. As for the other statement, I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of the word "commitment" if it is not a fact that we all assured the Minister of Justice at these meetings not once but on several occassions, that there would be no denial of unanimous consent for the purpose of not sitting on Good Friday.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure where this debate is taking us to. If we are not careful we will be in exactly the same position next Thursday night that we were last Thursday night, namely making public spectacles of ourselves and of the house.
I should just like to say a word of thank you to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because I think he has done a service
Supply-Agriculture
to the house and every member in it by making certain matters clear. I was not at the meetings which have been referred to as confidential meetings, but the hon. member for Fraser Valley, who is the house leader for our party, always reports to me following these meetings and tells me exactly what happens. He reported to me last Tuesday night and again reported in much detail to our caucus meeting on Wednesday morning. I understand that this is the duty of a house leader and that these meetings are not some secret and confidential gathering of five select members of the house. These five members come together for the purpose of working out a logical procedure to enable us to make some progress and fulfil the purposes for which we are here. Therefore I am grateful that this matter has been made clear for the record, both as I understood it and as I think practically all the members of the house who were so informed understood it.
It seems to me that last Thursday just prior to six o'clock it was the wish of practically every member in this house-


An hon. Member:: What do you know about it? You were not here.


Robert Norman Thompson: I beg to differ; I was here until ten minutes past five. I carefully checked then and it was the opinion of practically every member of the house that we take our Easter recess. I would not have left if I had not thought that this was the understanding. I believe that what happened later that day and again on Friday is not something that most members, if they examine their own conscience, wanted to happen nor expected to happen.
I also make it very clear that very few members of this house really wanted to come together on Good Friday. I think that what happened on Friday is a precedent which we ought to be ashamed of, and if there is anything in the events of the last few days which should bring us to the conclusion that we had better pull up our socks and act a little more like responsible men it is this very fact. As it stands we are caught in a trap of our own design. This is a thing which destroys the confidence of the public in parliament and which makes our own work in this house very much more difficult than should be the case.
The situation as it relates to the events of last Thursday centres around the passing of the supplementary estimates. I would just remind the members who have sat in the house for many years that only six or seven years ago, and in all the years prior to that time as far as the record shows, it was the custom of the house to approve supplementary estimates and interim supply such as these with a minimum of debate. In

Supply-Agriculture
fact, in checking over the records today I found that it seldom took more than half an hour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: Well, if you check the records you will see that is so in the case of both the Conservative and Liberal administration prior, shall we say, to the years prior to 1957 and 1958.


Thomas Miller Bell: This involves a quarter of a billion dollars.


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not know what all the fuss is about. We have six motions of supply facing us in the months ahead. We also have the estimates for the coming year. True, the amount of money involved here is a large one, but tomorrow is March 31, which is the end of the fiscal year, and this money has already been spent. Instead of discussing these supplementary estimates we are discussing just about everything else under the sun. My only hope is that we will face up to the realities and responsibilities which are before us and come to grips with them, instead of beating about the bush and indulging in a lot of horseplay.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has said to us. I think it confirms the reason why he was fired from the position of minister of trade and commerce when he held that portfolio in the government. If the Minister of Justice has learned nothing else from his difficulties of the past few days I am sure he will have learned this much, that never again will he place any faith in what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre tells him.
Inasmuch as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned my name and the name of my confrere, the hon. member for Timiskaming, as being members with whom a whip might have difficulty in getting acceptance of certain proposals, may I say at the outset that that is quite true. May I also say why we have indicated this attitude to our whip so far as his dealings with other house leaders here are concerned. It is because the hon. member for Timiskaming and myself, especially during the period from 1958 until prior to the election of 1962, had many direct and indirect dealings with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when he was then house leader for the government, and we came to appreciate then that you cannot place much faith in his integrity when it comes to making commitments.
We told this to our whip; we said that as long as that gentleman was involved in the discussions we wanted to issue a caveat and protect our position because, as sure as

heaven, when he came into the house he would say exactly the opposite of what he had said when taking part in these secret and confidential meetings.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is false, and you know it.


Frank Howard: So far as these so-called secret and confidential meetings are concerned, to me they have never been secret or confidential. Good heavens, we would take the hide off our whip if he ever came to a caucus meeting and refused to tell us what went on in these discussions, and so would every other party, unless the Tories are different. Does their house leader not tell them what is going on? Does he not report to them? Does he not go to caucus? Maybe they do not believe him either.
So far as our party is concerned, we want to know from our whip what discussions have taken place, what suggestions have been made, what commitments have been made. It is not normal practice to disclose what goes on in caucus although I think it is a shame that we do not on some occasions. I think we should at times, because after all in caucus we are also dealing with public business. However, I will say that what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has related here this evening is precisely and identically what he reported to our caucus following these discussions. I think it is a shame and disgusting to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are right, North Centre.


Frank Howard: Winnipeg South Centre. When one is groping for polite words to apply to that hon. gentleman it is easy to make a slip of the tongue. It is a shame to see a former member of the cabinet come into the house and try to twist and distort the truth and the facts so as to leave a false impression of what went on with the house. As far as I am concerned, if we never have any more secret meetings we will be better off, if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the house leader for the Tories, is going to be involved in them.
When it comes to the question of the accusation against our whip-I had better refer to him as our whip because I may get the constituencies mixed again-of being a potential member of the Liberal party just because he stands up to defend a member of the government who has been much maligned by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Tory house leader, all I can say is that surely to heavens you can tell the difference between a man wanting to defend and protect a

Supply-Agriculture
person from being maligned and the kind of many items before us totalling a quarter of a distortions that the Conservatives have been billion dollars. The questions I asked, particu-making.	larly on March 13, have not been answered.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. As chairman of the committee-will the hon. member kindly resume his seat-I do not wish to intervene in this discussion, but it has been the impression of the Chair that particularly during the last few minutes we have been straying more and more from the resolution which is before the house. I realize we got away from it perhaps unconsciously, but I feel we have reached the point now where all that had to be said has been said and perhaps things that should not have been said have been said, and I would be very pleased to recognize an hon. member who would like to discuss the estimates that are before the house.


Frank Howard: Why did you not say that before six o'clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not, of course, want to get involved in a discussion with the hon. member but at the request of the hon. member who has just interjected I did read the resolution to the committee and, as Hansard will show, I did indicate that I thought we had strayed quite a distance away from the particular resolution before the committee. Having allowed a number of hon. members to discuss the proceedings which preceded today's sitting, I considered that other hon. members who felt that they were personally involved should be allowed to enter the debate. That is why I have not intervened for the last hour. 1 do not wish to intervene at this point but I feel that a word of caution is perhaps in order now and I would earnestly invite the co-operation of all members of the committee to get back to the item before us.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to come back to the item under consideration. As a matter of fact, I am glad that I do not share some of the secrets that some other members have. I do think though that with even a simple consideration of the rules the Minister of Justice could have avoided everything that has happened.
Several days ago, as a matter of fact weeks ago, I asked questions in the house under this particular item having to do with administration of agriculture, and to me administration is the same as policy. To my mind administration and policy are practically one and the same thing. I put several questions to the Minister of Finance who is not in the house tonight. I assume that the President of the Privy Council is taking his place.
The Minister of Finance told me that this was a good item under which to ask my questions and I am glad that we are here today discussing it. As a matter of fact, there are


Harold Edward Winch: What phase of agriculture is the hon. member now discussing?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Item No. 1, administration, and to me administration is policy. The two are inseparable. The questions I asked at that time had to do with administrative policies affecting research and several other items. The Minister of Agriculture was not in the house at that time and tonight I think we should be able to ask him to answer some of those questions.
One question in particular had to do with the Farm Credit Corporation. At the time the Minister of Finance said he would bring it to the attention of the minister responsible, but at that time we were not sure who the minister responsible was.


John George Diefenbaker: We are not yet.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Maybe we are not yet. But the Minister of Agriculture is here. He has been in the west and we have seen newspaper reports to the effect that there will be sweeping changes in the Farm Credit Corporation. Is it not fair that the Minister of Agriculture should rise in his place at this point and explain? That is why we are here today. We could not pass a quarter of a billion dollars of estimates in a few short minutes. We need some questions answered. I asked these questions having to do with item No. 1, administration, which to me means policy. The only policy we have heard has been on the hustings. If you only knew, Mr. Chairman, what some hon. members opposite say on the hustings you would not blame us for asking certain questions here.
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, who makes announcements outside of this house in connection with this item, if we could not have some explanation? There are members in this committee who have good, practical advice to offer the Department of Agriculture and the minister, and I believe the minister knows this. The reason this item was allowed to stand, Mr. Chairman, was that we could not ask a question under this item as there was no responsible person at the moment amongst hon. members opposite.
I should like to ask the minister, quite seriously, under this item, what new policy or what new regulations might be made in connection with the Farm Credit Corporation? Is the minister ready to answer?


Harry William Hays: I am quite prepared to answer all the questions just as soon as all the questions have been asked.

Supply-Agriculture


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: This is the reason we are here today. We are being asked to pass estimates totalling a quarter of a billion dollars without any answers or any explanations. Would the minister care to answer that question?


Lucien Lamoureux: My understanding of the proceedings, since we started this afternoon, has been that hon. members were to be given an opportunity of asking questions or making statements of a general nature, following which the minister would make a statement in reply. If the minister replies to any particular question along the way, that is up to him to decide. I would suggest that there are other members who still desire to make speeches of a general nature, and probably they should be allowed to make their contribution before the minister makes his statement.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: As I stated at the outset, I asked a question on March 13 and the Minister of Finance, who is not here tonight, assured me he would bring it to the attention of the minister. This is the reason we are here today. These specific questions were asked, and will the minister now give us an answer to them?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there are many items here which have no bearing whatever on the close of the financial year. I am thinking, for instance, of this stabilization board item and the butter write-off. There are scores of items-I will not say scores because I have not checked them-there are many items which could very properly be allowed to stand until such time as we return, if we do have an adjournment. There are other items which, possibly, the government may say it is essential to have passed. This would appear to me to be one way in which we could make some progress and still reserve the right to debate certain items.
There is a salary item, for instance, and if the minister were to say that item is essential to be passed between now and March 31, that is something to which we would have to give very careful consideration As I have said, there are items here, such as the writeoff on butter, which could be allowed to stand and which would give one an opportunity later to deal with agricultural matters. I am wondering if any progress could be made in dealing with these estimates if we could have an agreement or a discussion as to which items the government feels are essential to be passed between now and tomorrow night. Personally, I do not believe any of them are essential,

but I am not entirely cognizant of all the problems. There may be salary problems and there may be bills which have to be paid. I think possibly some of the creditors may be held up and the civil servants may be paid instead. In this way, Mr. Chairman, I think we could make real progress. The government could withdraw from the appropriation bill the items which are not essential between now and tomorrow night. In the meantime, we could pass those which the government says are essential, and reserve the right to debate some items. I am sure we would find items in every department on which we could have a debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might say a word in response to what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said? Possibly we could follow the procedure of standing this item with which we are dealing now, and then just go ahead with the other items. If there were any one that the opposition felt they wanted to allow to stand for special discussion, that could be considered. In the meantime, perhaps the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the president of the council could confer briefly to ascertain whether or not something along the line he has suggested might be possible. I would include the house leaders, of course, but the president of the council is representing the Minister of Finance and has the kind of information that is necessary for such a discussion.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the debate which is now taking place is the result of one of the more evident weaknesses of this government. I refer to the refusal or the inability of ministers to answer questions in the house. Each and every day questions are posed to these ministers, and inevitably one or the other looks around, almost using mental telepathy and saying to one another: You answer this one; I don't know what it is all about. Each one of us would concede that a new minister should be allowed a period during which to become familiar with his department. However the same weaknesses are evident in the more experienced members. As a colleague of mine from another party said to me the other day, "Rod, you cannot help sometimes feeling sorry for them, they are in such a state of confusion".
The other day the hon. member for Oxford asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question with regard to advertising cheese in foreign markets. The minister replied that every company had been notified and every company had an opportunity to take advantage of this notification. I at once went to the telephone and called the Ontario cheese producers who sell some 65 million pounds of

cheese per year. They told me that they were not informed and did not even know what I was talking about. Just today, sir, there was another example of this weakness. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question concerning hospitalization, gave the opposite information to that which the Minister of Veterans Affairs gave to the house a few days ago.
Sir, on Good Friday Canadians again experienced another black Friday under Liberal rule. We all remember the pipe line debate when many of the ministers opposite tried to bulldoze business through. Last Thursday they held a club over the opposition's head, demanding that it pass expenditures of some $240 million without even an opportunity to debate, question or scrutinize these bills.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, some of the ministers responsible for the first black Friday have since gone to the Senate. Some have been demoted and some are still there, but as one sits on this side of the house each day it becomes more and more evident that the government is disintegrating. In all fairness to the people of Canada I say the government should immediately re-organize itself, or else bring some of the younger backbenchers, full of blood and vigour, up to the front benches. The only other alternative it has is to resign and face the people of Canada.


Lucien Lamoureux: I had expressed the pious hope a moment ago that perhaps we might return to vote le of the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps I could have the co-operation of the hon. member to return to the consideration of agriculture estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt for one second to put the question again which I put in response to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, when I made the suggestion we should stand the item we are now on and go ahead with other items on which there is no desire for prolonged debate, while the president of the council and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings are conferring, as I understand they are at this very moment?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Chairman. We are most anxious to hear from the Minister of Agriculture who has sat in solitary silence for so long. There have been many questions asked of him and we want to have the answers before we finish vote No. 1, which is the general section. I cannot understand why a minster would sit here day after day and not give us any answers. If we get answers we will get on, but we will not go very fast unless there is a recognition on his part, or on the part of the triumvirate now looking after agriculture, that we have to get answers. If he cannot give answers perhaps some of
Supply-Agriculture
the associate assistants or supervising ministers would be able to provide them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was agreed upon at the very outset of these estimates, six sitting days ago, that the general speeches would be made on this vote, and the Minister of Agriculture has indicated three or four times that he would like to hear all the speeches and reply to them all at once. No objection was taken to this.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister cannot reply when he is not here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the right hon. gentleman would not wish to be unjust. The Minister of Agriculture has been here all evening. He went behind the curtain for a moment or two and he will be back in the house. If hon. gentlemen are ready to say they have completed their general speeches that would not mean they could not ask specific questions, and as soon as there is an indication that general speeches have been concluded the minister would be delighted to reply.


John George Diefenbaker: So that the record will be straight, the hon. gentleman says that the situation he has placed before the committee extends over a period of-10 days was it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Six days.


John George Diefenbaker: Six days. It now extends over a period of approximately ten and a half hours. Let us get it in hours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we ought to make that record complete. We took all day on March 13, all afternoon on March 16, all afternoon on March 18; we took practically all of the government time on March 25 and took a considerable time on March 26. That is five sitting days, as much time as the government had that was given by the house, and now we are on the sixth day.


John George Diefenbaker: Seven hours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those were the same kind of days the right hon. gentleman talked about in 1962.


John George Diefenbaker: I just want to say to the minister that we are going to get answers to these questions and no amount of evasive subtlety is going to be a substitute for information. Let that be clear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Cape Breton South, on a point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman.
1584	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture


Lucien Lamoureux: I might point out that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac has the floor, but I will recognize the hon. member if he has a point of order or a question of privilege. This is the only way he can get the floor at this stage.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am very glad you brought my attention to the fact that I do have a point of order. You of course, sir, were completely prepared to recognize me on three different occasions but I would point out that the Minister of Transport, back to his rude ways, got to his feet on three occasions and carried on without proper recognition from the Chair. Since a point of order was requested of me, I give that. You were fully aware of the fact that members were about to rise when the Minister of Transport, back to his very rude tactics, once again jumped in his place and without recognition from the Chair spoke, which according to the Speaker himself is not allowed.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order on what the Minister of Transport has said, since there has been so much misunderstanding I want to be sure of what will happen when the Minister of Transport said, "after the general speeches were concluded." Now, a lot of information has been asked for, and it is quite possible some of the information forthcoming may prompt another speech. I do not want this to go through without that reservation being contained in it, that if information is serious enough to give rise to another speech there will be time for that.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Hastings-Frontenac.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: In closing I would like the minister, when he replies, to give us the prices of cattle for April, 1963 and each succeeding month until the end of the year, and the same information with respect to hogs. I also ask him to give us the figures on cattle exports to the United States in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 to date.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on agriculture will be as scarce as the answers which hon. members who are vitally interested in the subject have been failing to get from the Minister of Agriculture, because I am very anxious to see the business expedited in order to get to other matters which are of much keener interest to me. I am sure a few answers from the responsible minister would expedite the business of the house so that we can reach other matters of importance in my area. I have in mind the situation of which the Minister of Labour is aware, where U.I.C. benefits are going to be a very important issue very shortly. It would be very helpful if the committee could get to 

the labour estimates and a way could be found to supplement the unemployment insurance fund.
By the silence emanating from the other side of the house with respect to answers to agricultural problems, it appears to me the government has decided to sit back and say nothing, allowing the Conservatives to talk all the time about agriculture, so that later on the government can say the Conservatives have been filibustering. However the answers sought from the Minister of Agriculture are necessary to expedite the business.
I wonder if the hon. member in the far right hand corner on the Liberal benches would care to get up and give us a dissertation on his conscience. He seems to have a good deal to say from his seat-he is pretty hard to identify-


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: On a point of order, is the hon. member referring to me? I did not open my mouth. If I did open my mouth I would say something more to the point than the hon. gentleman who is speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor and I think he should be heard without interruption.


Malcolm MacInnis: I only hope that the silence on my part will not be referred to as a takeoff on the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, am I to stand here, having been recognized by the Chair, to listen to remarks emanating from the other side of the house? I notice that the Minister of Fisheries is quite vocal in intervening. Am I to stand here and try to make a few remarks with regard to this matter-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a question of privilege, as my name has been mentioned I want to state that I never said a word. I was just looking and laughing.


Malcolm MacInnis: There is one question I would put to the leader of the house and to all responsible occupants of the treasury benches. Just how far is this committee prepared to go in allowing ministers of the crown to rise without being recognized by the Chair? The Minister of Fisheries got up and said he did not say anything. He was not recognized by the Chair. He says he did not make an interjection and, while saying this, he is making an interjection.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a question of privilege; When I rose, I rose on a question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: And on a point of order, Mr. Chairman: You did not recognize the minister on his question of privilege.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think I must appeal to the good sense of the committee to get back to the problem which is before us and address itself to the job which faces us.


Malcolm MacInnis: The problem before the committee, whether we are willing to recognize it or not, is that of prying a few answers from the Minister of Agriculture. In order that the business before this committee might be expedited and in order that we might get on to other matters of concern to hon. members I would implore the hon. gentleman to get up and give us a few of these answers. Some of us are anxious to deal with other matters including the position of the unemployment insurance fund, which has dried up.


Harry William Hays: I am pleased to be able to give an account of the supplementary estimates as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned and I shall do my best to answer all the questions which have been asked in this connection. I have listed these questions, but there are matters I may have missed and, if I could be reminded of them, I will endeavour to answer those questions, too, to the satisfaction of the committee.
I think, first of all, X should make a short statement in reply to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition. There has been considerable discussion on this matter of the transfer of certain functions between myself and the Minister of Forestry. Some, probably wishfully, have attempted to imply that certain functions have been taken from me against my wishes. I would like to assure them that any such interpretation is entirely without foundation. X am in complete accord with the arrangements which have been made.
The government and I, as Minister of Agriculture, have only one goal in agricultural matters and that is to administer agricultural policies as soundly and progressively as possible in the interests of Canadian agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture has a wide range of heavy responsibilities. He is responsible for the administration of over 30 statutes and a number of non-statutory policies through a department of around 10,000 employees. In addition, as the Prime Minister has announced, he is to be responsible for railway branch line rationalization. It is perfectly logical, and indeed desirable, that some responsibilities should be transferred to another minister who is conveniently able to carry them. This is the reason why ARDA, MMRA and feed grain policy have been transferred to the Minister of Forestry, and I
Supply-Agriculture
repeat that there was complete agreement between us on this.
The acts which remain with the Department of Agriculture are as follows: the Agricultural Products Board Act; the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act; the Agricultural Products Marketing Act; the Agricultural Stabilization Act; the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act; the Canada Dairy Products Act; the Canada Grain Act; the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act; the Cold Storage Act; the Crop Insurance Act; the Department of Agriculture Act; the Destructive Insect and Pest Act; the Experimental Farm Stations Act; the Farm Credit Act; the Feeds Act; the Fertilizers Act; the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act; the Hay and Straw Inspection Act; the Humane Slaughter of Food Animals Act; the Inspection and Sale Act; the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act; the Live Stock Pedigree Act; the Maple Products Industry Act; the Meat and Canned Foods Act; the Meat Inspection Act; the Milk Test Act; the Pest Control Products Act; the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; the Seeds Act; the Wheat Co-operative Marketing Act; and the Criminal Code, section 178, race track betting. So hon. members can see I have not been stripped of all of my acts.
There seems to be some effort to create the impression that the powers of the Minister of Agriculture are gradually being whittled away. In the debate on supplementary estimates on March 13 the right hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to responsibility for the Canadian wheat board having been taken earlier from the Minister of Agriculture. Presumably he considers this wrong, or a reflection on the Minister of Agriculture, that the wheat board should be under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Well, he was the head of the government from June, 1957 onward yet it was not until October of 1960 that the wheat board was placed under the minister of agriculture. Are we to interpret it as a reflection on the then minister of trade and commerce that the wheat board was taken from him at that time? Or, if the wheat board is considered to be a proper responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, why was there a delay of three years before action was taken at that time? In fact, it is by no means an improper arrangement for certain measures such as the ARDA program to be placed with another minister whose interests and other responsibilities are clearly associated with them.
I would point out, as has been stated by the Acting Prime Minister, that there is to be a three man executive committee to co-ordinate policies for agriculture. It is to consist of the

Supply-Agriculture
Minister of Agriculture as chairman and the ministers of trade and commerce and forestry. No one need have any fear that there will not be full co-ordination between the different ministers and departments having responsibility for agricultural matters.
I have had some experience in working with both private and public bodies. I have never been associated with any group in which there was better team-work than there is in the government of which I am proud to be a member.
Mr. Chairman, the first hon. member who spoke as far as my estimates are concerned had something to say about calf hides and cow hides and their price. Of course, this does not come under my department but I can honestly say that I realize this is a great problem to the people who have stored many of these hides, some of them for years. As a matter of fact several people who have thousands of hides in store have come to see me and they have been to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There is a serious world problem in so far as hides are concerned. This year so far-and this answers another question-we have exported something like 175,000 head of cattle. Our exports generally run as high as 500,000 head. We are very fortunate in Canada vis-a-vis the situation that existed in the United States when they had a great surplus of cattle. They had been importing something over one million head from Australia; they were bringing in almost the same number from Mexico. This was causing them great concern. Twelve per cent of their beef was being imported, and they were moving to do something about this. They put on certain quotas; that is, red meat quotas in so far as beef cattle are concerned. This is the situation in the United States, and it does not affect Canada. I think they were very careful not to disturb the Canadian position. However, we found ourselves in the position where we had to slaughter something like 300,000 more head of cattle in the year than we generally have to slaughter in Canada. This gave us, not a matter of 6,000 or 7,000 more hides, but many thousands more hides, and we were already having a marketing problem. Hides have been substituted by plastics and this sort of thing, and I think we are going to have some difficulty in so far as hides are concerned for quite some time until possibly there is a new market or a new use found for hides.
I was also asked the question about prices of cattle. I realize that prices of cattle are not as high as they have been in the past, but I partly explained why this is so. The price of our cattle in Canada today is higher than that of United States cattle. This has

not been the situation for many, many years. In other words, when our slaughterings of reds and blues-which are quality cattle in Canada-reached, say 18,000 heads, we would generally go on the export market and would move our cattle across the line into the United States market. It was not possible to do that this year. If we had been able to move them across into the United States, our live cattle today would have been possibly 16 cents or 17 cents a pound. In other words, our cattle must be 5 cents per pound higher than American cattle before American cattle can start to move into Canada.
Since June 15 this year we have consumed more beef per capita than we have for many, many years. It would look as though we are consuming at the rate of about 81 pounds of meat per capita. I humbly suggest to the committee that there is only one reason for our consuming this amount of beef, and that is because of our buoyant economy. People who work are people who buy our meat, and if we had not had a decline in unemployment it would have hurt not only the beef producers but most of our agricultural products. This is the situation that exists in so far as hides are concerned.
Another question one hon. member asked me was in connection with feed grain. A great deal was said today about agricultural policy. In so far as our feed grain is concerned, on August 27 we changed the policy, or whatever you wish to call it. I think the feed grain act started in 1941, whereby the federal government provided freight assistance from the great lakes to eastern spots in so far as western grain is concerned. Due to the tremendous sales of wheat and the amount of wheat that might have to move to seaboard, both to the Pacific coast and to the eastern coast, a great many consumers of feed grain were terrifically worried about their position so far as feed grain was concerned. This was a reasonable attitude for them to take.
We knew as early as the middle of August that there would probably be some difficulty in getting this feed to eastern spots. Therefore we decided to pay not only the freight rate but also the storage charges on grain from October 15 to April 15 in order that we might not only stop the speculation by the people supplying this grain to the producer, but also to help stabilize the price. If a buyer from Granby wanted to buy grain that was coming from western Canada, they could buy it and pay for it when they saw fit at any time before they were to sell the grain to the eastern farmer. This also helped to stabilize the grain situation in so far as feed grains are concerned. This policy did even more than we expected it might do. We thought that

toward the end of navigation we would have enough grain located in eastern Canada and would not have to bring any down by rail. As at last week we had 47 per cent more grain, or something like 21 million more bushels, on spot in eastern Canada and it will not be necessary to bring any by rail to eastern Canada.
There was some mention of the price of grain now at eastern spots. I am happy to report that, although wheat is somewhat up, No. 1 feed barley is $4.38 a ton less than it was a year ago; No. 1 feed oats are $2.50 a ton less than they were a year ago; and Ontario corn is $1.08 less than it was a year ago. As I said, we do have on spot ample grain to take care of the requirements of the feeder in eastern Canada, and this is the first time for many, many years that this has been possible. This is coupled with the fact that we have shipped more grain out of Canada from both east coast and west coast and have had a record year in this connection.
What is the stability of the grain that was moved into eastern spots? In Quebec, in December, the cost of No. 1 feed oats was $2.43 per cwt. and in March it is $2.46, or 3 cents difference, which is a very small amount. Feed barley was $2.40 per cwt. in December, and in March $2.44. In Montreal, in December, oats were $2.48, and in March $2.49. In so far as barley is concerned, in December it was $2.39, and in March $2.43. So we feel that this policy of paying the storage and the freight, has helped stabilize the situation and has also helped us to gather ample amounts of grain in eastern locations for the eastern farmer. I am sure that if hon. members go out in the country, as we have done on many occasions, and ask the farmers, these farmers will assure them that this situation although it may not be perfect, has certainly effected some improvement. We hope that next year we will be able to improve it even more, and I am sure this is also the wish of every member of this house.
In so far as dairy policy is concerned, my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe-Bagot spoke yesterday about this matter. Hon. members will remember that on May 1, 1963 we did change the dairy policy and took the subsidy off fluid milk, but we did put a premium on cheese. I telephoned yesterday to get the price of milk at Granby and St. Hyacinthe. In 1963 uncooled milk was $2.85 per cwt., cooled milk was $2.95 and bulk tank milk was $3.00. In 1964 uncooled milk was $2.95, 10 cents higher in the constituency of the hon. member than it was in 1963. Cooled milk was $3.05 per cwt., 10 cents higher, and bulk milk was $3.10, again 10 cents higher. I think this condition has existed all over Canada.
Royal Assent
Now perhaps I might say a few words about butter. We have been storing butter since 1957 because of the very high support required, 64 cents a pound butterfat. In 1963 we changed our dairy policy and put a premium on cheese milk. The thinking was that if we did this it would result in larger cheese production, and we had a market for all our cheese. I do not know the exact figures but it seems to me that the Canadian producers converted more milk from butter to cheese, which resulted in 18 million pounds more cheese being produced, compared with the previous year, and cheese for which we had a market. I realize we have more cheese in store today, but this does not concern us as much as being able to level off the consumption and production of butter.
Then I was asked what we were doing about exporting butter to Great Britain. I made an announcement some time ago in this house, I think in early fall, that we had decided that the time had come when we should start to move some of our butter stock. We had been able to level off production and consumption, and it was costing us $350,000 a month storage, so we decided it would be better to take a loss and to move this butter into a market if possible. I am pleased to report that we have been able to move some of this butter. In moving it into Great Britain we first had to get the permission of the quota countries sending butter to Britain, and they allowed us to send five million pounds. I also think we supplied them with 4-J million pounds of butter oil.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I move that we rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the motion carry?


William Arnold Peters: Next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, March 30, 1964
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, 30th March, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

Royal Assent
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General has been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.


[Stage Direction]
It being 16 minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 31, 1964