1965-04-01

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I take a moment to call the attention of the house to an innovation suggested by the special committee on procedure and organization. Hon. members will note that the appendix to yesterday's Hansard contained an alphabetical list of the membership of standing, special and joint committees. It is planned to make this a regular Wednesday feature.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Pennell.
Fourth report of standing committee on mines, forests and waters-Mr. Godin.
Fifth report of special committee on defence-Mr. Hahn.
Sixth report of standing committee on privileges and elections-Mr. Moreau.

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be saddened to learn that an hour or two ago a member of the privy council passed away. He was also the commander of the only Canadian army we have had in the field; I refer to General H. D. G. Crerar.
As hon. members know, he was a man who served Canada for more than half a century in war and in peace with quiet efficiency, with sincerity and with great devotion. We shall miss him greatly-especially those of us privileged to be his friends-and we are grateful for what he has done for our country. I shall send my deep and heartfelt sympathy to Mrs. Crerar and to the family.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that we have learned of the sudden passing of our wartime commander. Those of us who
had the privilege of serving under General Crerar had the greatest admiration for his work and for the courage and inspiration that he transmitted to the forces under his command. He served with distinction as commander of Canada's first army in the field. On behalf of this party I should like to express our sympathy to his family.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate the members of this party with the expressions of regret which have just been enunciated by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. We too would like to express our great appreciation of the service which General Crerar has rendered this country both in war and in peace. At the invitation of General McNaughton it was my privilege during the war to visit the Canadian forces overseas, particularly Saskatchewan troops, and I shall always be grateful for the kindness and hospitality which were extended to me by General Crerar. I have very happy memories of that brief association with him and of the several occasions on which I have met him since. I think he was a great soldier and a fine Canadian, and we pay tribute to his memory.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we too associate ourselves with the words of the Prime Minister on the passing of General Crerar. Truly Canada has lost one of her great citizens. All of us who have known him personally understand just how well he served this country. I am sure the people of the nation will join with us in our expression of sorrow and sympathy to the members of his family. Canada has lost a man who truly served her well. We have known of his illness and of the difficult days he has had in recent months. I am sure many of his friends have appreciated in a special way his services to Canada.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and others who have expressed their deep sympathy on the occasion of the death of General Crerar who was, we agree, a great Canadian.

Inquiries of the Ministry
To all his family, we extend our most sincere and deepest sympathy.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister the other day that it is not proposed to proceed with the budget until after the Easter recess, which is different from what was planned originally, is the Prime Minister in a position to state that immediately after the Easter recess and the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the budget will be introduced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, because I have to make a reservation for any emergency that might develop, is that it is the intention to introduce the budget very shortly after the resumption of parliament following the Easter recess.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRICING POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if there is any prospect that the government will be making an announcement regarding its wheat pricing policy prior to the time that prairie farmers begin their spring seeding operations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps my hon. friend would let me take that question as notice, and I will reply to it tomorrow.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Is he aware that a former American secretary of the treasury, Mr. Dillon, has asked for a reform of the international monetary system? Does Canada intend to support this request?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to examine what Mr. Dillon said on this matter before I make any statement.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of recent developments is the government now considering the establishment of an all party parliamentary committee in order to undertake a complete study of the Canadian constitution and obtain agreement on a modern constitution suited to modern times?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can usefully add anything at this time to what I have said on this matter in recent days.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
In the spirit of co-operative federalism, has the minister or other members of the government informed Premier Jean Lesage or the government of the province of Quebec that it is important for the Quebec legislature to proceed as soon as possible with consideration of the resolution dealing with the repatriation of Canada's constitution?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question is in order since it concerns dealings between representatives of one government and those of another. It would be a lack of courtesy on our part.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to tell the minister that it does not concern just Quebec, because the Prime Minister has said we cannot proceed in the matter until all the provinces have dealt with it. I ask him, therefore, has he not asked Quebec whether they are going to proceed with this matter as quickly as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not say we could not proceed with it; I said it was not our intention to proceed with it.


William Heward Grafftey: I then ask the Prime Minister, has the government changed its intention in this regard and might we proceed with

this matter in the house before all the provinces have dealt with it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or the appropriate minister. In view of this morning's announcement that the government of the United States is now commencing to dismantle its strategic air command bases in the United Kingdom, can the minister tell us how soon it may be expected that this government, in collaboration with the government of the United States, will be dismantling the Bomarc bases in Canada?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: It is the present intention to maintain the Bomarc missiles in service for some period of time, Mr. Speaker. These remain one of the most effective anti-bomber defensive weapons available in the North American system. They are scheduled to remain in service for some time.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That is not what you said in 1960-61.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence, in view of the reliance he places on the Bomarc, is he now proceeding with the arming of the Voodoo planes in Canada with nuclear missiles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When will it be completed, may I ask?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not at liberty to say, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSIDERATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF B.C. POWER LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he would inform the house whether he has examined an act to establish the British Columbia hydro and power authority, passed by the legislature of British Columbia on March
Inquiries of the Ministry 10, 1964, to see if it violates any of the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights and therefore provides ground for disallowance.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the question could even be put on the order paper since it calls for a legal opinion from another government.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
For several weeks now we have been asking questions about the advisability of having the C.B.C. serve the French Canadians in western Canada and the minister's invariable answer is that he is waiting for the Fowler commission's report. Can the minister tell me what progress is being made and when he expects to have that commission's complete report so that we may study that very important matter?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago I informed the House that I was expecting the report in May.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he intends to convene the special committee on broadcasting so that we can speak to the management of the C.B.C. and put forward certain considerations?


Maurice Lamontagne: At the next session, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the previous questions asked of the Prime Minister regarding the present condition in northern Saskatchewan-in fact I think it applies to the northern portions of the three western provinces, but particularly in Saskatchewan-

Inquiries of the Ministry with respect to what the government of Saskatchewan has said is the large amount of unemployment among Indians and metis; and further, in connection with the consideration that was given some time ago to the request that action be taken to indicate some of these areas as designated areas, has the Prime Minister anything to say regarding action that the government will take at this time, immediately in advance of the spring season, in order to help farmers who find themselves in a very serious situation there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can say anything on the question of designated areas and its relationship to the particular area that my right hon. friend mentioned, except that this whole question is now under consideration, and very early in the next session we hope to make a statement regarding it.



RESULTS OF FEEDING DRUG STILBESTROL TO ANIMALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, and I welcome the\n\nopportunity of making a comment on the appeal.\nAs hon. members are aware, representatives of some 14 non-aligned nations met in Belgrade two weeks ago at the instance of the government of Yugoslavia in an attempt to work out an appeal for a peaceful settlement of the problem in Viet Nam. This morning I received the ambassador of Yugoslavia and the charge d'affaires of the United Arab Republic, who made a formal presentation of the text of the appeal which invites the support of the Canadian government. I might add that a few days ago the Yugoslav ambassador called on the Prime Minister.\nWe have been following the deliberations of the Belgrade group with considerable interest as a manifestation of the genuine concern felt everywhere in the world at the development of the conflict in Viet Nam and its potential dangers for world peace. I believe that any constructive initiative aimed at reducing tensions in the first instance, and in a longer view at achieving an equitable long term solution, deserves commendation and encouragement.\nI have not yet had an adequate opportunity to study the text of the Belgrade appeal in as much detail as I would like, but on the basis of a first reading I think there is much in it that we can support. In expressing grave concern over the aggravation of existing tensions, in reaffirming a belief in the inviolability of and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, and in advocating a peaceful solution through negotiations, the appeal seems firmly rooted in principles which are cornerstones of Canadian foreign policy.\nMoreover, I believe the appeal has been formulated in such a way as to avoid dangerous oversimplifications of the complex factors contributing to the tension in Viet Nam. It would appear to me that ideas such as the unacceptability of the use of force and the dangers of outside intervention, including military intervention, are intended to have a general applicability to all those directly involved in this conflict. Only if there is widespread recognition of the fact that these ideas in particular, and the appeal in general, are directed with equal persuasive intent to all parties to this dispute can there be any prospect of this initiative bearing the fruits of success which we hope it may have."]
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received any report of damage, of severe illness, or death to animals that have been fed on stilbestrol, or to animals fed on the carcasses of animals that have been fed on stilbestrol?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will be very pleased to look into the matter and let the hon. member know the result.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister inform the house whether Canada has been approached by the representatives of Yugoslavia and other non-aligned states who are planning to issue an appeal for a negotiated settlement in Viet Nam? If so, could the minister tell the house what position Canada will take in regard to such an appeal?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, and I welcome the

opportunity of making a comment on the appeal.
As hon. members are aware, representatives of some 14 non-aligned nations met in Belgrade two weeks ago at the instance of the government of Yugoslavia in an attempt to work out an appeal for a peaceful settlement of the problem in Viet Nam. This morning I received the ambassador of Yugoslavia and the charge d'affaires of the United Arab Republic, who made a formal presentation of the text of the appeal which invites the support of the Canadian government. I might add that a few days ago the Yugoslav ambassador called on the Prime Minister.
We have been following the deliberations of the Belgrade group with considerable interest as a manifestation of the genuine concern felt everywhere in the world at the development of the conflict in Viet Nam and its potential dangers for world peace. I believe that any constructive initiative aimed at reducing tensions in the first instance, and in a longer view at achieving an equitable long term solution, deserves commendation and encouragement.
I have not yet had an adequate opportunity to study the text of the Belgrade appeal in as much detail as I would like, but on the basis of a first reading I think there is much in it that we can support. In expressing grave concern over the aggravation of existing tensions, in reaffirming a belief in the inviolability of and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, and in advocating a peaceful solution through negotiations, the appeal seems firmly rooted in principles which are cornerstones of Canadian foreign policy.
Moreover, I believe the appeal has been formulated in such a way as to avoid dangerous oversimplifications of the complex factors contributing to the tension in Viet Nam. It would appear to me that ideas such as the unacceptability of the use of force and the dangers of outside intervention, including military intervention, are intended to have a general applicability to all those directly involved in this conflict. Only if there is widespread recognition of the fact that these ideas in particular, and the appeal in general, are directed with equal persuasive intent to all parties to this dispute can there be any prospect of this initiative bearing the fruits of success which we hope it may have.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what response the government of Canada intends to make to the appeal of the Soviet union for a disarmament conference to be attended by all members of the United Nations?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The Soviet union has called for a meeting of the 114 members of the United Nations. I think experience at the United Nations indicates that disarmament discussions are generally more efficient in a smaller group. It was for this reason that the United Nations endorsed the 18 nation disarmament committee which normally meets in Geneva. Canada is a member of that committee. We would prefer that there be a reconvening of the 18 power group. However, if there should be a meeting of the 114 nations to discuss disarmament Canada would, of course, participate fully.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs agree that the likelihood of success would be considerably limited if the government of mainland China were not represented at such a disarmament conference? Would Canada be prepared to support the admission of the government of mainland China to the United Nations in order that it might attend such a conference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course disarmament cannot be fully achieved unless there is participation at some stage by all countries, particularly by the great powers, the countries which have a pre-eminent role in armaments. The hon. member's question involves a policy consideration which, of course, I cannot deal with except at the appropriate moment.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: While
agreeing with the minister's general observations about the efficacy of the smaller group I should like to ask him, with reference to the 18 member group, whether he is taking the initiative in requesting that this smaller body now in recess be reconvened so that he might emulate his predecessor who played such a great role in this field.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say first of all, with regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that notice of the same question had been
Inquiries of the Ministry sent to me by my hon. friend from New Westminster, who undoubtedly was the unintentional inspirer of the question put by the leader of his party.
Canada has already indicated some days ago, that it thought there should be a reconvening of the 18 power meetings.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: further supplementary question. In view of the fact that this government officially endorses United States policy in Viet Nam and has failed to dissociate itself from the use of gas, napalm bombs and other frightful weapons, could it not send its official condolences to the population who are suffering from the consequences of this atrocious war?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am sure that on reflection the hon. member will agree that his question has been unfortunately phrased. This is not a matter about which any jocular references can be made. Canada has not taken the position which my hon. friend has stated. Canada recognizes the difficulty facing the United States, a country which is in South Viet Nam at the instance of the government of that country pursuant to article 52 of the charter of the UN. I repeat, Canada has not taken the position stated by my hon. friend. Canada is engaged in the fullest diplomatic efforts to bring about a condition of peace in that troubled area.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister indicate that at the proposed disarmament conference the Canadian government is going to fulfil its two year old promise to negotiate itself out of a nuclear role and thus set an example in disarmament?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, at the disarmament conference, if and when that takes place, Canada will be represented, of course, by its outstanding expert in this field, General Bums. I am sure my hon. friend would agree with me that important as the agenda of that conference may be, it does not involve conditions such as my hon. friend has mentioned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does it not deal with disarmament?


John George Diefenbaker: Pledged words and commitments.

Inquiries of the Ministry PALESTINE-CONSULTATION AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUPERVISORS
On the orders of the day:


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of Canada's leadership and initiative in areas of peace operations throughout the world, can the minister inform the house whether Canada was consulted by the secretary general of the United Nations regarding the recent appointment of two supervisory chiefs in Palestine?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say specifically whether there was any direct consultation in this regard. I shall be very glad to make inquiries and give a specific answer to the question. Of course my hon. friend will realize that Canada's contribution to United Nations peace keeping in this area is a considerable one.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN BIRTH CONTROL ACTIVITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is in a position today to answer the question I asked him several days ago with regard to Canada's participation in the United Nations birth control activities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I informed my hon. friend unofficially yesterday, no such representations have been made.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which may also affect the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that the world health organization at its meeting in Geneva in May will be discussing the world population problem, and what instructions are being given to the Canadian delegation?


Mr. Martin (Essex Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the case, and Canada will be ably represented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is the minister aware that the course given by Air Canada at Dorval to aspiring air hostesses is in English only and, if so, does he intend to make representations so it will be given in the two official languages of this country?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information about this particular matter, but I will inquire into it at once and see what I can report to the house later.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted while I am on my feet to answer two questions put to me yesterday and which I could not altogether hear on account of my well known infirmity.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Which one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Chicoutimi asked me whether the government had received representations from municipalities or intermediary bodies of the metropolitan area of Chicoutimi requesting the construction of a new bridge over the Saguenay, which is a navigable waterway. Therefore permission for a bridge would be required from the departments of public works and transport, or one or other of them.
I have made inquiries in my department and I can find no such representations. I have had an inquiry made of the Department of Public Works but they were not able, in the short time at their disposal, to find any.



BAY OF FUNDY-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was also asked by the hon. member for Cumberland whether I was

able to inform the house that the investigation into the feasibility of harnessing the tides in the bay of Fundy from a power point of view had been concluded, particularly in view of the fact that Dr. D. L. Gosse had stated that he had obtained such information from the chairman of the Atlantic development board.
I am advised by the chairman of the Atlantic development board that he has not indicated to anyone that the investigation into the feasibility of harnessing the tides in the bay of Fundy from a power point of view had been concluded. Actually the status of the studies was referred to in a reply which I gave to another question on March 19 of this year.



FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR QUEBEC WINTER GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I would like to point out an excerpt in a statement the minister made on March 26.
Knowing her honesty I would like to ask her if she could rectify what she then said in the house when she congratulated the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for his efforts in endeavouring to have the Canadian winter games held in Quebec city and at Beaupre, but forgot to point out the equally important work performed by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) in that field.
Knowing that the minister was a member of the truth squad, I have not the slightest doubt that she will be glad to correct or complete the answer given to the hon. member for Lotbiniere about the Canadian winter games.
She congratulated him, but forgot to mention the work done by Mr. Georges Labrecque and especially by the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, a great many people have helped, as I indicated in my statement, but really notable among them was the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



CONSIDERATION OF ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS BY DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement by Mr. J. G. Hagey, chairman of the Ontario medical services insurance committee, to the effect that to the best of his knowledge neither the federal government nor the provinces have so far taken any steps toward jointly considering the recommendations of the Hall report, can the minister tell the house when such joint action is planned by the government so this important subject will be handled on a national basis rather than through the growth of unrelated provincial schemes?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, all hon. members of the house know that the first such dominion-provincial conference was held in June of last year, when the ministers of health from all over the country met and had preliminary discussions. I did see this report this morning, and the thought went through my mind that obviously Mr. Hagey does not know everything about the matter of health.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether there will be a reference to the implementation of the Hall report in the speech from the throne which will be given at the opening of the new session next week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my hon. friend, who is a master of the procedure of this house, would not wish me to violate that procedure by disclosing what is in the speech from the throne before the speech is delivered by His Excellency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would give you unanimous consent to tell us.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to the negotiations with France in con-

Inquiries of the Ministry nection with the sale of uranium by Canadian corporations, and the Prime Minister said he would give an answer to the house shortly.
I would ask him whether the Canadian government has insisted that inspectors be sent to France to find out for what purpose the uranium is to be used, and whether it is a fact that very recently, within the past few days or weeks at the outside, while these negotiations have been going on the United States has been able to sell some $75 million worth of uranium to France.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as far as the last observation of my right hon. friend is concerned I have no information. His statement that the United States has sold uranium to France recently is a great surprise to me, and I would certainly want to look into that matter right away.
As far as the negotiations themselves are concerned, they are actively under consideration at the moment. There was a meeting held yesterday and there will be another meeting this afternoon, I believe, between those concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether Canada is insisting that the purposes for which this uranium will be purchased must be peaceful ones?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, we have international commitments in this regard which we propose to discharge in connection with any arrangements which might be reached.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether one of the international arrangements is that the uranium which is sold must not be used for anything other than peaceful objectives and purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right, Mr. Speaker. The commitments are that the uranium we sell be used for peaceful purposes.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works now that he has had an opportunity to settle into his new portfolio. Is it the intention of the government to convene a conference of the provincial ministers of highways in order to arrive at a national highways policy, some-

thing which his predecessor started out to do and then backed away from?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question some weeks ago.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since the next session of parliament is to open pretty soon, would the minister give serious consideration to the plight of farm labourers who are not within the purview of the Unemployment Insurance Act and bring them under that act, as requested by farm organizations and as recommended by the Gill report?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that this question is under serious consideration at the present time and will continue to be considered until a decision is reached.



SALARIES AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the long hours worked by the interpreters and translators of the House of Commons or the various government services, does the minister intend to give them a bonus or a raise or even pay them time and a half or double time after a certain number of hours of work, as is done in private industry?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the question of salaries and other problems related to the translation service are now under consideration so that this service can be made as efficient as possible.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to take similar action in the case of interpreters because they too are bilingual and are doing a tremendous job?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, interpreters come under the translation service.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question. I have here a notice of a Civil Service Commission of Canada competition received this morning, and it states:
Interesting career as translators from English into French, for university graduates and experienced persons.
According to this competition notice, salaries offered are $4,500 and $4,600 per year. Does the minister really think skilled translators can be obtained by offering such starvation salaries?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, that salary level is about the same as that offered to all university graduates in other fields.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question. Is the Secretary of State saying that this salary is offered to university graduates in other fields? If so, this would call for an explanation, because the Secretary of State knows very well that $4,500 a year is not an adequate salary for a university graduate.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong, but I think that is what is being offered for the beginners.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the Secretary of State aware that translators for the world fair, with headquarters in Montreal, are getting salaries ranging from $10,000 to $12,000 a year?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, because the explanation he gave us a while ago is not quite clear.
With a salary of $4,500 or $4,600 per year, do the beginners get furnished apartments?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and I will be very glad to inform my hon. friend.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for York-Scarborough a question, but I see that he has left the chamber so perhaps I should wait until he returns.


An hon. Member:: He is now coming back.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask that hon. member, who is chairman of the committee on privileges and elections, whether he intends to give notice of a motion for concurrence in the report tabled today which relates to the very serious question of privilege raised by the very busy parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro).


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I was one of those who heard the hon. member for Port Arthur state in this house last night that we should all have our heads examined if we were not out of here this week. In view of that fact I hope the matter will end there.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is that the hon. member make arrangements to move concurrence at the next session so we will have an opportunity to review this very serious question of privilege which was brought to the attention of the house.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. Can the minister tell the house whether talks have taken place between Canadian and United States representatives in relation to the possibility of arranging for the establishment of an international park at Point Roberts, Washington?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have made some comments in respect of this very unusual bit of geography, and have suggested that possibly discussions could be held regarding the creation of an international park there, since the principle has been established in the case of Campobello. I believe the Prime Minister discussed the matter with the President of the United States, and I have discussed it with my counterpart, Mr. Udall. The minister of forests for the province of British Columbia has suggested the establishment of a 99 year lease in respect of the property.
We have had certain discussions with the United States state department, which have not progressed very far and have not indicated that they are greatly concerned. However, I believe I can assure my hon. friend that we will endeavour to keep this matter

Inquiries of the Ministry current through the good offices of my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



QUEBEC-ADMINISTRATION OF ESKIMO AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked in my unavoidable absence by the hon. member for Lapointe concerning the administration of Eskimo affairs in nouveau Quebec. It is my information that nothing has transpired at the two government level since I last reported to the house.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
It has to do with a news item published today on the first page of a Montreal newspaper which shows a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) wearing a cassock, a roman collar and a biretta. The article is entitled "Rev. Father Diefenbaker takes holy orders."
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he is aware of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is going to leave us to take holy orders, and could he say when that will be?



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Defence Production. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to an interim injunction in which the minister is named as mis-en-cause, and which was granted by Mr. Justice Francois Auclair of the Quebec superior court, as a result of which Atlantic Helicopters Limited has been prohibited from carrying out its performance under a contract in which the Department of Defence Production is mentioned.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: May I take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely hon. members can enjoy what there is to be enjoyed behind the curtains.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask this for the benefit of the hon. member for Lapointe. Will the minister or his colleague the Minister of Transport, or perhaps the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as chairman of the treasury board, make a statement about the circumstances surrounding this particular contract? If none of those hon. gentlemen has a statement ready in this regard, or if such a statement would be too involved for orders of the day, perhaps a detailed answer could be given to the house during the debate on interim supply or during our consideration of supplementary estimates tomorrow or whenever that takes place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps it may be possible to accept the hon. member's suggestion.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has he yet appointed the committee of experts in the field of correction, as he announced he would do some months ago, to advise him and the department on correctional policy and the building of new correctional institutions?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the matter is on the point of being completed very soon.



SEFKIND BANKRUPTCY-INQUIRY AS TO LAYING OF CHARGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
A few days ago he took as notice a question of mine concerning the possibility of any charges being laid arising out of the report of the trustee in bankruptcy to the superintendent in the case to which I referred.


Guy Favreau: am not in a position to answer today, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF DORION COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Dorion commission has now completed the hearing of witnesses and there only remains argument by counsel, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has received any information from Chief Justice Dorion with regard to when his report is likely to be submitted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no information on that important point.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Last March 10 an order for returns was issued. Is it the minister's intention to table those documents soon?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Does the minister know whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has received a request from the international typographical union for an opportunity to reply to some of the criticisms of that union that were made on the program "This Hour Has Seven Days" last Sunday evening, and does he know whether the C.B.C. is considering meeting such a request?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased indeed to seek the information and reply to the hon. member.
1, 1965	13035
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN FLAG



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON ORIGIN AND MEANING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. My question arises from a very short letter I received from a young boy scout. He says:
We are taking the new Canadian flag in my scout troop. Could you send me any official information about its origin and meaning?
Is this information available, and from what department can it be obtained?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, it is not yet available but we hope the queen's printer will issue a special booklet on this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State or perhaps to the Minister of Public Works, I am not quite sure.
When a recognized organization asks for a copy of the distinctive Canadian flag, has the government some agency that provides such duly recognized organization or association in Canada with a flag?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the government has an agency that would supply flags to organizations other than government agencies.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since this used to be one of the favourite questions of the Minister of Transport when he sat on this side of the house a little over two years ago I feel it may be strictly out of order, but since it is two years more urgent now perhaps I may have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether the causeway to Prince Edward Island is now under construction?

Inquiries of the Ministry RESEARCH REPORTED INABILITY TO MEET REQUESTS FROM MEDICAL COLLEGES
On the orders of the day:


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Are the reports true that the medical research council has been able to approve only 60 per cent of the requests for research grants which it received from Canadian medical colleges, and is it a fact that universities such as the University of Toronto have had their grants cut by 30 per cent?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works of which I have given him notice. Has the minister given consideration to the petition received from close to 500 people of Lockport, Manitoba, asking for postponement of the erection of a fence on the canal wall which would prevent the enjoyment of fishing from the wall by pensioners and others who frequent that area? Has a decision been reached in this regard?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his question some time ago and I have since looked into the matter very carefully. I have written a letter to the hon. gentleman which he should receive some time today in which I offer a possible solution which I think will be acceptable to the hon. gentleman and to the fishermen.



ESTABLISHMENT OF HARBOUR AT BELLEDUNE POINT. N.B.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I put one last question to the Minister of Transport with respect to the announcement made a few days ago concerning the multimillion dollar harbours board port at Belledune in northern New Brunswick and the fact that this is to be the first regional port in direct competition with Halifax and Saint John. Will the minister say


whether a study was made of the effect on these two ports, and will he produce some story about winter navigation, the rates and the non-bulk storage facilities at this new port?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman can expect me to produce a story on the orders of the day, but I will see what information I can get and give to him.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Labour. In answering the hon. member for Moose Mountain yesterday the Minister of Industry implied that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited had not satisfied themselves with regard to the formula for the production of heavy water by Western Deuterium. Will the minister look into this matter and find out how it is that Western Deuterium were awarded the contract when their process had not been approved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to draw the question to the attention of the Minister of Industry.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister comes from Cape Breton, where the original plant was established, does he not consider that the matter should be very much within his knowledge without his having to draw it to the attention of somebody else?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will recall that following the awarding of the contract for the Cape Breton plant, further negotiations had to be conducted by Atomic Energy of Canada in order to determine the validity of the process submitted by the earlier company and the treatment given in this case is in no way different from what occurred in the Cape Breton situation.


Mr. Regan:: May I ask a supplementary question?


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that when the B.A. process was being investigated the Minister of Industry stated he had not originally investigated the plant for Nova Scotia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not aware of that.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would suggest the minister look it up.


Gerald Augustine Regan: May I ask
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, just one?


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a true question and not a statement.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is a Nova Scotia one. Will the Minister of Labour assure the house that on behalf of all constituencies in Cape Breton, he will keep the type of representation in the future that brought to that island the heavy water plant?



APPLICATION OF CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Recently the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated during a television debate with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that he is one of the strongest supporters of the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations, and that he feels it in our very best interests to have as wide an area of multilateral trade under GATT as is possible. I should like to ask the minister if, along with this trade direction, he feels such bilateral tariff reductions as that embodied in the auto parts deal can continue to be made.


Hon. Mifchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is no inconsistency between the statement I made on the television program, and which I would be glad to reiterate on any occasion, and the automotive agreement. So far as Canada is concerned, the reduction in duties is entirely multilateral.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the approaching end of the session, would the government assist in reaching that desirable objective by arranging to have the written questions on the order paper answered? There are 127 questions outstanding and seven motions for the production of papers. It would be helpful if
Inquiries of the Ministry these important items were dealt with before the adjournment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that more questions have been answered in this session than ever before in parliamentary history, and a higher proportion of those asked.


Mr. Starr:: It is the longest session.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said "and the highest proportion of those asked".



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: While this delightful relationship prevails, perhaps I should ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in view of the fact that the government has seen fit to table immigration department files dealing with Onofrio Minaudo and Giuseppe (Cockeyed Joe) Catalanotte, will the minister now give consideration to tabling the Stonehill file, contents of which were revealed to Senator Gelinas, and the "Joe Bananas" file?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I cannot accept the premise that the contents of the file were disclosed to the senator or anyone else.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the evidence.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With all due respect that does not happen to be the case, unless you think that answering one question is disclosure of the contents of a file.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister state what was the question that was posed by Senator Gelinas to the department? If there was only one question, what was it?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I can answer the question, Mr. Speaker. The question was simply what was the status of that particular application, or words to that effect. It was asked nearly two years ago. The answer was that the matter was under consideration or in process.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the interest of Senator Gelinas in the Stonehill case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $762,547,249.03, being the aggregate of-
(a)	Two twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $730,438,474;
(b)	an additional eight twelfths of the total amount of External Affairs item 15 (Schedule A) of the said main estimates, $8,344,666.67;
(c)	an	additional	five	twelfths	of	the	total
amount of External Affairs item 20 (Schedule B) of the said main estimates, $456,458.34;
(d)	an	additional	four	twelfths	of	the	total
amount of Atomic Energy item 5 (Schedule C) of the said main estimates, $533,333.34;
(e)	an additional three twelfths of the total amount of National Research Council item 10 (Schedule D) of the said main estimates, $7,675,000;
(f)	an	additional	two	twelfths	of	the	total
amounts of Legislation item 20; Mines and Technical Surveys item 25; Secretary of State item 30, and Transport item 95 (Schedule E) of the said main estimates, $7,314,783.34;
(g)	an	additional	one	twelfth	of	the	total
amounts of External Affairs item 5; Justice item 1; Legislation item 5; Mines and Technical Surveys items 10, 15, 45, 50 and 60; National Revenue item 5 and Trade and Commerce item 15 (Schedule F) of the said main estimates, $7,784,533.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966.
["It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this evening are the following: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), power, Columbia river, replacement of damaged facilities; the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), health and welfare, consideration of royal commission recommendations by dominion-provincial conference.\nThe house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.", 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.']
Mr. Be-aule:: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned at six o'clock yesterday, I was explaining our proposal concerning the amendment to the constitution and I was going to deal with the third point, that is, the control over our immigration.
I said then that as the federal government seems to realize more and more the unfairness of its immigration policy and seems willing to improve things in this department which allows criminals to take refuge in Canada, and since Quebec, under the pressure of the opposition, just made a timid first step in that field, it is important to point out that our group, the Ralliement Creditiste, has something to do with this renewal.
Section 95 of the Confederation Act specifically grants to the provinces a concurrent jurisdiction with federal authorities in the field of immigration. Ontario took advantage of this jurisdiction, but Quebec has always ignored it.
Finally, in the fourth point, we ask that the federal government hand back to the provinces the control over taxation. What should one think about it? The federal government always takes the initiative of legislating in various fields, particularly as regards

municipal winter works, which is an encroachment upon the rights granted the provinces by the constitution.
The federal government supervises and controls the acts of the provincial governments in an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government is still levying direct taxes, in contradiction with paragraph (2) of section 92 of our constitution; in fact, the opting out formula does not grant the province of Quebec any greater freedom or power in the taxation field.
Our policy is to withdraw from all those joint programs and recover our total freedom in the taxation field.
It is because of such one-sided deals and also because of Quebec's greater needs, since it has to take in hand the destiny of a whole nation and culture; it is because of its priority needs in the field of education and natural resources development; it is because of compensation it has to provide to workers who cannot find employment that Quebec, if it wants to do something about it, is forced today to impose higher taxes than those levied in the other provinces.
It is because of all those policies that Canadians living in Quebec are overtaxed. Quebec has no longer sources of revenue sufficient to look after the needs of the people.
Both federal and provincial pension plans tacitly recognize that the people are overtaxed, since financing of the plan is based upon compulsory savings. But the consequence will be the same because of the higher cost of living it will bring about. In short, we are not upholding the principle of provincial autonomy just because it is a principle but because autonomy, according to me, means that we have reached nationhood.
One may ask why we are taking such a firm stand. Quebec is beginning to feel its feet; it must exercise all the powers granted to the province under the constitution, and if certain measures go against the aspirations of Quebec, it is the right of its citizens to propose an amendment to the constitution.
We do not accept passivity and we are not expecting miracles either, but we want our autonomy to be truly respected, and that is why it is necessary to amend the constitution. We are working toward that goal with much enthusiasm and vigour because we are convinced to succeed eventually.
The question of relations between the two founding races, that is French speaking and English speaking Canadians, is of vital importance but is too often misinterpreted and

misunderstood. It is confused of course with the new currents in economic and social thinking.
A new distribution of powers and a delimitation of taxation fields according to the interpretations given in the confederation pact seem to be needed today.
Let us not be critical of Quebec when it asserts its position in that respect. Other provinces have the right to entertain just as strongly similar views about the jurisdictional and financial structures.
The colonies of British North America agreed to political union in order to eliminate the imperialistic concept. However, our forefathers were not prepared to replace the imperialistic notion by the concept of the American melting pot.
The fathers of confederation wanted the Canadian nation to be based on philosophical principles inspired by Canadian realities.
Canada was to be a country where all political institutions would be designed to protect and favour individuality, to preserve the basis of an association between French-and English speaking Canadians.
The French Canadians value very highly their individuality and their own identity while, according to many people, for the English speaking Canadians, there is a very serious temptation to yield to the lures of their powerful neighbours to the south in the material and cultural spheres.
It is essential for the rest of Canada to realize that today, maybe more than ever before in our history, the French Canadians are determined to survive in North America.
But I am convinced that the very large majority of French Canadians believe in the survival of French Canada within confederation, provided that amendments to the constitution are agreed to.
All Canadians should realize that in helping us, French speaking Canadians, we are preserving our own Canadian identity and thus strengthening the basis of Canada's independence. To be unconcerned about the survival of French Canada amounts to being indifferent about the survival of Canada as a whole.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to take up a subject which I have mentioned previously in this chamber, but may I say the situation has changed somewhat in the interim. I last spoke to the chamber on this matter on August 3 and 4, 1964, and at that time put forward a complete picture
Interim Supply
regarding what I thought of the situation as between Yellowknife Transportation Company and Northern Transportation Company. I was attempting to prove that the competition which the government was in with private enterprise was unfair, and that the government was putting the squeeze on private enterprise.
I said we had to take a new look at policy to see whether in fact it had drifted so far out of line from what was originally intended. I asked the minister and the house to take action to curb to some extent the activities of Northern Transportation Company. I asked the government not to allow that company to have unfair advantages over private enterprise, because private enterprise could not survive.
Despite the long fight, the number of speeches made and the amount of pressure we tried to bring to bear on the government, we now find the fight is lost. Private enterprise has lost. Northern Transportation Company has bought out Arctic Shipping and Yellowknife Transportation Company so that now, so far as water carriage in the north is concerned, we have a monopoly by the government.
We should take a serious look at these policy questions, and at the risk of being too repetitive I would like to remind the chamber just how far policy has developed with regard to government corporations. They were established by the late Mr. Howe in wartime, to take care of the exigencies of that time; and dealing with the official government policy regarding crown corporations Mr. Howe stated:
I know of no government company that has ever been in direct competition with private industry; and certainly those that will be continuing companies cannot possibly be considered to be in competition with private industry.
We have gone a long, long way from that position.
I have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce for policy statements so we could judge what the government was doing, so we could judge whether the government was being directed by the empire builders within these corporations, so we could judge whether the government had a policy and, if it had, I asked the government to enunciate it. To this date we have not had a statement of policy from the minister, a statement consistent with the actions of his company, Northern Transportation Company Limited, for which he answers in the House of Commons. No statement of policy that he has given us is

Interim Supply
consistent with the actions taken by that company, and I submit that its actions, tacitly approved by the government during the period of which I am speaking, have been inconsistent with those of a government which believes in private enterprise.
It is my belief that the only reason Yellowknife Transportation and Arctic Shipping sold their shares to Northern Transportation Company was that they were beaten to the ground by the unfair tactics of the crown corporation, with the full approval of the government.
For a long time we tried to get the government to correct some of the abuses in this situation, but the government would take no action. I can remember that when Northern Transportation Company took over the Hudson's Bay ship, the Banksland, the minister gave an assurance to the house, as did the officials of that company, that all they were taking over was the same business that Hudson's Bay had been doing, and that there would be no expansion of their activities in the north. But they immediately expanded in the north. They immediately changed and increased the amount of business Hudson's Bay had been doing, right after the minister said they would not, and it looked as though it were a deliberate plan to make a liar out of the minister.
Next came the episode of the L.S.M. Sally, about which I have talked previously, when the government bought a ship and brought it into the country well knowing that that ship could not be licensed. A decision was finally made to build a new hull and take some of the propulsion machinery out of the other hull, with the new ship designed to go into the Arctic as a further expansion of the services of Northern Transportation Company, and as a certain death warrant for the only private enterprise company, Arctic Shipping.
This new ship will be ready this summer. I believe its cost is going to be about $2 million, and I do not believe the anticipated earnings of that boat will justify the expenditure on it. I give the minister notice now that I will be putting detailed questions on the order paper with respect to every item of cost of that ship, and with respect to exactly what it is proposed to do. I may say I expect there will be some change made in the present arrangements under which some U.S. ships are used in the north, but I will wait and see.
Despite the minister's policy statement, when he said Northern Transportation Company was going to be allowed to operate like a normal private business corporation, it is

perfectly obvious that this is the furthest thing from the minds of those running Northern Transportation Company. They are going to run it like a normal private business corporation which has every unfair advantage it can get from being a company owned and operated by the government, taking every advantage it can get from government policy to make sure it has an edge over any possible competitor.
However, I suppose I should not go too much into complaints about what has been done, because it is done. What I have talked about has come to pass. Private enterprise could not compete with the government and has had to go and sell to the government. The minister may say that Yellowknife Transportation Company approached Northern Transportation Company. It is true; they did. They said "We would like to buy you out." Northern Transportation Company replied "The government won't sell," so Yellowknife said "You have to buy us, then."
Obviously a company will not wait until it is driven right to the wall or is bound to settle for book values as a bankrupt company. When it sees that competition is so bad there is no chance for eventual survival it will act while it still has some bargaining strength; it will liquidate its assets and sell what it can.
I think the government has been extremely consistent in the way it handled this sale. It was unfair competition which forced the company to sell, and I say that both in this respect and in the manner in which the purchase of Yellowknife was handled, great unfairness was shown by the government. They used a club to put the company into a position where it had to sell. Then they used the club while the sale was on to make sure of gypping the company out of as much as they could.
I suppose the minister, to justify the purchase of this company, will use the same reason he will have to use to justify his investment of $2 million in that new boat. I certainly hope the government can show they are getting as much value for the $2 million invested in that boat as they are for the $2,700,000 they are paying for Yellowknife Transportation Company. In any event I cannot understand how the minister could feel there has been any fairness in the dealings which led to the purchase of the company in view of the manner in which the sale was conducted.
To get the facts on record, let me say the original suggestion was that marine surveyors would be appointed to make an estimate of the physical assets of the company while

chartered accountants would be appointed to make an estimate of the company's total value. To give the transaction an appearance of fairness the minister asked Chief Justice Wilson of the supreme court of British Columbia to appoint the firms to carry out these duties. A report was made to Northern Transportation and eventually a copy of the report was obtained by Yellowknife.
I believe there is reason for thinking that the figures quoted may not be completely accurate, but I believe the report of Boyd, Phillips and Company on the value of the assets of the company is fairly simple. It amounts to a total of $4,438,405.70. That report is dated the end of December, 1964. Now let us turn to the report of the chartered accountants, McDonald, Currie and Co., on the estimated total value of the company. In paragraph 5 they set out the manner in which they approached the preparation of the report, and stated:
You have instructed us that the transaction, if consummated, is to be regarded as one between two corporate entities in the private sector of the economy, and that, as Northern has not as yet made any firm decision to purchase shares or physical assets, we must look at the problem from both points of view.
That is the way in which the firm approached the problem. Their conclusion as to the value is close to $3,200,000 taking into consideration the incremental increase in the value of the business which would accrue to Northern Transportation because they would not have to duplicate many services which both companies had been carrying on.
So, by this fair and independent method of appointing valuers, two figures were recommended to the government. One set the value of the assets at $4,400,000; the other estimated the total value of the company to be $3,200,000. Yet the government paid $2,700,000, in other words half a million dollars less than the lower of the two figures mentioned by the two independent valuers appointed by the government for the purpose of arriving at a fair figure.
I do not think I am being unfair to the government when I say this is a continuation of the big club policy, a realization that if you get a company into so much trouble because of unfair methods and tactics that it must sell, then that company must be in so much difficulty that you can afford to put the screws on. And the government did this to the extent of taking half a million dollars off the lowest independent valuation.
I suppose the minister will try to justify this by saying he must get the best value 20220-825
Interim Supply
he can out of government money, and most of us do not disagree with that principle. However, there is such a thing as honesty and fairness; and most of us, when we think of the government spending the taxpayers' dollar, do not like to think its actions are slightly tainted by tactics of the kind I have described. We do not feel entirely honest when a club is used to beat a private company in these circumstances. Underlying the facts here is the whole question of government policy, and this is what I believe to be so serious.
I want the minister to tell us what line this administration is taking with regard to competition between crown corporations and private enterprise. The minister has told us he believes there are situations in which private entreprise does not or cannot provide necessary services, with the result that government must move in. I do not think anyone will quarrel seriously with that proposition. I do not think many of us in this chamber have quarrelled too seriously with the proposition that the government may sometimes be in competition with private enterprise in the same field, even providing the same services. But though I will go along with the minister as far as this, I would remind him that we must be extremely careful to make sure that fair competition exists.
As I have pointed out again and again to this house, the present government has allowed a situation to arise where government enterprise has not only the right to compete with private enterprise but the right to take every advantage it can in order to drive out private enterprise altogether and realize its purpose of permitting only a crown monopoly. I suggest this is the only reasonable conclusion to be reached from an examination of the circumstances as they appear here.
Those of us who have some regard for the north and some idea of the dangers and difficulties of investment there feel that the prospects of investment in this region have been severely damaged by what has happened in this case. There are many physical barriers to be overcome before the potential wealth of this land can be opened up. The financial risks are great and the physical tests are demanding. It takes a big man and a fair amount of money to go there. I suggest that the blow this government has dealt to the possibility of further northern expansion will be felt for a long time to come. What thinking man will invest in the north and form a company there when the government has so managed things that its crown corporation is now the sole water carrier? They have a

Interim Supply
monopoly and they can give what service they like without having to worry about competition.
Now, Mr. Chairman, why would an investor go to a country where the government did most of the business, anyway? This government has now demonstrated that its policy is to freeze out private enterprise, to use a club over the head of private enterprise. I would ask how this policy is going to develop the north. How will we get anybody to go into the north under these circumstances? Certainly I have never complained in this house that Northern Transportation Company was not a good carrier and did not provide good service. I have always said that both of these companies did. But I suggest you are going to find that people who did not want to deal with one company or the other before are now going to have to deal with just the one concern.
As I have pointed out, in all the business over which Northern Transportation Company has had a monopoly on the Athabasca sector never has there been a drop in price or in the cost of hauling goods. When there was competition on the Mackenzie between the two companies there were three successive price cuts arising solely from that competition. Therefore I cannot be blamed for being somewhat suspicious that, in order perhaps to justify the purchase price of the new boat on which they are going to spend $2 million, they are trying to show a better profit position and how wisely government money is being spent, and here and there a little edging upwards in price will take place. After all, they have no competition any more; the customer will have to take what he gets. I would bet that no special favours or concessions will be handed out any more. The customers will be told that they will have to take the kind of service they get, at the price the corporation wish to charge.
Therefore, faced with that prospect, even though the minister may think that this is a sanguine view of what is going to happen, nevertheless realistic businessmen know that this could happen, and if they are going to invest in the north they must face the possibility that this is exactly the attitude which might be taken, without any possibility for them of an alternative source of transportation. They will now have to rely on one company, and I suggest they will be very hesitant about engaging in business activity.
I would suggest to the minister that any policy which causes people to hesitate to invest is not in the best interests of this country. Therefore I hope the minister will be

able to tell us, first of all, what is the policy of this government with respect to competition between the government and private enterprise. Can we expect any other government corporations to expand in any other direction so as to try and freeze out other private companies? Can we take this example as indicating that air policy will be changed and
C.	P.A. further restricted in order that Air Canada will eventually squeeze out all its competitors? These are legitimate fears and questions which are in the minds of all businessmen in Canada who are contemplating the record of this government in this particular field, especially in view of the fact that the government has now been successful in obtaining a monopoly in water transportation through the north.
Second, I would ask the minister to explain to this committee how he arrived at this purchase price. I think it is only fair that he should put on Hansard the reason why the government paid $2,700,000, in face of the evaluation already made. I should like the minister, if he has the figures available, to tell the committee more about the new boat Broderick, and the $2 million it will cost; what the plans are for this boat; and what will be the change in the method of handling
D.	E.W. line freight? Since the boat is now well under way it is time that the government was frank with the committee and told us what changes in transportation policy are being made, how they will be handled, and what will be the effect upon Northern Transportation.
Third, would the minister tell us what this is going to mean to the personnel involved who used to work for Yellowknife. Has the minister any figures showing how many of these people will be kept on and how many will be put out of work; what is going to be done with them; whether or not any points previously serviced by Yellowknife will no longer be serviced, or whether the entire load of services formerly provided by Yellowknife will continue? I think everyone will be a little curious about this. Certainly in the country generally there will be a lot of apprehension among those who had to rely on one carrier or the other, and the more information the government can give the house the better I think we will all feel at this time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I take a few minutes to reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. As the hon. member has said, he has on several occasions complained about what he feels are unfair practices being engaged in

by Northern Transportation Company, which is a subsidiary of the Eldorado Mining Company. I have had occasion since taking office, in company with some of my colleagues, to listen to these complaints directly from the representatives of the Yellowknife Transportation Company. We gave these complaints the most careful hearing and thorough examination, and in general we found them to be unjustified.
It is still my view, Mr. Chairman, that Northern Transportation Company is endeavouring to operate as a normal private enterprise. I admit, of course, that there can always be questions as to whether any government owned corporation does in fact operate exactly as a privately owned company would operate. However, I would point out that in its transportation operations in the north the company has operated at a good profit and has not, so far as I am aware, attempted to adopt unfair practices in relation to its competition. Indeed, I think it has been careful to avoid that very thing.
May I recount briefly the events that occurred some months ago before the negotiations between Northern Transportation and Yellowknife Transportation began. Following the presentation of the bill of complaints the Yellowknife Transportation Company said in my presence, and said to Northern Transportation: Either we will buy you out, or you buy us out. May I say in reply to my hon. friend, with regard to the first proposition that Yellowknife should buy out Northern Transportation, that this would have created a private monopoly, and I am sure that he would have taken even greater exception to the existence of a private monopoly in transportation in the north than he could possibly have taken to a public corporation, over the operations of which this parliament and its committees have scrutiny and about which they can ask questions.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the minister just permit one question. He said that I would take exception. I thought the suggestion from Yellowknife was: You buy us out or we will buy Northern Transportation out; or we will set up a group of businessmen with the money to buy it out. So that there would be another private corporation, which would mean two private companies competing, instead of our having to put up with government competition. Now, was that not the situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: This may have been one of the suggestions. My recollection of the proposition that was made at that time is that
20220-825J
Interim Supply
the government enterprise should be bought out. There was strong objection from Yellowknife to the existence in the north of a government transportation company. At that time Northern Transportation on my authority said that they were not prepared to sell out to a private company. My recollection also is that they said they were not anxious to buy out Yellowknife Transportation, but if Yellowknife Transportation was interested in selling, of course, they would be willing to listen to any proposition.
Yellowknife Transportation did in fact say that they were willing to sell. When that willingness on the part of Yellowknife Transportation to sell was conveyed to me I authorized the arrangements which have been described by the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona. We asked a jurist to appoint some independent evaluators and, as the hon. member has said, we have received two reports. One report was in respect of the physical assets of the company, and was asked for partly to ascertain that the assets did exist in the recorded condition. That report indicated that the assets were there and in good condition, and that they could be valued at approximately $4,400,000.
The other report was prepared by McDonald, Currie & Co. who were asked to value Yellowknife Transportation, and its subsidiary Arctic Shipping, as a going concern. I have the report in front of me and I can say that it is, generally speaking, as the hon. member has described it. May I point out, however, that McDonald, Currie established two values, the first in relation to the value of Yellowknife Transportation as a going concern to another private operator. I will not go into the technicalities of the report, but for that purpose it did establish two values, one based on the simple average of recent earnings and the other based on weighted average recent earnings. The first was $1,665,000 and the second, by weighted average earnings, was $1,448,000. The method used in evaluating was to take the recent earnings and capitalize them, in the case of a private buyer, on the basis of an eight-year pay out period.
McDonald, Currie also made an estimate of the value-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would it not be fair to say that the report from which the minister has just quoted two figures in respect of the established values, also contains this statement:
We reject these values as being irrelevant in the circumstances.

Interim Supply


Mitchell William Sharp: 
An hon. Member:: It did not take long.


Mitchell William Sharp: Someone has suggested that it did not take long, but let me assure hon. members that I had many long discussions with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona. I was impressed by his argument and went back to the president of Northern Transportation and asked him whether he was satisfied that he was making a fair offer for the Yellowknife Transportation Company. I also asked him to check his views with the views of other financial officers in government service. He did so and came back and stated that the officers with whom he had discussed this matter had advised him that he had offered as high a price as
[Mr. Nugent.J
could possibly be justified. Indeed, he said they suggested that he should have started with a lower figure.
Following that, it seemed to me on consideration that I should support the views of the president of Northern Transportation. Accordingly an offer was made to Yellowknife Transportation of $2,700,000 for the company. This offer was accepted, and unless of course the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona does not want me to proceed to bring these negotiations to a conclusion, I expect within the next few days to put this recommendation before the cabinet for approval.
I would not say that I am in the hands of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, but if he is suggesting-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I thought that had been done.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member is premature. My understanding is that the price is acceptable. If the hon. member is suggesting that this offer should be withdrawn as being unfair, or that we should not go ahead and conclude the negotiations, I shall be happy to consider his suggestion; but I understand from Mr. Gilchrist that an early conclusion to the negotiations is desirable.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister has not said anything about my remarks concerning government policy. Could he reply to the last part of my remarks?


The Chairman:: Order, please. The hon. member is embarking on a debate with the minister and I suggest that other members who have indicated they want to take part in the debate should be given the opportunity to do so.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I be permitted to speak for one minute, Mr. Chairman, and say to my hon. friend that I have not overlooked his final remarks. I would suggest to him that since they deal with the future rather than with this particular transaction I would be happy to deal with the matter on another occasion, preferably on my estimates in the next session.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I am only going to ask for the consideration of hon. members for five to eight minutes. There are of course a number of matters of concern to my constituents in Vancouver East, but as 1 understand that the new session will begin some time next week the fact is that there will be an opportunity within a short time during the throne speech and the budget

debates to bring to the attention of the House of Commons these matters of concern to my riding.
However, there are two matters I should like to speak about very briefly at this time. First of all, I want to comment on the statement of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that the government is prepared to pay the cost of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada by Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Bergsma of Caledonia, Ontario, with regard to their application for Canadian citizenship. If that procedure is the only one open we have to accept it, and honour the minister for having said that the government will accept financial responsibility. However, I want to say that I think it is a stupid procedure.
This is a case that has intrigued the whole of Canada. If this matter goes before the Supreme Court of Canada it may be months or a year or two before it is settled, and the taxpayers will be saddled with the cost of the appeal to that court. I should like to recommend, inasmuch as the House of Commons is the all-powerful authority in Canada, that in the first week of the new session the government introduce a bill granting citizenship to Mr. and Mrs. Bergsma. The solution is as simple as that. This procedure has been followed time after time in the United States and I believe there is one precedent in Canada. We are all-powerful here so let the government introduce a bill immediately. Do not stall. Grant citizenship to these people and then let the Department of Justice examine at their convenience the question of whether or not there is any need for an amendment to the act. If so, then let an amendment be brought in at the same time as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduces the other amendments that he says he wants to make.
If such a simple, legal and constitutional enactment is introduced and carried, citizenship will be granted to these people immediately and with no cost to the taxpayers of Canada. My belief is that such action will meet with the wholehearted support of the majority of the people of Canada. I wanted to make that suggestion this afternoon.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer and I am going to be just as brief as I have been with regard to my first point. As a private member of the House of Commons, and I hope I am speaking on behalf of all private members, I want to express my absolute abhorrence and disgust with regard to the picayune attitude of treasury board in
Interim Supply
supplying equipment to enable members of the house to discharge their responsibilities more efficiently.
I have been a member of the public accounts committee for the 12 years I have been a member of the house, and if one reads the Auditor General's report he sees that treasury board authorizes expenditures in the thousands, hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars which simply represent money poured down the drain. But when it comes to an expenditure of not more than $3,000 to assist members of the House of Commons in fulfilling their responsibilities, treasury board turns thumbs down on the request and says that we cannot afford it.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. Does he realize that treasury board has nothing to do with the supplying to the House of Commons of the type of service about which he is talking?


Harold Edward Winch: Sir, four months ago I, Mr. Cyr, Mr. Blackburn and the Speaker of the House of Commons went to the office on the first floor where the equipment is located that does all the folding. There is a machine there which in two years has done 20 years work and in another two or three weeks is going to collapse, with the result that we will have no machine at all. That machine will just do two foldings, but machines were brought in which will do from three to seven.
It is my understanding that a recommendation was made for the purchase of the equipment and that the recommendation was turned down by treasury board. If that is not correct, I am subject to correction. I simply want to say, however, that with the hundreds of thousands of foldings that must be done the fact is that members of parliament have no equipment available to do the job. I am asking that immediate action be taken to secure the required equipment so that members of the house will be able to fulfil their responsibilities. For God's sake, do not hold up members of the House of Commons over an expenditure of $3,000 on equipment.
I want to emphasize this matter strongly.
I am paying money today to have this work done outside the house and I understand that many other members are doing the same thing. Help members of the House of Commons to do their job. Do not put anything in the way of their being able to discharge their responsibilities properly. Supply them with the necessary equipment.
I said I was going to mention only two items. I hope the government will take note

Interim Supply
of my suggestion with regard to the granting of citizenship to the Bergsmas, thus saving the taxpayers' money. I also hope that within the next two or three weeks we will see new equipment in the only office we have where folding is done. If this is not done, then after the Easter recess I intend to get up every day on the orders of the day and ask questions until the equipment is there, and I hope I will have the support of other members in doing so.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of topics that demand immediate explanation from the government, and I only expect to mention a couple on this occasion. There is one upon which I have been seeking a determination and information from the government for some time without any degree of success. I refer to the Atlantic development board and the attitude of that board and this government toward a submission which has now been before the government since March 28, 1964.
Before I go into the details, I should like to preface my remarks with a few comments about this board and about the attitude of this parliament as well as previous parliaments toward the Atlantic area and the special problems that exist in that area. We read in the newspapers today of the fact that while unemployment is not the national problem it once was in this nation, the Atlantic area is still suffering from chronic and high unemployment at a rate that just cannot be accepted in a nation that is dedicated to the welfare of its people. Thirteen per cent of the population of the Atlantic area is unemployed. During the election campaigns of 1962 and 1963, we heard from the Liberals many grand and wonderful stories about what they would do were they elected, to eliminate the problem of chronic unemployment in the Atlantic area. But today we find we are no farther ahead than we were then and this government has now been in office two years less one week.
One of the promises made was to use the Atlantic development board, which the Diefen-baker government conceived and put into effect, in an advantageous manner to eliminate the problems we faced. The first thing the government did after taking office was to indicate to the people of the Atlantic area that the Atlantic development board would no longer be the vehicle by which the problems of the Atlantic area would be attacked and eliminated, but rather that the role would be changed to that of a gap filler with a fund of $100 million available to it, and a life

for an undetermined period after great objection was taken by the official opposition to the proposed date for extinction.
We find ourselves today in the position of having a board that has used up most of the funds that have been made available to it, with no indication as to its future. Indeed, we are finding it most difficult to ascertain from the government what its plans are with regard to the province of Nova Scotia, and with regard to that substantial sum of money that has been allocated to that province for determination by the province as to how those funds might best be used for the betterment of the people. At the same time we find that a grant, if you want to call it that, of $24 million has been allocated to the province of Newfoundland for the development of power at Baie d'Espoir. Only this week we had an announcement from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources concerning what is happening to that power development and what it will mean to the province of Newfoundland. Certainly the members of this house are indeed pleased to see this project going forward at the rate anticipated.
Then, we find that the government of New Brunswick made a submission to the Atlantic development board requesting a grant of $20 million towards the development of power at Mactaquac on the Saint John river. This grant was approved and the project is going forward, although there is still some difference of opinion in the province of New Brunswick as to the merits of this power project. We must all hope, however, it will be for the benefit of the people of that area. In other words, Mr. Chairman, there has been no argument from the government with regard to the proposals made as to how New Brunswick will spend the $20 million or how Newfoundland will spend the $24 million. Indeed, the Atlantic development board and the government both felt that these provinces should and could determine how these sums could best be spent. As a result, we see progress in this field in those two areas.
What is the situation in Nova Scotia? We find, as I stated earlier, that on March 28, 1964 the government of Nova Scotia made a submission to the Atlantic development board as to how it felt the $20 million allocated to that province should be used. Indeed, they made very specific recommendations based on a report prepared by Professor T. Wilson for the Atlantic provinces research board in which he submitted that the $20 million allocated to Nova Scotia could best be used by making

direct grants to industries located in that province.
I should like to read a few of the recommendations contained in the submission by the government of Nova Scotia to the Atlantic development board, regarding industrial incentives. One of the recommendations was to this effect:
Tax incentives which have been made available by the parliament of Canada have not in fact been effective in attracting industry to Nova Scotia. Such tax incentives may affect the choice of location within Nova Scotia by industry which has decided to locate in the province, but the availability of these same incentives in other parts of Canada may actually increase our difficulties in bringing industry to Nova Scotia.
We submit that the most effective incentives are direct subsidies to reduce the capital and settling-in costs of new industries along lines recommended by Professor T. Wilson in a report prepared for the Atlantic provinces research board dated 8 February 1964.
The government of Nova Scotia therefore requests the Atlantic development board to provide the following incentives for manufacturing industry in Nova Scotia: grants up to
(a)	20 per cent of the capital cost of new manufacturing industry;
(b)	33J per cent of the payroll cost of such industry during the first two years of operation.
Such grants will result in substantial expenditures, but these will be a modest part of total government expenditures in this area. Each job created will create additional jobs. The federal government will benefit from resulting increased productivity, increased tax yields and reduced unemployment benefits. Professor Wilson properly emphasizes the importance of incentives being large enough to be effective. We recognize that your board may wish to limit the total amount available for such grants but we emphasize the importance of enough being made available to do the job required in Nova Scotia.
It is important that grants up to the percentages in paragraph 10 be available for new secondary manufacturing industries in such a way that this province could count upon the grants being available without clearing individual cases with the Atlantic development board in advance. It would be of the greatest importance for our provincial officials and agencies to be able to negotiate with industry in confidence and with confidence in the availability of the grants. For this purpose plants for the processing of fruits and vegetables should be classified as secondary manufacturing.
I believe that is a fair indication of what the government of Nova Scotia felt would be the most useful way of using the $20 million allocated to it for the welfare of the people of that area.
On Tuesday of this week I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding Professor Wilson's report and the recommendations made by the government of Nova Scotia to the Atlantic development board. This was his answer:
Interim Supply
I think the hon. gentleman is aware that the initiative in that matter lies with the government of Nova Scotia; and I am sure they are just as anxious to get ahead with good uses for this money as we are.
If the government of Nova Scotia were to read that reply it would have to arrive at the assumption that it had never made a submission to the Atlantic development board, or that the government, and the minister who is charged with responsibility for answering to parliament for that board are unaware of the submission. Surely there must be some error of judgment in the reply given by the minister, or we must reach the assumption that he is in fact in favour of the government of Nova Scotia making a determination as to how the money allocated could best be spent.
If the latter is the case then I tell the government, approve the recommendations submitted to the Atlantic development board by the government of Nova Scotia, and approve them immediately. The people of Nova Scotia have been waiting for a year for an answer from the federal government, and every day that passes hurts the chances of the government of Nova Scotia to attract industry to the province.
All the time that passes places the governments of Newfoundland and New Brunswick at an advantage over Nova Scotia. I wonder, is it unique that the governments of Newfoundland and New Brunswick, which happen to have Liberal premiers heading them, were able to find a degree of approval, through the Atlantic development board and the federal government, for the proposals they made, while Nova Scotia, which happens to have a Progressive Conservative premier, has encountered delays and less than a forthright answer to its proposal on how the resources of Nova Scotia can best be developed for the people of that area.
The people of Nova Scotia are entitled to an unequivocal yes or no answer. The sooner they receive it the better off will everyone be, and the people of Nova Scotia will be able to decide whether this government is as willing and as interested in promoting their welfare as was the former government. In view of the fact that we do not know when the government will have to give an accounting of itself before the people, it would be well for Nova Scotians to know where they stand with this government.
I should now like to turn to a subject that is quite different and which, in my estimation, has both local and national application. A commission has been established by the

Interim Supply
government to investigate all the implications of broadcasting. The commission has as its chairman, Robert Fowler. That commission will, I understand, report to the government in the latter part of May, according to an answer obtained in the house recently. During the period in which this commission has been sitting, new applications for television facilities available to various areas of this nation have been frozen. During this period we in the Cumberland and Westmorland area of the maritime provinces have been anticipating that we might be provided with alternative television through the facilities of CTV and more specifically through CJCH-TV of Halifax. An application had been made to the board of broadcast governors by CJCH-TV, but unfortunately for the people of our area it was set aside until such time as the Fowler commission brought down its report. So we have been waiting patiently for the report in question in the hope that the freeze would be lifted and that consideration would be given to a new application should one be submitted by CJCH-TV.
During this period some areas of Cumberland county have enjoyed CJCH-TV through a small satellite, weak in many aspects, which has been established just outside the town of Amherst. This satellite has given us a taste of something which has been very palatable and of which we desire a larger portion.
There is another aspect of the matter which is of real interest to me. It is that in my constituency in Nova Scotia, lacking the facilities of CJCH-TV we are in the position of having to depend upon television facilities which are made available through CKCW Moncton and CFCY, in Charlottetown. This has taken the emphasis off my area in Nova Scotia as far as news made available to my constituents is concerned. It is natural that a station based on Moncton and another on Charlottetown should treat Nova Scotia news as secondary. Thus my constituents are not at the present time provided with a news service as satisfactory as that which is available through CJCH-TV. For this reason I am most anxious to see an application by CJCH-TV considered again by the board of broadcast governors. It is my hope that when the Fowler commission reports in May there will be no indication that the temporary freeze on applications now in existence will be continued.
There is one other aspect of the Fowler commission inquiry I should like to men-

tion. It concerns comments, increasingly more prevalent, favouring a ten year charter for the C.B.C. Recently the president of the C.B.C. made a speech in Montreal in which he outlined reasons for which he thought a ten year charter should be made available to the corporation. One of the main reasons, it appeared to me as I listened to parts of his speech, was that the parliament of Canada carried out too many inquiries into the operations of the corporation. Well, this year we are being asked in the estimates tabled for 1965-66 to provide a subsidy or a grant of $99,444,000 of the taxpayers' money to the corporation. This is not an insignificant sum.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that inclusive of the loans, or exclusive?


Robert Carman Coates: That is exclusive of the loans. The loans are determined on an accounting basis altogether different from loans I would be able to secure. That amount represents an increase in the grant or subsidy of $11,444,000 as compared with 1964-65. I would say it is a substantial increase for a corporation which is now asking us to make a ten year outlay of funds in order that, among other things, the corporation might not have to face parliamentary inquiries. What the president of the C.B.C. is seeking, in my estimation, is a blank cheque for at least a billion dollars and I think that is too much to expect any government to approve especially since there is no guarantee that the government which approved it would be in office during the ten years in which the money would be expended.
Further, there has never been carried out to my knowledge the type of examination of the affairs of the C.B.C. which I would like to see, that is, an examination of the operations of this gigantic colossus from an organizational point of view similar to that carried out by the Glassco commission into government organization. I think that before we are asked to approve an outlay of a billion dollars we and the people of Canada should be given some assurance that the C.B.C. is being operated as efficiently as the taxpayers of this country would like to believe it is. Until we have these answers I do not think consideration should be given to the granting of anything more than we are providing now, and indeed I am becoming very sceptical about the amount we are now allocating to the corporation for its operations.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: Five o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: In order to permit the house to proceed to private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 (papers), private bills, public bills.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement you have just made regarding the alacrity with which the Senate has moved on a particular bill, and in view of the fact that there are only a couple of items before us, I wonder whether, in the need to wrap up this session rather quickly, we might dispense with private members' hour today and proceed with public business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the solicitude of the hon. member is most touching. In view of the many hours he has spent in connection with these matters now before the house I think we should stick to the rules and carry on with private members' hour.



[Stage Direction]
On the order: Notices of motions (papers):
Motion No. 184-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents, and a copy of any speeches delivered at, or to the recent dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs by the Canadian government, or any other person representing the Canadian government.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Tory blockade and with a desire to co-operate, I wonder whether I might stand this particular motion?
Motion stands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 187, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Shall this motion stand?


Francis Andrew Brewin: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish this to stand. Despite what was said in the last few minutes I should like this motion to proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And to pass.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, of course, and pass.


CORRESPONDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Francis Andrew Brewin: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid
Motions for Papers
before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged during the past year between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general or other provincial ministers regarding methods of amending the constitution of Canada; and also for other papers and documents prepared for and presented to the meeting held in October between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion for the production of papers requests that a humble address be presented asking for all correspondence written during the past year passing between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and the provincial ministers regarding the amendment of the constitution to be produced. I do not quite understand what possible objection there could be to this motion. During a previous parliament when another administration was in power I moved a similar motion in respect to papers relating to the constitutional amendment conference of 1960. I have in my hands a copy of sessional paper No. 256 of December 13, 1962 relating to the correspondence concerning the proposals then being discussed, or which had been discussed, regarding the amendment of the Canadian constitution, which correspondence was duly produced.
I realize of course that the production of these documents, so far as they consist of correspondence with provincial governments, can be produced only subject to the consent of those provinces. In actual fact this is precisely what happened when the previous administration was in office, and it surprises and pains me to And that the present administration is more sticky and obstructive in relation to a matter of this sort than was the previous administration. I suggest there is no reason at all for not producing these papers, subject of course to getting the consent of the provincial authorities.
I would point out that the subject matter involved in this motion for the production of papers is one about which the public of Canada is entitled to all facts and information. The public should know where this government stands on the matter, the reasons the government advanced for the adoption of what is now known as the Fulton-Favreau formula, and the views expressed by the different provinces in correspondence in regard thereto.
There is a tremendous and growing concern in Canada about this whole subject of constitutional amendment. History alone requires that this matter should not be dealt with in a hole in the corner manner. I urge

Motions for Papers
upon the government that it make available for historians, for scholars, for constitutional experts and for the public of Canada the correspondence which produced this formula, which has not only been put before this parliament, or will be put before it at some future stage, but which is the concern of every provincial legislature as well. If it be the case that a provincial authority has said something embarrassing or political in this correspondence which I ask to be produced, notwithstanding even that I suggest we are entitled to these papers and documents.
If I were to enlarge on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would merely be repeating what I have just said. I urge, in view of the transcendent importance of the constitutional amendment formula, and in view of the widespread concern about this matter all across Canada, that this correspondence be not withheld from the people of Canada. I am not asking for new ground to be ploughed or for any deep secrets to be revealed. What I am asking is for no more than that which the last administration were perfectly willing to do. I hope this plea of mine will achieve some response from the government benches, and we will not have to say as a result of any opposition to this motion that the full facts in respect to the amendment formula regarding the constitution are not available to the people of Canada.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I say that all hon. members of the house are aware of the keen interest shown by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) regarding the proposed patriation of our constitution, and the amending formula. However, with respect, I think that in making this motion he is confusing the two aspects of the problem. The patriation of the constitution is one problem. The ultimate revision of the constitution or the writing of a new constitution, if such be the trend of events in this nation, is a different problem entirely.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It is the same problem.


John James Greene: The hon. member is desirous, quite properly, to have as full and as public a discussion as possible of the question of the amendment of the constitution and its patriation; at least, I take that to be so from the wording of his motion. However, I would point out that as an antecedent to any essential and necessary amendment to the constitution there must perforce be discussion with the provinces, irrespective of whether we accept the view that our constitution is in

the nature of a treaty between the various provinces existing at the time of confederation -new partners have, of course, since entered into confederation-or whether we deny, as did Professor Dawson in his work, that this is a type of treaty between the various components of confederation. Nevertheless, in the present circumstances existing in Canada it would surely be intolerable and impossible to effect either the patriation of the constitution or a fundamental revision of the constitution without prior discussion and negotiation, and to large degree agreement with the provinces. Irrespective of how much we may tend toward viewing the fact that the federal constitution and the federal government are supreme, or whether we are of those who believe that this is an agreement by and between the provinces, I think any pragmatic politician would have to say that any sound or pervasive revision of the formula for repatriation would be impossible without prior negotiation and discussion with the provinces.
I noted with interest the views of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in respect of the measure which was before this house the other day. His very effective and sound argument in this regard was so highly thought out it is quoted editorially in the Ottawa Journal of tonight. As I understood his views, they were that any measures that we adopt with regard to the reallocation of responsibility for sources of revenue between the provincial and federal aspects of our constitution are but a hodgepodge and piecemeal solution to a very fundamental problem in respect of our constitution. He is duly patted on the head editorially tonight for his very sound views in this regard.
That being the case, I think any individual who has the long term well-being of this nation at heart would agree that obviously at this date and at this time there are very fundamental revisions needed in the constitution of this nation. I again return to the pragmatic aspect of how this is to be brought about. I think all hon. members will surely agree that there must first be discussions with the provinces in an attempt to resolve the views of the provinces in the directions in which they would move.
I do not think, in accord with precedents which have been set in this regard in respect of other matters affecting the provinces and the federal government, that this could be done in any public forum. The precedents which determine that negotiations and discussions between provincial governments and

the federal government at the provincial conference table should be held in confidence, unless otherwise agreed to by all parties, are many. How else could there be free and frank discussions, and how else could there be open differences of opinion, where such exist, in an attempt to resolve such differences of opinion, if these opinions and views stated in writing or otherwise were subsequently to be made the subject of public discussion? I suggest with respect that again, if we can analogize to the treaty making powers, surely at this time the dominion-provincial conference in respect of our constitution, again irrespective of our views of the original constitution, is analogous to the treaty making powers. If the treaty making powers were to sit in public and discuss all their documents in public, I think there would seldom be an amicable solution to differences. This is true of both the treaty table and a dominion-provincial conference.
I suggest with respect that the hon. member, who has proposed this motion in good faith because he has had concern about this subject, would be doing a great disservice to the likely ultimate satisfactory resolution of the varying points of view of the provinces and the federal government by insisting on making public all the differences and all the materials which were filed or which were discussed confidentially during the negotiations which have already taken place.
I would point out also, from the standpoint of moral integrity on a question such as this, that the men who came from the provinces to these conferences came clearly on the understanding that the discussions would be held in camera and that there would not be public discussions of their varying views.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. member permit a question. Has he ascertained from anybody in the government, or on his side of the house, whether any attempt has been made to find out if the parties to the conference have any objection to the production of this material? As I have said, I have been made aware of the fact that at a previous conference the attorneys general clearly expressed the opinion that they had no objection to the production of this material.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in the very humble and remote place where I sit the government does not inform me as to the views of the provinces on these matters, but I understand that an hon. gentleman on this side of the house, who sits closer to the periphery of power than I, intends to speak 20220-826J
Motions for Papers
on this matter, and that he will be able to resolve the doubts of the hon. gentleman in this regard.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) pointed out, and I think he complained somewhat in this regard, that the papers produced at a prior similar conference were disclosed. I am not sure of the trend of events leading up to that disclosure, but I have had occasion to check the proceedings of those meetings and it may well be that those papers were in fact produced after those conferences had in fact floundered, and when there was no possibility of arriving at a resolution to the problem regarding repatriation of the constitution. Surely that is what happened at the prior meetings- ultimately they broke down. If the disclosure of the papers was made subsequent to the time it was obvious that these conferences had broken down and there could be no solution, then no harm could be done.
I point out with respect to the hon. member that at this time I think all of us have the hope that these discussions will move to the point of resolution. We hope that they will move to the point where, after very close to a century of history, we will soon have a Canadian constitution back in Canada. I do not think any of us want to put any impediments in the way of this very desirable goal.
Speaking personally as a private member I may say that I agree with the hon. member, that at some stage of the proceedings there should be a very full, frank and open discussion before there is any amendment to the constitution, or any fundamental revision made, and before there is a complete rewriting of the constitution to meet the needs and demands of the time.
My personal views are inclined to those of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in this regard. I believe there should be a great national conclave prior to the time when we re-write our constitution, or develop our own constitution which I personally hope will be called the Canada Act rather than the British North America Act. While the British North America Act is a great antecedent to a Canada Act, I believe it is time to have a constitution, which is completely and uniquely our own, domiciled here in Canada. I think the events which lead up to the writing of that constitution will be of great moment in respect of the question of national unity. I hope there will by a momentous historical occasion which will lead to the re-writing of the constitution,

Motions for Papers
in which there will be participation on a national level. I hope it will be something more than an agreement between the provincial entities of our confederation, and I hope that the new confederation act will enable direct participation in its amendment procedures by the people of Canada. I am one of those who believe that there cannot be a sound and truly uniting concept of amendment which does not provide for direct participation by the people of Canada themselves by way of referendum, and I hope that such a formula may be implemented in respect of the ultimate resolution of our constitutional problems.
At the time when the constitution is to be completely revised or rewritten I will certainly be among those who agree completely with the concept that the hon. member has envisaged here, that there be full, frank, open, clear discussion in Canada which I hope will be the prelude to a popular discussion by the people of their constitution. I think all of us have remarked from time to time that the American constitution has been to the people of that great country such a bond, such an instrument of allegiance by the people of the United States to their country. I think their flag and their constitution are things to which all Americans pay deference and allegiance and they have been a great bond of unity in that land.
I know that all members of the house hope that our flag, now that we have a uniquely Canadian emblem, will be such a bond to the people of Canada. When we rewrite our constitution and domicile it at home, when we have had these prior, open, public meetings whereby great interest in our constitution can be engendered, I for one hope that subsequent to that time the Canadian constitution will be a linking bond of the Canadian people, a source of pride, a source of unity which will in fact help to keep this nation together in the future. Surely if this concept is to be achieved the type of discussion which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) envisages will be necessary as a precursor to the fashioning of that new constitution. But I do suggest with the greatest respect that at this time we are but doing the groundwork, the humble spadework, for that great day of the rewriting of our constitution, and this must be done through negotiations between the provinces and the federal government with respect to our constitution as it exists.
There must of necessity be participation by public servants at all levels, and I do not think any of us believe that the honest and
FMr. Greene.1
forthright views of public servants should be brought into public discussion later. I suggest with respect that we will do a disservice to the ultimate resolution of the problem of (a) the patriation of our constitution in Canada and (b) the revision and rewriting of a truly Canadian constitution if we interfere too greatly by insisting on public discussion at this time of matters which are the subject of private negotiations between the provinces and their officials and the federal government and its officials. I suggest that this is the time to be patient, to wait and see the results of these negotiations. Once they are available the resolutions will be made public and I trust that then we will have the kind of public discussion which will lead to a new Canadian constitution domiciled right here in Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that by now the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who had indicated a desire that the debate interrupted by this debate should continue, will have been convinced of the wisdom of the attitude taken by those on this side, as indicated by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), who thought this hour should not be lost to posterity. In particular, after hearing the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene), whose words in connection with this very important issue are now embedded forever in the transcript of our proceedings, it would seem obvious that our course was the proper and correct one. To put it another way, if this can be regarded as the death rattle of this session of parliament, we want to be able to distinguish in it the words of the hon. member for Renfrew South, the hon. member for Greenwood and others who want to participate in the debate.
I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Renfrew South with regard to my modest contribution the other day. I hope he will be impelled to change his mind on this particular issue after I have concluded. I am not going to say very much. While he has expressed one view, I am sure that the notorious flexibility or remarkable elasticity which his party and government have displayed during the course of this session will by no means preclude him from changing his mind after I have completed my remarks.
I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that the last government was perfectly prepared to disclose the correspondence in connection with this particular issue

to the extent that it lay within its power to do so. This was a display of the type of statesmanship which one would consider to be appropriate to the last government, and I only hope that the refusal of the present government does not show that the level of statesmanship is not now of the same calibre. I hope we have not descended into political expediency rather than statesmanship in regard to deciding which documents will be publicized and which will not.
The issue before us, Mr. Speaker, concerns not only the government of Canada, not only the governments of the various provinces, but all of the people of Canada. I have no doubt that in those cosy, quiet little discussions held between federal government ministers and officials, and provincial ministers and officials, issues of this kind are considered, and I suppose at times they are considered from the point of view of what is best for the country. I have a shrewd suspicion that while the people of Canada are shown in these meetings in the light that the people who are to participate in the discussions con-siaer them, quite frequently they are considered only as voters and not necesarily as people who have a keen interest in the issue of the constitution and what we are going to do with it. I feel that there should be a great national debate involving all of the people of Canada and I have a desire that as Canadians, whether they are residents of one province or another, they have a vested interest in knowing what takes place at these meetings and what arrangements are made as a result of them.
This brings us down to the particular issue here. It is not an economic issue. This is an issue involving the way in which we are going to divide our constitutional responsibilities and the method by which we are going to amend the constitution without having to encounter the difficulties we have experienced in the past. Under these conditions I feel that the views of the provincial governments should be made known without any suppression as a condition precedent to this debate taking place. After all, we have heard about the constitutional amendment being placed before the legislatures of eight provinces, I think, but there has been a remarkable lack of discussion and a remarkable lack of debate during the course of these proceedings. Only in the province of Quebec, I believe, has there been up to the present time some indication of a very substantial debate.
I think that this is the kind of discussion which should take place at all levels, not only
Motions for Papers
on the national and provincial government levels but at the community level, at service club and chamber of commerce meetings and farm and labour unions. This is a question which is vital and of the essence to all of us, and in my humble opinion it is going to be an issue which will only be decided when there is a unanimity of views reached among a very large majority of the people of Canada, irrespective of whether they live in Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta or Ontario.
In order to have this debate, I think we must have the benefit of the views of all who have been concerned, all who are interested, and all the ministers of provincial governments who have corresponded with the Minister of Justice. For this reason I can see no valid excuse why the government should not be prepared at this time to produce this correspondence.
I am delighted to support the very reasonable suggestion made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and the reasons which impelled him to move this motion.


John James Greene: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


John James Greene: Can he tell us if, in fact, it would be politically possible to revise the constitution basically without the prior agreement of all the provinces?


Gerald William Baldwin: I agree with this sentiment. I think the only way you are going to get this agreement is for the people of the country to know what is involved and to bring pressure on the provincial governments to compel them to come to an agreement of this kind. This pressure must come from the bottom up, rather than from the top down as it is now.


Mr. Basford:: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member must be aware, since he is interested in this subject, that the government has filed a white paper which is now before us, a draft of which was submitted to the provincial governments and which they approved. It makes very interesting reading and praises the history and development of the agreement to repatriate the constitution. Does he not feel that this white paper represents the views of the provinces as they now exist, rather than the documents requested in this motion?

Motions for Papers


Gerald William Baldwin: I would not think so; but the only way to make sure of that would be for the government to produce the documents and thus enable one to come to a conclusion.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: There appears to be some tendency to enter into a discussion of the merits of the constitutional amendments, and perhaps before making my remarks this afternoon I should make reference to an observation made by Mr. Speaker Michener on March 22, 1962, shortly after the procedure we are following first came into general use. I quote from page 2071 of Hansard for that date:
As I understand it, this motion calls lor the house to order the production of a document described here, the production of which the government resists. The debate is on the issue of whether or not the government is correct in resisting the production of the document. Now, anything that is relevant to that issue would, in my opinion, be relevant to the debate.
Then, Mr. Speaker Michener goes on to point out that there is a very difficult question involved in these motions. On the one hand, it is desirable that the full merits not be gone into, but on the other hand it is desirable that enough of the merits be available so that the house can decide whether or not, in the public interest, the usual procedure followed in the house should be waived. I think it might be useful to remind the house again that it has been the long standing practice in this chamber, followed by the government which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) supported and by the government supported by members on this side of the house, that internal documents of a confidential character should not be made available in response to a motion for the production of papers.
In this respect the parliamentary authorities, going back to some of the most eminent ones, such as Todd, have pointed out the fact that while it is definitely necessary, on the one hand, that the house have all relevant information, on the other hand it is desirable that the procedure not be used in such a way as to make available the essentially internal documents needed for the operation of government, documents produced by the government's own advisers with the intention that they should be confidential. Some of the documents requested by the hon. member in this motion are, without question, documents prepared for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and others representing the government of Canada from time to time
[Mr. Basford.l
in these discussions, by the officials of the department. They were prepared on a confidential basis. As the hon. member for Greenwood would know from his experience in the law courts, it has been clearly established in administrative law that if documents of this kind, which have been prepared for confidential purposes, are sought for public disclosure, then it is likely the court will refuse their introduction on the ground that the confidentiality or candour which one could expect from the minister's advisers might well be lost. If there were a fear these documents would be made available to the public, that result might follow.
If I may refer again to Todd, we find that if we continue to allow motions to this effect to be passed, the confidential memoranda would merely reappear as memoranda of a personal character, so you would really only arrive at the same result in the long run. Hon. members will recall the cause celebre in this house during the 1958 session when a highly confidential document, in fact one specifically marked "secret", was produced in this house by the government of that day. The seriousness of the matter at that time was indicated to the advisers of the crown, with rather serious consequences, by senior civil servants. I think it must be recognized that unless the government is entitled to take its counsel in private, then the operations of the government generally will be very much prejudiced.
We have an additional factor here, Mr. Speaker, in that the motion seeks not only the production of documents arrived at in confidence for the benefit of the government of Canada but also seeks the production of documents arrived at in confidence for the provincial governments. As the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) pointed out, the feeling of mutual trust would be very much impaired if this parliament were to order the production of documents produced for provincial governments and delivered in discussions which were to be in camera.
Now, the hon. member asks, as one might expect him to ask, why do we not get consent? Who is withholding consent? What provincial governments are refusing? I think it is proper to refuse to answer any kind of cross-examination in that regard because, essentially, all such questions merely hold a gun at the head of provincial governments by suggesting that if they refuse to make these documents public they are trying to hide something which it is not in the public interest to see.

Mr. Brewinr May I ask the hon. member a question? Quite apart from the government of any individual province, is the hon. member able to tell us whether any of the provinces have been asked or have raised any objection to the production of this material?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, since you are a member of the bar of Ontario, just as the hon. member for Greenwood is, you will appreciate at once the skill and dexterity with which a craftsman can work. Here he is, trying to start digging out bits and pieces by this masterful type of cross-examination. It was for this reason I carefully pointed out that I did not propose to be drawn into any kind of cross-examination concerning whether or not we were prepared to seek consent, and so on. I think that is an entirely proper procedure on my part.
The hon. member has made a number of statements in public constituting complaints about the procedure followed by the present government in arriving at the formula for amending the constitution, which is now to be found in the white paper recently tabled. Essentially, the basis of the complaint is that the public do not understand the purport of the formula, that the public do not have any idea what kind of arangements were arrived at as a result of the discussions between the attorneys general, which produced the proposed formula. I think any hon. member who has read the white paper on the constitution will realize just how much nonsense is that suggestion. We have, in fact, over a period of nearly 30 years been discussing the appropriate measures to be taken by the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces to render the amending procedure into Canadian hands.
In fact almost the identical wording was first fully debated and made public following the year 1960-61 at the time when the so-called Fulton formula was produced. Prior to the current stage of negotiations, spokesmen on behalf of the government indicated the extent to which the government intended to pursue the development of 30 years in an attempt to achieve an agreement on the basis of the Fulton formula. This, of course, is in fact what happened, and for any person to suggest there has been any particular secrecy, or that there should be public surprise with the end product, is to make a rather bald statement in absolute defiance of the facts on the record.
In fact the hon. member himself had an opportunity to give a very learned address
Motions for Papers
on the subject prior to these particular negotiations, in which he referred at length to his viewpoint, albeit an erroneous one, on the subject of the Fulton formula. Therefore I do not think the question really arises of whether it is in the public interest or not, because of any suggestion of secrecy, that this material should be made public. In fact all the relevant material which, in the interests of good government, can be made public has been on the public record for a long time.
It has been very aptly summarized and put before the house in the form of a white paper, and I do not think there can be any real suggestion that the people of Canada, the members of this parliament and the members of the legislatures, have not been supplied with the necessary and relevant material upon which to arrive at their own conclusions as to the acceptability or not of the constitutional amendment formula.
I think it is worth emphasizing the ultimate, logical conclusion of the proposition which the hon. member put before the chamber. Both here and in other places he has, from time to time, stated that in some way there is an impropriety in the fact that the government has decided to make up its mind on a particular course of action to be followed, and that the government has entered into direct negotiations with the other governments involved in order to arrive at that particular conclusion. May I point out that in this, as in other matters, and in accordance with our parliamentary system, it is our expectation that the government will take the initiative, will first take its own advice and then take the initiative. In making arrangements depending on the nature of the legislation, members of the public, foreign governments or, in this particular case, other Canadian governments which, under our constitution, have an equal sovereignty determined by the provisions of the British North America Act, are taken into consultation. There surely can be no question of the public in any way having their right to comment upon these matters stifled.
In fact the procedure being followed- and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has made reference to this-is that the proposed formula is coming up for public debate in all ten legislatures in the provinces, and in this chamber. In other words, there will be full opportunity for public debate by the elected representatives of the people, full opportunity for public debate in accordance with our system of government,

Motions -for Papers
and the suggestion that in any way this is being pushed down the public's throat, and that the opportunity is not being given to have the issue put relevantly before the public for proper debate, is just nonsense.
I would only suggest that if there is any irrelevance, obscurantism, or any attempt to cast a smokescreen over the important issue involved here, it has been by hon. members like the hon. member for Greenwood, who have been presenting these spurious arguments about the public not being informed.
The hon. member for Peace River made what I thought was a rather extraordinary statement. He said the public were entitled to have some representation in this regard only as voters. I have some difficulty in accepting the implications of that particular proposition. I think if anything has been learned over the long period of English constitutional history to which we have fallen heir it is that the right to act as voters, to cast ballots, is one of the most fundamental rights which any democratic country can have. In fact it is the inability to have that right, it is the fact that a particular group of the community in Alabama has not had that right, that has led to the demonstrations and actions taken by all right thinking persons throughout the United States. For the hon. member to say the public have a right only as voters to pass judgment on this particular formula as though there were something wrong in that is, I suggest, another form of nonsense.
The hon. member for Peace River also said that the views of the provincial governments should be made known. I have already made reference to the fact that the constitutional amendment formula is going to be debated in all of the legislatures, and in each of the legislatures the attitude of the respective provincial government is put, in accordance with our system of government, before the members of the legislature. These views are being made known, and the views of the public generally. The public has had an opportunity over a long period to form their opinions on the proposed amending procedure.
The hon. member for Peace River also said he did not feel any change in this regard should be made until there was a near unanimity of views among the people of Canada. I do not know whether the hon. member for Greenwood shares that opinion. I would be interested to know if he does because, if that is so, he is arguing right into the teeth of the arguments he has previously made. If it had been necessary for a near unanimity of views to bring about confederation in 1867, then

I think it is pretty certain we would still be waiting for it.
There will be great differences of opinion among the people in our country as to what might be the proper procedure to take as an amending formula, just the same as there will be great differences of opinion on many matters. But I suggest the democratic method to which we have given support is that in the long run the government must assume the responsibility of bringing a particular measure to the legislature, seeking the support of the legislature for that measure, and then ultimately assuming responsibility for it before the public. Therefore I suggest that the suggestion of some constitutional convention, some Philadelphia type of gathering, or the suggestion of the St. Jean Baptiste Society for a meeting of the Estates General whereby various groups, lobbies and pressure interests would meet together in solemn conclave, is once again nonsense.
I suggest that the time honoured system we have followed in this country, the system which was followed in 1867 and which led to our confederation, is being followed here, and I submit it is the only sensible system under the circumstances. Hon. members who have read the white paper will have noted the fact that the document which finally became the B.N.A. Act was produced in the same way, by a series of delegates from the various constituent colonies. I suggest the procedure followed, with the document subsequently being submitted for approval to the legislatures of the various provinces, was not only right then but is right now.
Therefore I think it must be clear to all reasonable hon. members that there is no public interest in the government of Canada at this time, pursuant to this motion, making public documents which were prepared in confidence both by the federal government and the provincial governments. I think it is eminently reasonable, and that all reasonable people would agree it is sensible, that the government should not make these available at the present time, and on the basis of these remarks I would hope the hon. member would withdraw his motion.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in making a few remarks on this motion I would like to point out what I think are the three matters of principle involved in it. The first is whether this house should pass a motion opening up a conference which was secret, and making it public. The second deals with the disclosure of advice given by officials to ministers. The third is the desirability of

having a federal-provincial conference of this type held secretly as opposed to having it held publicly. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald) has dealt effectively with two of these points. He has indicated that whatever we might think about the desirability of holding a secret conference, the conference was held on that basis and people have spoken their minds on the understanding that the proceedings would be secret. We have no right to change the rules at this point and expose to the glare of publicity views given and remarks made on the understanding that they would not be exposed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not appreciate that this motion contemplates the agreement of the provinces to the provision of this material? I said so when I spoke. Does he not think that the difficulties he mentioned about the provision of a secret document, so-called, are entirely removed if the people who were there say they do not desire that it should remain secret?


David George Hahn: I am not a lawyer, as is the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), but I think my legal friend the parliamentary secretary answered that question pretty well.


Frank Howard: That is just the point: He did not.


David George Hahn: The result would be to disclose publicly who said yes and who said no. I believe we came to an agreement with these people. They have expressed their views and we have no right to embarrass them by taking, now, action of the kind suggested. This is not to say that the conditions under which this particular conference were held were good or bad. I am simply arguing that we have no right to go back at this point and change the rules.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: In view of the fact that we are hoping to conclude this session shortly I wonder whether at this point I might have the unanimous consent of the house to deal with certain private bills which have come back from the committee, the first being the bill to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation?


Frank Howard: On a point of order, that is a somewhat vague request. The hon. member talked about certain private bills and then mentioned one. I think the house will only agree, perhaps, to deal with the bill which is first on the list of private bills, an
Private Bills
act to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation, as amended. For my part, there would not be any objection to dealing with that measure but I do not think we would be disposed to deal with any of the others.


Mrs. Margaret Konaniz (Winnipeg South):: I am the sponsor of a bill which has been before parliament now for almost 14 months, and I would be glad to get that into committee, too. I realize that the measure to incorporate the World Mortgage Corporation is down for consideration in committee and third reading, but I should like to think some consideration could be given to the bill in my name.


Stanley Ronald Basford: appreciate what the hon. member for Skeena has said in offering no objection to the consideration of item No. 1 on the order paper. However, like the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz), I am the sponsor of a bill for the incorporation of the Laurentide Bank of Canada which was placed on the order paper on July 29. These are the dying days of the present session and I am hopeful it can be dealt with. If it is not dealt with today, it will die on the order paper. I can understand that we should not expect unanimous support for any bill such as this, but I would hope most members would agree that the business of the house should be decided, after hearing argument pro and con, and a conclusion reached. I hope we may be able to do that.


Frank Howard: The course just advocated by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) is, as no doubt he realizes, contrary to that followed by the government in the case of every bill put forward by a private member, with very few exceptions.


An hon. Member:: The same with this notice of motion.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend points out that the same course has been followed with regard to the notice of motion the discussion of which has been interrupted. We cannot consider the bill to incorporate the bank of western Canada or the Laurentide bank of taken by the Senate with respect to the bank of British Columbia. We feel we cannot give a prior position to the incorporation of one bank when another bank in a similar position is denied equal consideration. I think we have to treat these banks as a unit, as we have stated on a number of occasions. The only thing to which we might agree would

Private Bills
be to proceed to the World Mortgage Corporation bill. However, if there should be any difficulty about that we might as well call it six o'clock.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In view of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Skeena I would support the request by my hon. friend to deal with the first item.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that we suspend consideration of the motion now before us and take up consideration of private bills, No. 1 on the order paper, an act to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation, as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: And then return to the business which is now before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: And then, if there is any time left before six o'clock, we shall return to the item standing in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood.


WORLD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-32, to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation. -Mr. Wahn-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I see that the committee on banking and commerce made amendments to Bill No. S-32. Therefore, I am wondering whether the sponsor of the bill could tell us the reasons for those amendments, so that we may know how we stand, because we have not yet received the report on the proceedings of that committee.


Ian Grant Wahn: The company originally asked for certain provisions which were inconsistent with the provisions of the general act, namely the Loan Companies Act. For this reason we did not proceed with the bill for some time. Finally the promoters of the bill agreed to delete the inconsistent provisions, namely clauses 7 and 8 of the bill. That is the explanation. The bill as it now stands, with the amendments, is in exactly the form prescribed by the Loan Companies Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 7.
Lucien Lamoureux: Clauses 7 and 8 were deleted. Shall clause 9, renumbered as clause 7 as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
On the title.
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, in agreeing to this kind of title I think the committee should exercise some wider jurisdiction. This is a remarkable title even for Canada to pass. I think in future this type of title should be considered by the committee for amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this evening are the following: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), power, Columbia river, replacement of damaged facilities; the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), health and welfare, consideration of royal commission recommendations by dominion-provincial conference.
The house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

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



[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $762,547,249.03, being the aggregate of-
(a)	Two twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $730,438,474;
(b)	an	additional	eight	twelfths	of	the	totalamount of External	Affairs item 15	(Schedule A)
of the said main estimates, $8,344,666.67;
(c)	an additional five twelfths of the total amount of External Affairs item 20 (Schedule B) of the said main estimates, $456,458.34;
(d)	an	additional	four	twelfths	of	the	total
amount of Atomic Energy item 5 (Schedule C) of the said main estimates, $533,333.34;
(e)	an	additional	three	twelfths	of	the	total
amount of National Research Council item 10 (Schedule D) of the said main estimates, $7,675,000;

(f) an additional two twelfths of the total amounts of Legislation Item 20; Mines and Technical Surveys item 25; Secretary of State item 30, Transport item 95, (Schedule E) of the said main estimates $7,314,783.34;
(g) an additional one twelfth of the total amounts of External Affairs item 5; Justice item 1; Legislation item 5; Mines and Technical Surveys items 10, 15, 45. 50 and 60; National Revenue item 5 and Trade and Commerce item 15 (Schedule F) of the said main estimates, $7,784,533.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966.
Lucien Lamoureux: House again in committee of supply; interim supply. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

['Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) stated, he raised this question yesterday. I am not going to repeat the question because he has put it on the record again. When he finished asking the question, the Speaker interjected and stated this was a proper question for the order paper. The hon. member for Kootenay West intervened and said, "that was really a dud". I do not know what he meant by that. Perhaps he was classifying the subject matter of the question, although I believe he said he had no reference to the subject matter- at least I hope not.\nI realize the hon. member has had many representations from people in his constituency who are worried over what will take place in relation to this Columbia project. I cannot tell him at the moment whose responsibility it is to see that these installations are replaced or that new ones which may be required are built. I shall make inquiries and let the hon. member know as soon as I get the information so that the people in his constituency, and the hon. member himself, will be able to direct their efforts into the proper', 'Supply-Items Passed\nchannels to bring about the desired results. I think that was the main point the hon. member had in mind in raising this question at this time. I cannot tell him at the moment who is responsible. If it were a matter of policy, I could not tell him anyway because the minister would have to make that announcement. I will get all the information I can for my hon. friend, and let him know as soon as I can.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.\n[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]']
George James McIlraith: Resolved that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, the sum of $762,547,249.03, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllraith (for Mr. Gordon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-150, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['Resolved that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, the sum of $762,547,249.03, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


George James McIlraith: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
['the second reading of the bill.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Supply-Agriculture


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


George James McIlraith: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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


Lucien Lamoureux: We are now considering supplementary estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965. The first item is vote 15d of the Department of Agriculture.



[Stage Direction]
15d. Production and marketing-administration, operation and maintenance, $215,000.
Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, we would have liked to ask a few questions of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the new dairy policy he announced last Friday. I do not know whether the Minister-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member that we are now discussing vote 15d and his remarks must be related to the vote before us. This vote has nothing to do with dairy policy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
17d. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, with respect to item 17d-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: It does not take much intelligence to make those sounds.


Mr. Richard:: They all come from the other side, too.


Frank Howard: This is an item relating to subventions under the Cold Storage Act for cold storage warehouses, and the manner in which the subventions have been provided for some years now has made for disagreement. Shortly after the Conservative government took office in 1957 or 1958 they brought into effect a certain restriction with respect to the payment of subsidies under the Cold Storage Act. It was based primarily on the fact that there was, or so it was claimed, a surplus of cold storage space in Canada for agricultural products. It was also based partly

Supply-Agriculture
on the fact that certain so-called free enterprisers saw in the combination of a loan from the industrial development bank and a subvention of one third, I believe, of the total capital cost of the cold storage warehouse, an opportunity to get their hands on large sums of money to build cold storage warehouses with no capital outlay themselves. This was primarily operative in the agricultural products field, and I understand that some of the people who profited greatly from the combination of borrowing and subvention were prominent Liberals. So the Conservative party, looking at all these factors, decided to place some restriction on the amount of the subvention. Subsequently the operation of all subsidies under the Cold Storage Act was suspended during the financial crisis following the 1962 election.
We have contended, particularly since the initial restrictions were imposed following the election of the Conservative government, that one should use different criteria for the operation of the cold storage warehouse subvention in the case of fisheries products from those used in the case of agricultural products. We have contended that they are two distinct food products and that the rules applying to the one should not apply to the other.
When the present Minister of Transport was a mere private member and sat on the opposition side of the house he used to join with me in a plea for special consideration for fisheries products. In fact, it was because of his intimate knowledge of the manner in which cabinets operate that he asked the then Conservative government to make use of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act to transfer part of the jurisdiction over the operation of the Cold Storage Act from the minister of agriculture to the minister of fisheries so far as fisheries products were concerned. It was our hope that when the Liberals were elected as the government the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would remember the pleas he used to make when he was on this side of the house and, in conjunction with the Minister of Fisheries who is also from the east coast and also used to speak up quite strongly on behalf of the fishermen when he was in opposition, would give the cabinet the benefit of their knowledge and understanding of this matter, with the result that we would get a better deal in the operation of subsidies under the Cold Storage Act. That has not been the case.
I merely wish to pose a question with regard to the reason for this vote of $26,900 and,

second, to make a plea that the government give serious consideration to the matter and take definitive action to split the jurisdiction, thus giving the Minister of Fisheries some authority to determine the granting of subsidies under the Cold Storage Act so far as fisheries products are concerned. In the way the act is administered now, even if there is consultation with the officials of the Department of Fisheries the fact is that the full weight of the concept of the Department of Agriculture as to the way the matter should be handled takes precedence, and this has been to the detriment of fisheries products and fishermen.
I wanted to take a few moments to say again what has been said so often in the house and to indicate that the Minister of Transport was on our side at one time, and that the Minister of Fisheries was also of the view when he was in the opposition that fisheries products were not getting a square deal. I plead with the government to turn their considerate eye upon this problem because it becomes increasingly more difficult as the years go by. I know this is perhaps not the time to ask for a declaration. I also know that even if I asked for one I would not get it. So all I can do is to let my plea fall upon the open ears of the President of the Privy Council and ask him in his responsible position within the cabinet to bring the benefit of his knowledge and experience to bear upon his colleagues, in the hope that better consideration will be given to cold storage warehouses for fisheries products than has been the case in the past. I should also like him to explain the $26,900.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the particular item is for the Ingalls Head-Grand Harbour Fishermens Co-operative Limited. It is a subsidy for that project.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25d. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $110,650.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I am very much surprised that the Minister of Agriculture is not here to answer the questions we may want to ask him. There is one question I should like to ask, it has to do with the $1,650 gift of three cows to Russia. I should like to know on whose authority the gift was made, from whom the cows were bought, how much was paid for them and under what conditions

they were shipped. Does this amount include transportation and so on?


George James McIlraith: The authority is a minute of July 30, 1964, of treasury board. I cannot give the name of the person from whom the cows were purchased nor the method of shipment.


Mr. Danforth:: Can the minister tell us the type of cattle involved, whether they were dairy or beef cattle?


George James McIlraith: They were Holsteins and they were shipped on the 24th of August last.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, under this item perhaps you will allow me to say something about subsidies in a general way. The item has to do with grants, contributions and subsidies.
You will recall that a few evenings ago I was endeavouring to bring to the attention of the government a situation that existed in my constituency in connection with this subject. If you are going to hold me too closely to the rules, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that you can rule me out of order as you did on that other occasion. I hope you do not see fit to do so this evening because, as I said before, this is the only method constituents have for bringing the serious situation to the attention of the government. I do not expect the President of the Privy Council to have a great deal of knowledge about this subject, but I should like to refer to it in a general way in order to bring it to the attention of the government.
This is a letter I received a few days ago from a constituent. I will not labour the point, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to put the letter on the record so it is there for the government to consider. It is addressed to me, and I quote:
I am sending you this letter as a farmer, and a member of your constituency, in the hope that I may impress upon you the urgent need for something substantial being applied to the government's agricultural policy.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I say that I am talking about subsidies.
The state of economics and prices being received by a vast majority of the farmers has continued declining to a point where they are at a dangerous level, and cannot be tolerated much longer. In this regard I am not relating to farms which never could maintain a good standard of living for a family, for various reasons, but to the average sized farms which have always provided a plentiful food supply for this country; a feature for which the nation can be thankful.
There have always been suggestions, by the experts, that the answer to the farmers' problem is in increased efficiency, which he has done-three
Supp ly-A griculture
times over in the past few years, more credit, better quality, sales promotion, larger farm units, etc.
Such programs are necessary, always have been and always will be, but they will never function properly until a system is provided whereby a "realistic price" is received by the farmer, for at least the amount that is consumed on the domestic market.
The machinery to make this possible now exists in the farm stabilization act, and if not, then the act should be amended to allow for it. The deficiency payment system provides the means of equitable distribution that farmers receive their fair share of the national income-
A recent survey conducted by M.R.C. Limited, for the C.B.C., clearly indicates that 85 per cent of the urban dwellers believed the farmers should receive more subsidy than they have in the past.
In concluding, he says this:
The situation is critical, and we hope that through your representation, and influence to other members, that positive action may be taken.
This letter is signed by Mr. Don Russell, R.R. No. 7, Markdale, Ontario. As I said initially, I realize my remarks may be slightly irrelevant, so I shall be very brief. Although it would seem that the amount of money farmers have been receiving for their overall operations is a great deal more than it was in the past, yet the net revenue has been dropping each and every year for the last two years. I think it is high time, when we are passing money for grants and subsidies, that the government have a close look at what they are expecting of the farmers, the hours of work involved and the contribution they are making to our society as well as to the world. This is an important factor in our economic life. The government should do everything in its power to see that the net income of farmers is increased rather than decreased as it has been in the last few years.
I have said time and time again that the income from certain phases of farming has gone down and down. We who represent agricultural areas in this house know that is true. The minister for external affairs has entered the chamber and I know he is aware of the serious plight of farmers in western Ontario. Nobody knows it better than he because at one time he specialized in the field of agriculture. He is on a higher plane now, but he knows these things. I am sure he would assist me in making representations to the cabinet to see that the net income farmers are receiving will get immediate attention, but not the kind of attention the Minister of Agriculture gave last fall when he refused to do anything about the turkey producers. As a result, many of these valuable farmers have gone out of business.

Supply-Agriculture


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; I wonder if the hon. member is not abusing the latitude allowed to him to get a letter on the record. I should like to remind him that we are considering item 25d.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I was coming back to that point. I certainly thank you for the latitude you have allowed me thus far and I shall conclude in a moment. I am simply saying I think the time has arrived when we should consider the subsidy the government is giving to other countries and think of the type of agricultural operation we had in Canada. The government should realize the value of the agricultural industry to our economy. They have to make their position clear. Either they are not going to help these farmers by way of subsidy or they are going to make it clear that they will offer the government assistance to make the net return, which has been dropping ever since this government took office, reverse its trend. I ask the government to give every consideration to the maintenance of the family farm and to see that there is an equitable amount of net return to every farmer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
35d.-Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $500,000.
Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
This item concerns the federal government which pays to the provinces half the shipping costs for fodder, hay harvesting equipment and store cattle for the period of July 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965. Could the minister tell us whether the federal government will continue such payments for the months of April and May?


George James McIlraith: If I understand the question correctly the hon. member is asking about a part of the vote that is applicable to the province of Quebec. If I am correct in that, the estimated cost of the approved program between the federal government and the province of Quebec was $400,000, of which the federal share contained in this vote would be $200,000. The program for Quebec was freight assistance on the movement of fodder in that province. The reference in the vote to the movement of cattle is applicable to Saskatchewan and it would not have any effect in the province of Quebec. I am sorry I am not able to give the information as to
[Mr. Winkler.l
the future of the program, since this estimate relates only to the fiscal year which ended yesterday.


Mr. Pascoe:: I was going to ask pretty much the same question and, since the President of the Privy Council has them, I would like the details for Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba.


George James McIlraith: The estimated expenditure for Saskatchewan is $200,000 and it is toward the movement of fodder, haying equipment and cattle. In Manitoba the total estimated expenditure is $100,000 for a freight rate assistance program for the movement of fodder. In Ontario the total estimated cost is $300,000 for the movement of fodder. There does not appear to be provision for Alberta in this program-just the four provinces Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


James Ernest Pascoe: When the minister says the total estimated cost, I take it he means that is the whole cost and the federal government pays half of it?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
45d. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $21,711.
Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the situation that has been created in the mink ranches in my area through the feeding of diethylstilbestrol which, though outlawed for four years, has sterilized a number of ranches. On my own ranch which is of considerable size, embracing 2,800 females and 650 males, 96 per cent of the males have been sterilized.
This is governed by a federal law and I am wondering what can be done by the government in this regard. Feeding stilbestrol to poultry is strictly against the law, but it is used in feeding cattle. Having consulted authorities outside this chamber I can find nobody who will tell me what harm is being done to the health of humans by eating the flesh of these animals so treated. This is quite a serious problem and is going to put some of the smaller ranches out of business, especially people who have had to borrow money in order to carry on and who now find their ranches almost completely sterilized.
I talked to the Minister of Agriculture about the matter this afternoon, but I do not expect him to be familiar with it as he has not had time to learn everything about his department during the short time he has been in charge of it. However, I feel the govern-

ment should find out what can be done to put teeth in the law, in order that the situation may be cleared up and to prevent a recurrence.


Clément Vincent: I should like to ask another question concerning item 45d. First of all, I should like to tell the minister that the farmers who are entitled to some money under this item have been waiting for six, seven or eight months. The cheques should be issued as soon as possible.
My riding is one of those which are most interested in this item because five or six farmers of the Nicolet-Yamaska area are waiting for the payment of those grants.
Could the minister explain to us the case of Mr. B. O. Brown, of Calgary, who is to get $4,470?


George James McIlraith: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member as complete information as I would like concerning the case of this particular farmer. All I can say is that it is compensation for loss of turkey eggs while the turkeys were in quarantine. The hatchery involved is the Chinook Belt turkey hatchery in Calgary and the amount covers payment for loss of some 14,900 eggs.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I understand from the explanations given by the President of the Privy Council that they were turkeys put in quarantine and that is the reason for this vote of $4,470. But I must point out that in northwestern Quebec, at La Sarre, Val d'Or, Ste. Rose de Poularies, etc., there was a disaster two years ago which, at that time, annoyed the farmers of that region because animals and properties were lost. Now, I see absolutely nothing in these supplementary estimates to give assistance to the farmers of that region of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, it is fine to see that an amount of $4,470 will be paid to Mr. Brown, from Calgary, Alberta for the turkeys that he lost. But as usual, we see that large amounts are allocated to the western provinces, while we see amounts such as $33 for Buctouche, New Brunswick; $171 for St. Charles de Mandeville, province of Quebec; $144 for Dequen Nord, province of Quebec; $179 for St. Ferdinand, province of Quebec, etc.
Why is it that in the case of farmers who were the victims of a disaster like the one experienced in Quebec, the government does not make available amounts similar to those
Supply-Agriculture
allocated to Mr. Brown who raises turkeys at Calgary, Alberta?
Mr. Chairman, surely there is discrimination since we see, under item 45d, small amounts of $100, $200 or $300 while an amount of $4,470 is allocated to Mr. B. O. Brown, Calgary, Alberta, as was pointed out by the hon. member who spoke before me.
Mr. Chairman, we do not want to delay the passing of this item, but I would like to hear the minister tell us for what reasons our own farmers are not treated in the same manner.
Vote 45d reads as follows;
Health of animals-payment of compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act-
For the information of all our farmers and of the general public, I would like the minister to give us an accurate definition of the words "contagious diseases".


Mr. Ouellel:: All farmers know that.


David Réal Caouette: If one of them knows that, it is the hon. member for Rimouski, because farmers at home understand nothing of that, as he will see in the next general election.
-which have died or have been slaughtered in circumstances not covered by that act and regulations made thereunder and payment of compensation to an owner for loss of turkey eggs while in quarantine.
Mr. Chairman, turkeys in quarantine and animals slaughtered or quarantined for any reason are mixed up here.
This situation does not exist only in one province of Canada, but in all provinces. I think that we are right when we ask the minister to give the same leeway, opportunities, recognition or respect to the province of Quebec as to any other.
And even if the hon. member for Rimouski says that everybody understands what is a contagious disease-


André Ouellet: Yes, sir.


David Réal Caouette: -he will see at the next general election that with his contagious disease he will never come back to this House of Commons in Ottawa; he will know that then if he does not know it now.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Heal thyself.


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), whip of the Conservative party say-

Supply-Agriculture


Eric Alfred Winkler: I said "Heal thyself."


David Réal Caouette: You said what?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I said "Heal thyself."


David Réal Caouette: All right. But don't go into his constituency and try to have him reelected because you will be a nuisance to the electors. He will not be re-elected, anyway.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the item before us.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, my one question is quite simple. I am asking the minister how come privileges are granted to Mr. Brown, of Calgary, Alberta, because he is raising turkeys, when, a year or two ago, the same privileges were refused to producers in northwestern Quebec. In the county of Chapleau, in the Abitibi area, they could not get anything from the federal government, but this same government is willing to help someone from Alberta. How does the minister explain that?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I would be happy to correct a serious misconception which seems to have arisen about this program. The basis of payment is the same across Canada. In almost all these cases the payments in respect of the loss of animals have been made in the province of Quebec, unfortunately as will be seen from the list.


An hon. Member:: Why?


George James McIlraith: I suppose it is because, unfortunately, they had diseases in their animals.


An hon. Member:: Special cases.


George James McIlraith: These are special cases where animals are not slaughtered in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I could give the number of animals in all cases; there has been one animal involved except in a single case; there is one case where turkey eggs were infected and could not be hatched and raised, unfortunately. However, this money is paid on the same basis across the country and there is no ground whatsoever for the allegation that the farmers in one province are treated differently from farmers in any other province. The legislation is administered in an equal way across the whole of the country, and compensation is based on the

value of the animals and the number of animals lost, not on any other consideration.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) continues in the same vein, I do not usually take exception to his remarks, but this time he attacked precisely the hon. member for Rimouski when he said he did not know the meaning of the word "contagious disease".
The term "contagious disease", found in this act, is known to all farmers. It is a disease or epidemic affecting a great number of cattle. As a matter of fact, this special item relates more particularly to the province of Quebec. In 1960-61, the previous government had begun to check brucellosis in the province of Quebec, and at that time we were not covered by the act.
This item does not apply either to special cases, such as a disaster. This is probably the reason why the hon. member for Villeneuve wondered earlier why some rather special cases were not included in certain areas.
Therefore, it should not be suggested that this legislation does not cover our areas when, up to now, it has covered each of our areas in the province of Quebec.


Lucien Lamoureux: I recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I listened earlier to the answer given by the minister or by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) to the effect that it was unfortunate that the claims from the province of Quebec had not been received earlier. I have just heard now the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) who came to the rescue of his colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Ouellet) who, incidentally never would have made it here without the help of the Rallie-ment Creditiste and our contribution to his election-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. I ask him again to confine his remarks to the item under consideration. I remind him also that he must resume his seat when called to order by the chair.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I intended to resume my seat but you caught me before I had sat down.
We have no objection to helping other regions in Canada, even if item 45d deals


I, 1965
[Stage Direction]
with contagious diseases or payment of compensation to owners for the loss of turkeys put in quarantine. However, it seems to me that this provision should apply to the whole of Canada not to one region only.
When the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska says that this item must not apply to other things, I submit that in all those supplementary estimates there is not a single item which deals for instance with those disasters we experienced in our area, at which time we asked the Minister of Agriculture to help the farmers of northwestern Quebec. And the minister replied quite candidly: Quebec did not ask us for help, it did not make an application, it did not ask for anything, therefore Ottawa withdraws. But at the same time Ottawa continues to levy taxes and collect from the farmers as it does from the labourers, the miners and everyone else.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister and to the hon. gentleman who is with him tonight and who is not the Minister of Agriculture but the President of the Privy Council who has probably never seen a hen laying an egg or how a calf is raised and who has probably never seen a crop of wheat, oats or hay, on the farm of the hon. member for Rimouski and who perhaps has never seen a sap bucket-
Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We are now dealing with contagious diseases and, therefore, the matter of another disaster should not be discussed-


David Réal Caouette: Another disaster.


Clément Vincent: -we are dealing with an entirely different matter, that of diseases.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I point out to the hon. member for Villeneuve that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska is well taken and that we are now considering vote 45d concerning grants to owners of animals affected with contagious diseases and, consequently, I would ask him to confine his remarks to that particular item.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing to do so, but when the hon. member speaks about other disasters, he is fully aware that the only disaster, apart from the agricultural disaster and the item we are now considering, that is vote 45d, is the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska.
Mr. Chairman, I was perhaps out of order, but I want the minister who is replacing at present the Minister of Agriculture in order
Supply-Agriculture
to answer our questions regarding this item, the President of the Privy Council, since the Minister of Agriculture knows nothing about agriculture-he is never here.


Mr. Boulanger:: That is not fair.


David Réal Caouette: Let the President of the Privy Council tell us-he is often here, but he knows nothing about agriculture. I should like the minister to tell us-


Harry William Hays: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think I should bring to the attention of the minister that the hon. member for Villeneuve has the floor and should be allowed to complete his remarks-


Harry William Hays: I just wanted to ask a question.


Lucien Lamoureux: -unless the hon. member who does have the floor wishes to reply to a question.

Unless the hon. member is willing to allow the Minister of Agriculture to ask him a question.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Harry William Hays: I just want to know whether the hon. member realizes what the disease of rabies actually involves. I think this is what we are discussing at the moment. Perhaps he is unfamiliar with it. Is this 45e?


David Réal Caouette: No, 45d. Even the Minister of Agriculture does not know what we are discussing at this time, and he is the Minister of Agriculture of Canada. I cannot visualize this thing or understand it.

Mr. Chairman, at any rate, would the President of the Privy Council, who is an able substitute for the Minister of Agriculture, tell me why Quebec is not granted the same privileges as Mr. Brown from Calgary, Alberta?
Are we just raising turkeys in Canada since we have a Liberal government, or have we got something else to do?


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should not want the item to carry without my making a recommendation to the Minister of Agriculture.
It has to do with the compensation paid for cattle destroyed under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. The minister will surely

Supp ly-A griculture
remember that we Conservatives raised from $40 to $70 the compensation for grade cattle and from $70 to $100 the compensation for pure bred animals. However, in agriculture as in other fields related to cattle breeding, the value of cattle goes up from year to year.
In my opinion, the minister would be well advised to give special consideration to this situation and to increase the compensation paid to farmers who must destroy cattle struck down by contagious diseases.
I should also like to draw the minister's attention to the need to widen the scope of the provisions of the act. It is a well known fact that some contagious diseases, especially among poultry, are not covered by the present act. As far as possible, compensation should be paid for every contagious disease because one has to be familiar with the problems of farmers in times of difficulty to realize that something must be done in that respect.
Therefore I ask the minister to give very special attention to this problem, because on some occasions the present condition puts our farmers in very adverse situations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage
projects-
55d. Irrigation and water storage projects-to extend the purposes of agriculture vote 55 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to include Canada's fee for membership in the international commission on irrigation and drainage, and a special contribution of 16,500 rupees to the international commission on irrigation and drainage for construction of a central office building at New Delhi, India, $1.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Chairman, with regard to this rabies question on 45d I should just like to ask whether-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. We are now considering 55d. Is that the item to which the hon. member is referring?


Lawrence E. Watson: No, 45d, rabies. I was just wondering-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The committee has passed 45d, but I assume that the minister would want to hear the question of the hon. member relating to 45d even though the vote has been approved.


Lawrence E. Watson: I thought we had just finished talking about turkeys and had not got into rabies yet. I wonder whether the $9,400 can be broken down into provinces, so as to give us an idea which provinces have more rabies than others.


Harry William Hays: I would be glad to do that. It seems to me that the greater part of the $9,400 so far as rabies is concerned was spent in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan. Recently there was an outbreak just outside Brampton. Rabies vaccinations are being given, but I would be glad to break the figure down province by province.


Lawrence E. Watson: Could the minister possibly tell me which animals are mostly affected by this?


Harry William Hays: These are domestic animals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
60d. Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including the South Saskatchewan river project, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program, land protection, reclamation and development-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,500,000.
Mr. Southam:: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to this $1,500,000. The supplementary estimate specifies "construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment," in connection with the South Saskatchewan river project. Could the minister give the house a brief outline of the specific items of expenditure?


Harry William Hays: The total involvement so far as the Saskatchewan government and the Dominion of Canada are concerned is around $125 million. At the moment the area to be flooded is being cleared and we are purchasing land and buildings from farmers adjacent to the river. The expenditure this year is, I think, $17,090,000, of which about $1.5 million will be used for purchase of land and buildings. This is land adjacent to the river which will be required when the dam is completed and will be flooded with water. If the hon. member would like a breakdown I can provide a breakdown of how this amount is to be spent.


Richard Russell Southam: I do not know whether this would be an appropriate time to ask this question, but it might be of interest to the committee as well. Could the minister estimate when this project will be completed in its entirety?


Harry William Hays: I cannot give the exact date, but we are six or seven months behind schedule so far as estimated date of completion is concerned. I think things have accelerated a little and that the project will be on time. Not being sure I would not like to say, but I think it is to be completed in 1967. However, I can get the date. I think we are now operating on schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

SOd.-Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board as at March 31, 1965, $57,118,000.
Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to inform the committee how the $57 million odd was lost, and in respect of which products it was lost?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I could give the exact figures by looking them up, but if my memory serves me correctly this loss was incurred in respect of butter. We purchased surplus butter at 64 cents a pound and sold it from 27J cents per pound to 37 cents per pound in the form of butter oil.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of the presence of the Minister of Agriculture in the house. He has stated that this $57 million was lost as a result of subsidies in respect of butter. In view of the fact that we on this side of the house have been trying to get the minister to state some policy in respect of agricultural subsidies, I should like to know what government policy is regarding subsidies on sugar beets and soybeans. I should like to also point out that there has been very little change in the amount of the subsidy paid in respect of eggs, which have brought a very low price this year.
Would the minister also inform the committee as to government policy in respect of the dairy industry. He made some announcement last Friday, but the measures contained in that policy will not achieve a minimum of $3.50 per hundred pounds. Is it government policy to establish definite subsidies in respect of agricultural products? Many commodities produced in Canada at this time require the assistance of the government in the way of subsidies. Many of these agricultural industries are in dire need of assistance and I should like to know whether the government intends to follow its patchwork assistance policy in respect of individual problems as they arise, or whether the government is going to adopt a definite stabilization policy in respect of the various agricultural needs. I am sure all members of this committee are interested in knowing what the minister has in mind in this regard.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has asked several questions and I believe I can answer them all by stating the policy adopted by the government in respect of the dairy industry. Before doing so I should like to state that we support the sugar beet industry under a stabilization program to the extent of $14.35 per ton, which is the highest
Supp ly-A gricu Iture
subsidy paid in respect of sugar beets in the history of this industry in Canada. I have had discussions with the president of the sugar beet association and I understand from that gentleman that they are very pleased with government policy in this regard. Under the present policy this industry will be supported to the extent of 104 per cent on a five-year average.
Regarding the dairy assistance program, the cost to the government this year will be substantial and will amount to something between $65 million and $70 million. In respect of producers who produce between 10,000 and 50,000 pounds, things being equal, the price will be about $3.55, less the export subsidy. For those who produce between 50,000 pounds and 100,000 pounds, or a few pounds short of that maximum, the price will be $3.40.
This program is really in two parts. The price of milk for manufacturing purposes at this time is between $3.10 and $3.20. The difference between $3.15, or whatever it may be, and $3.30 will be paid in the form of deficiency payments. The difference between $3.30 and $3.50 will be paid to each producer on the basis of 1964-65 shipments. This policy has been adopted so that we will not find ourselves in the surplus position we found ourselves in a few years ago. That is a very undesirable situation, as I think everyone will admit. Approximately six years ago we found ourselves with a 17 per cent surplus of dairy products, but in 1964 it appears that the surplus will be only about 2 per cent, or slightly more.
The dairy industry is a very important industry in Canada, and in many other countries, for that matter. We feel that we must have a dairy industry in Canada, but we feel at the same time that the producer must participate and receive fair remuneration. For this reason, when the circumstances demand, we feel that some assistance should be provided.
It is our feeling that if a 40-hour week is the ultimate for industry generally, it should also apply to the dairy farmers. The program announced in the house a day or two ago in respect of dairy farming will not accomplish all those things we think should be accomplished, but will alleviate the situation somewhat. It would be very difficult to put through legislation this year to establish a Canadian dairy commission which would be responsible for the whole dairy program. However, representatives of the dairy industry in Quebec and in Ontario are in agreement and pleased with what we are doing generally in respect of the

Supply-Agriculture
dairy industry. I hope that the legislatures of those two provinces will introduce legislation before their sessions have concluded this year, which will assist in programs designed to help this industry.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, my question relates to vote 75d, but Your Honour recognized the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) before I had an opportunity of speaking. Perhaps I may be allowed to ask my question now. Will the minister explain what this prairie farm emergency fund is, and why it requires the expenditure of $367,000?


Harry William Hays: You are referring to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act item, is that correct?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am referring to vote 75d in relation to the prairie farm emergency fund in the amount of $367,000.


Harry William Hays: Under the provisions of the act a farmer contributes to this fund 1 per cent of the value of grain sales made to licensed grain dealers. Advances are made from this fund, if warranted, by the minister of finance, and the moneys are taken from the consolidated revenue fund with the approval of the governor in council. A review of this program indicates that an amount of $367,000 will be required during the month of March to supplement this prairie farm emergency fund, which is covered by the vote to which you have referred. I assume this would be the amount that would represent the shortage in the amount collected under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Was the money from this fund paid out as the act stipulates, on the 31st of December of the crop year? It does refer to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Harry William Hays: It operates from April 1 to January 31 and the receipts from the levy amounted to $8,847,000. The total collected was $8,470,000 between April 1 and January 31. Between February 1 and March 31 the estimated amount would be $800,000 for a total of $9,270,000. The total amount to be paid out would be $9,637,000, leaving a difference of this amount, $367,000.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I wonder whether we are talking about the same act. Is this fund set up under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act or some other act?


Harry William Hays: It is set up under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
[Mr. Hays.l


John (Jack) McIntosh: From what month to what
month did the minister say the year's operation was?


Harry William Hays: From April 1 to January 31
the actual amount was $8,470,000. This was the levy. The balance is the estimated amount up until March 31, which is $800,000, and the difference between what we collected and what we had to pay out is the $367,000 which is in the supplementary estimates.


Mr. Mclniosh:: Have these payments been held up until the vote is passed or were they paid on the 31st of December according to the act?


Harry William Hays: I would have to check on that before I could be sure as to when they were paid and exactly how they were paid.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could satisfy the hon. member. He will find a provision in the Appropriation Act dealing with final sup-plementaries. Section 5 of that act provides that amounts appropriated by that act may be paid at any time up until the 30th day of April. It covers the very point that the hon. member has raised. He will find it in the final appropriation act every year.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I want to know whether these P.F.A.A. cheques went out by the end of March. Just answer yes or no.


Harry William Hays: I can only say that as far as I am concerned as Minister of Agriculture the payments have gone out in exactly the same way as they have in previous years. I have not held up any payments. If they have been paid out previously by the 31st of March, that is exactly the way it would have been done.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Are all the payments made now?


Harry William Hays: I could not tell you.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has referred again tonight to the proposed dairy policy and legislation that will be introduced later. May I once again say that there is concern in some areas over the possibility of this legislation interfering with provincial legislation. This is so in British Columbia. Can the minister assure us tonight that the proposed legislation will not in any way interfere with or supersede provincial legislation with regard to dairy policy?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, as has been indicated, the milk situation in British Columbia is quite a bit different in that most, if not

all, of the business is in fluid milk. Therefore this legislation will not affect British Columbia, nor will it affect Saskatchewan to a great extent because we are not changing the fluid milk situation at all.


Alexander Bell Patterson: May I also ask the minister if the stock of butter has been completely cleared out or if there is still a substantial amount on hand at the present time?


Harry William Hays: The government, of course, buys butter and sells butter and subsidizes the consumer. We buy butter at 64 cents a pound and sell it at 53 cents. Because it is a seasonal operation and in order to take care of the supply situation we have kept five million pounds of butter oil which we thought we should keep and about 75 to 80 million pounds of butter. We could have eliminated the butter surplus completely but it was felt that this would be a safe amount to have on hand. It would appear that we may have a deficit position in so far as butter is concerned in that we will be consuming five or ten million pounds more than we will be producing. This is why we feel that this is a safe amount to keep in store. We felt that we should probably keep about 80 million pounds on hand.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in some difficulty in trying to understand the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. He said that the dairy people in British Columbia are only in the fluid milk business. If that is so, then as a British Columbia member I should like to know why the Fraser valley milk producers association, and others, have sent us detailed letters expressing great concern over the proposed policy and saying that if it is implemented by the federal government it will completely disrupt their operations. In view of the fact that I and others have received letters of this type from the Fraser valley milk producers association, the largest organization in this field in British Columbia, can we have a definite statement from the minister that the federal legislation will not supersede the provincial legislation or that at least there will be co-operation with the provincial authorities in drafting the federal legislation?


Harry William Hays: I am pleased to assure the hon. member that this will take place. I also received a letter from the president of the Fraser valley milk producers association with regard to a press report he saw. This was before we made any announcement in the house. The situation in British Columbia is
Supply-Agriculture
that it is an importing province so far as cheese and butter are concerned. As a matter of fact, western Canada will import 30 million pounds of cheese from eastern Canada. They are not self-sufficient in cheese. The Fraser valley milk producers are in the fluid milk business. Under the new policy the province will retain its jurisdiction and responsibility. I can assure hon. members that this whole program will be worked out in close consultation with the provinces. I do not think anyone need worry about it. I am in constant touch with the minister of agriculture of British Columbia.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, the point that puzzles me is that the minister keeps reiterating that the Fraser valley milk producers are only in the fluid milk business, whereas those of us from British Columbia at least are well aware that there are other aspects of their business and that a good part of the milk goes into various manfactured milk products. This is the aspect of the matter that is creating some concern, but the minister keeps talking about fluid milk, which to the layman in the dairy field is most puzzling in the light of what we know about the operations of this organization.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, British Columbia has always had a pooling arrangement which is operated under provincial jurisdiction. When we supported dairy products last year we did not support any milk surplus to fluid milk, and this program does not support milk surplus to fluid milk. In British Columbia the biggest percentage of the milk is sold as fluid milk, and only that portion which is surplus to fluid milk goes into cream and a small amount of butter and milk powder.
I suppose the dairy industry of British Columbia is in probably the best shape of any in Canada. They have taken the lead a number of years ago, and I assure the hon. member we are in close touch with British Columbia. We are mainly concerned with the supply of fluid milk. If a public utility board says fluid milk costs $5.25 a hundred to produce, we want to see that the producer gets at least 90 per cent or 95 per cent of it. The producer gets $3.50 for milk that goes into manufacturing.
Now, if he is a real good operator, and you have a real good manufacturer, if the producer bargains properly it is possible he will get $3.60 per hundred for milk. If Quebec is going to support milk, as they have indicated they are going to do in their white paper, the Quebec producer will receive around $4 per

Supply-Agriculture
hundred and fluid milk will probably be something like $5.25. I do not believe British Columbia will be unhappy with this program. I am quite sure they will be well pleased with it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask the minister this question? Can he assure the house that this new policy does not conflict with the B.C. dairy industry act and regulations; that is what they are concerned about.


Harry William Hays: Yes, I am pleased to assure the hon. member that this will not happen.


Mr. Chailerlon:: The minister has been using a lot of words, but I think he had better consult again with the minister of agriculture for British Columbia. In the first place, the minister said that B.C. milk producers shipped fluid milk. However, there are three pool areas in British Columbia. Outside of these pool areas there are shippers who ship entirely for manufacture. My first question is this: When the dairy producers outside of the three areas ship only for manufacture, are they subject to the same policy the minister announced on Friday?
Second, those producers in the three areas who ship into the fluid milk market have a portion of their milk which goes into manufacture. Is this portion subject to the subsidy policy announced by the minister last Friday?


Harry William Hays: Well, yes and no, Mr. Chairman. Last year the portion of milk that was surplus to the fluid milk market was not supported, except that portion which found its way into butter. Those producers received the 64 cents. Now, if producers are shipping to the manufacture market, no matter where it may go, they will receive the deficiency payment, that is the difference between the $3.10 and $3.15, to bring it up to $3.30. Then they will receive a lump sum to bring it up to $3.50. If my memory serves me correctly, the proportion of producers who will receive this is something like 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the producers in British Columbia. I may say that about 70 per cent of all these dairy products produced in Canada are now produced in western Quebec and eastern Ontario.
So, the great bulk of the cream producers- we have 75,000 of them in Saskatchewan and 215,000 in Canada-will receive these deficiency payments, and also the lump sum bringing the price of manufactured milk from the $3.10 or $3.15 which is now negotiated with the plants, up to a maximum of $3.50 for those producers who produce from 10,000 pounds to 50,000 pounds.


George Louis Chatterton: Again, the minister has used a lot of words but he has not answered my question. In the first place, those producers who are not within the three pools in British Columbia and who ship entirely for manufacturing purposes, are they subject to the subsidies announced by the minister last week?


Harry William Hays: Yes.


George Louis Chatterton: Of those who ship to the pools, their milk is divided into a certain percentage to the fluid milk market and another percentage to what they call class 2 or class 3 milk, which is generally for manufacturing purposes. Does that portion of their milk which goes into manufacture, class 2 or 3, become subject to the subsidy announced by the minister?


Harry William Hays: Not in British Columbia or in any other province in Canada.


George Louis Chatterton: That is an answer.


Mr. Thomas:: I have a question with regard to the sale of butter. I understood the minister to say some of this butter was sold at 37 cents a pound, or less. Can the minister tell us if any of this cheap butter was sold in Canada, and if not, why not?


Harry William Hays: This butter, with the exception of some of the butter oil which was sold several years ago to bakeries, was not sold in Canada. The butter was sold abroad. Had we seen fit to sell it in Canada, we would probably have broken the whole dairy industry. We were supporting butter at 64 cents, and we were selling it at 53 cents. When butter was selling above 60 cents a pound, consumption had dropped to an all time low of 13 pounds per capita. As long as we do not increase the price beyond 60 cents, our consumption will hold up. This year it appears as if Canadians are going to consume 19, almost 20 pounds per capita. We could have put this butter on the market, but I do not believe it would have been good for the dairy industry. The butter was sold abroad. We are still subsidizing the consumer by about 11 cents a pound.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Is butter oil still made available to manufacturers in Canada?


Harry William Hays: No, there is no butter oil made available now. The only butter oil we have is about five million pounds which we are keeping in case of emergency, just as we keep about four million pounds of powdered milk.


Mr. Nasserden:: I should like to refer to the operations of the stabilization board, par-

ticularly with regard to eggs and hogs. We know that at the moment the price of hogs looks rather attractive to some people. It is only that way because the price was so low not long ago many of the farmers went out of business. When you take a look at the price of eggs, you think the same thing is going to happen.
I recall that about two years ago I asked the minister if he would bring the various stabilization boards before the agriculture committee at an early date to allow the members of that committee to look into the operations of that act. The program has been under way for seven years now without a chance to look at it. We should have an opportunity to make recommendations to revise the regulations so as to improve this act. I ask the minister if he will give us assurance that the operations of the Agricultural Stabilization Act will be subject to review by a committee during the next session of the house?


Harry William Hays: I certainly would be pleased to consider this.
In so far as hogs are concerned, I believe they are supported at $23.65, and the Toronto price is running around $27 or $27.65. Now, this is over 100 per cent of the ten year base.
We are supporting eggs at 34 cents a dozen. I agree with the hon. member that it is a most difficult thing to regulate. One must keep the producers well informed because, for instance, in the province of Quebec the production of eggs has increased by something over 25 per cent, and in Manitoba by 17 or 18 per cent. I agree that the sales of chicks are away down, and probably the price of eggs will be a great deal higher, but I would be very pleased to bring the whole act before the stabilization board.


Edward Nasserden: We have heard all about this "considering" business before. Would the minister give a commitment that it will be brought before the committee? For the life of me, I cannot see why he should be reluctant to have members of the house look at the operations of the act. It has been in force for seven years without there being an opportunity to look at it. It was a new piece of legislation and it is not operating sucessfully from the standpoint of producers who have been forced out of the business. Why not say we can take a look at it?


Clément Vincent: 
Lucien Lamoureux: It does seem to me that the point just raised has nothing whatever to do with the item now before us. The item of $57 million now under discussion relates to expenditures for the current year and not the forthcoming year. The hon. member is attempting to deal with the whole program of subsidies on farm products for a forthcoming year, but I suggest that the questions he is raising are far beyond the scope of the item before us.


John Angus MacLean: What amount of surplus butter is in storage, whether in the form of butter or butter oil, and by how much has the stock in storage been reduced during the fiscal year just ended?


Harry William Hays: If my memory serves me correctly I think we had 239 million pounds in storage. We now have about 75 million pounds of butter and five million pounds of butter oil. This is something less than we estimated we may require, but it is enough for the moment. Our deficit position would likely be between five million and 10 million

Supply-Agriculture
pounds. With our system of buying and selling butter the department feels we should keep between 70 million and 80 million pounds on hand. We have no surplus butter.


John Angus MacLean: 1 realize that; so this vote is to recoup the net operating losses of the agricultural stabilization board which, I understand, disposed of something like 140 million pounds of butter in the last fiscal year, and this was paid for from estimates passed in previous years. I do not know the amount realized from these sales, but is it not correct to assume this item would have to be increased by that amount, as if the butter had not been sold and was still carried as an asset?


Harry William Hays: You will remember that last year we showed the loss on butter and wrote it all off in one big sweep of $120 million. In the last 12 months we sold $36 million worth of butter, which went into the stabilization board revolving fund. This amount of $57 million is the difference between what we buy and sell. I may not be accurate because I am quoting from memory, but I believe the program this year costs $47 million.


John Angus MacLean: I realize that; but my question has not yet been answered. Does the amount realized from the sale of butter that has been in storage remain in the agricultural stabilization fund, or does it go into general revenue?


Harry William Hays: The amount that is sold?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, the proceeds from what is sold the previous year?


Harry William Hays: The proceeds of the stored butter went into general revenue.


George Louis Chatterton: I want to raise what may be a small point so far as the over-all situation is concerned, but it is an important one to some of the lamb producers on southern Vancouver island and the gulf islands. A $2 subsidy is paid for grade A-l lambs, but it is paid only when a lamb is certified by a licensed abattoir. There is only one such abattoir on lower Vancouver island, and it charges $3.25 for slaughtering, and keeps the hide, which is worth another 25 cents.
The B.C. government has its own meat inspection service, and I wonder if the minister could not make an arrangement whereby lamb producers could slaughter on their farms and take the carcasses to the inspectors of the B.C. government, who could certify them according to the standards set

for grade A-l lamb. I am not asking for an answer; I am only asking the minister to take it into consideration.


Harry William Hays: I will be glad to do so.


Edward Nasserden: Could the minister put on the record the total amount expected for egg support for the current year, and could he give us a commitment that the operations of the stabilization act will be brought for study before the agriculture committee next session?


Harry William Hays: I will be pleased to put the amount on the record, and give very careful consideration to the other.


Edward Nasserden: I do not know whether the minister got what I was trying to get across, but so far as I am concerned I do not think there is much use in passing this particular item.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that he has asked the same question twice and the minister has given an answer. He cannot go on asking the same question eternally.


Edward Nasserden: Well, Mr. Chairman, if that is the way the Chair feels about this whole matter, there are a whole lot of questions that could be asked if it were brought before the agriculture committee, and I would just as soon ask them right here and now, if you have the time.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Harold Warren Danforth: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a correction I think he would like to make in Hansard. Referring to the dairy policy which he announced last Friday and referring specifically to the subsidy which is being paid between the $3.50 and the $3.30 the minister stated a few moments ago that this was based on production in 1963-64. I think the minister meant 1964-65 production.


Harry William Hays: That is right. I shall make it.


Harold Warren Danforth: I was interested in the minister's assertion that the president of the sugar beet growers has expressed satisfaction with the action of the government. May I ask him whether this is the national president or the Ontario president, or whether both are expressing satisfaction with the subsidized price?


Harry William Hays: The national president wrote me and the other president telephoned me.


Harold Warren Danforth: I should like to make sure of this because I know the provincial president in 1962 said the stabilized price of $13.72 was so low as to be an insult to the industry. In view of increased expenses since 1962, is the association now taking the view that an increase of only 63 cents a ton or approximately $8 or $9 an acre is sufficient?


Harry William Hays: Of course, as the hon. member knows, it is a complicated set-up, now, with the price based on London prices. But a year ago they were receiving up to $17 and $18 a ton for beets. This raises the average. If the producers do a good job of negotiating this could be $15, and it is satisfactory when they figure out just what it really means to them.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I ask the minister in conclusion whether it is his opinion that the price will be in excess of $15 for the 1965 crop?


Harry William Hays: I cannot say. It depends on how well the producers negotiate with the factories. I am sure some of our producers are astute enough to see that the price is very close to this amount.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I was most surprised a moment ago to hear the minister draw a bright picture of our farmers' situation. In my opinion, he is not yet aware that in 1964 the basic income of Quebec farmers went down by $4 million.
I submit that before making such inaccurate statements he should take a close look at the situation; that would prevent him from making statements like the one he made recently when he claimed that a Quebec farmer could earn an adequate income with six cows and two pigs. I would say that it is irresponsible statements like that which irritate Quebec farmers the most and make them hate this government.
I was also surprised to hear the minister say that the sugar beet producers were most satisfied with the increase of 63 cents per ton granted them a while ago.
For his information, I must say that the figures I obtained about a week ago is to the effect that there was no contract signed with respect to sugar beet until last week. Producers do not want to sign contracts unless they have a guaranteed price of $16 per ton. In fact, in an article published on February 4, 1965, in Le Courrier of St. Hyacinthe, it is said that to grow an acre of sugar beets, the farmer must spend the sum 20220-827
S upply-A gricu Uure
of $181.85 in administrative and farming costs. They also say that with a minimum price of $16 per ton, the producer could make a net profit of $42.15 per acre.
Mr. Chairman, I should like the Minister of Agriculture to give consideration to the growing of sugar beets and also to a support price for soybeans. As far as the latter is concerned, he could get information and assistance from his colleague from Essex East (Mr. Martin), because, in the past, the Secretary of State for External Affairs devoted particular attention to that kind of product. This is why, today, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to advise his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who really needs it.
It is said that two heads are better than one and I think that if the ministers put their heads together, the farmers would benefit.
But I will repeat that up to last week not a single producer had signed a contract with respect to sugar beets, because the producers believe that unless they get a guaranteed price of $16 a ton, it is not worth their while to grow sugar beets.
Although the minister has just depicted a very optimistic picture as regards agricultural conditions, I suggest he is wrong and that he should not keep on misleading the farmers, who merely want to earn a living and secure the share they deserve from the national revenue.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall this vote carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Lucien Lamoureux: Vote No. 85d.


Edward Nasserden: Could the minister tell us how many thousands of eggs were supported during the past year, the number of farmers receiving the support and the amount of payments by provinces.


Harry William Hays: I do not have this information in my head, but I will be pleased to get it for the hon. member.


Edward Nasserden: Would the minister mind leaving this vote stand until we have the information?


Lucien Lamoureux: Vote 80d was called and carried.


Edward Nasserden: I was on my feet.


Lucien Lamoureux: Of course the Chair is in the hands of the committee. I called 80d. The hon. member was not on his feet. If the com-

Supp ly-A griculture
mittee agrees, I could go back to 80d, or if the hon. member wishes to make a motion he can do so.


Edward Nasserden: You looked the other way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: I did not look the other way. I knew the hon. member had a special interest in that item and I looked his way. If the committee wishes to stand the item it is up to the committee to do so, or the hon. member can make a motion to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
90d. Estimated amount required to provide for the operating loss of the Farm Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965-$1,540,000.
Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to vote 90d, we are asked to vote an amount of $1,540,000:
90d. To provide for the operating loss of the Farm Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965.
Can the minister tell us what those operating losses cover? Are they related to loans which were not paid back? Are they related to an unexpected rise in operating costs or to a difference between the interest rate paid by the Farm Credit Corporation and the one charged to borrowers?


Harry William Hays: This amount is the operating cost of the corporation. The losses of the corporation due to bad debts is something less than $6,000. The $1,500,000 is the operating cost, and this is the way they handle their bookkeeping.


Vincent Drouin: Is there any explanation for or any particular reason why such a large amount as $1,540,000 is required over and above what has already been provided to cover an operation deficit? I presume that an item had been provided in the main estimates to cover that deficit. Now, a further amount of $1,540,000 is required. Is there any particular reason for this?


Harry William Hays: Part of this money is in the interest loss, the difference between the 5 per cent and what the government has to pay for money. The other figure is the operating cost, which really is not high when you consider that the corporation now has out something nearing half a billion dollars. The
[The Chairman.]
loans last year amounted to something like $190 million.


Mr. Forbes:: Is it safe to say that part of this loss is due to repossession of lands on which there were mortgages?


Mr.   Hayes@: No, none of this amount is involved in that. The losses of the corporation amount to $6,000.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Has the minister any breakdown of these losses by province?


Harry William Hays: No, this is the complete loss.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
95d. Payment to the Farm Credit Corporation for carrying out the purposes of the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, $50,000.
Edward Nasserden: Could the minister tell us what has been the response to the farm syndicates legislation, how many applications have been received, and how many approved?


Harry William Hays: The enthusiasm is fantastic. We are just completing the first $100,000 loan in the hon. member's province. In Quebec we have some 40 people participating in a loan. I cannot give you the exact number of applications, but the ones being processed are up in the hundreds.


James Ernest Pascoe: The minister mentioned a loan of $100,000. How many people are involved in that particular loan?


Harry William Hays: I am not sure the exact amount, but I think something like 20.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been very interested in this legislation and I supported it wholeheartedly because it is based on a sound principle. But what has been done in British Columbia to date with respect to this act?


Harry William Hays: I cannnot tell the hon. member exactly what has been done in British Columbia, but I would be glad to make inquiries and let him know.


Lawrence E. Watson: The minister mentioned one $100,000 deal in Saskatchewan. Could he tell the committee how many there were altogether, and break them down?


Harry William Hays: They are just being processed. I cannot do it now but I would be glad to get the information.


Mr. Fane:: 
Harry William Hays: I would be glad to give the hon. member this information, including the loans in Vegreville.


Mr. Perron:: The minister has just quoted figures for the province of Quebec. I understand that about 40 persons benefited under the act. Does he mean that 40 persons resorted to this act? We know that three persons can form a syndicate. Does he mean that ten syndicates or 40 persons obtained loans in the province of Quebec?


Harry William Hays: The hon. member misunderstood me. When I said there was one loan being processed in Quebec, 40 farmers were involved in one syndicate. Three farmers is the minimum syndicate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: This completes the supplementary estimates for the Department of Agriculture.


DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Id. Departmental administration. $24,500.
Erik Nielsen: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. I do not expect an answer tonight but I should like the President of the Privy Council to give me an undertaking that we will have the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration write me a letter within a week, say, giving me the reasons for the dropping of the charge against Joe Bonanno. I understand he was charged with an offence under the Citizenship Act and the charge was dropped. If the minister would write me a letter within five or seven days giving the reasons for dropping the charge I will be happy.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I can give an undertaking in that form, but I will certainly see that the point which is raised is drawn to the minister's attention and the information provided. But I do not know if I can give an undertaking that he will write a letter within five days. I do not know whether the minister's office runs more smoothly than mine, but I do hope the hon. member will not insist on that.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure it runs more smoothly now than it did, but as long as the minister says that the information will be provided, I will be happy.
13075
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Harold Edward Winch: I have one question, although one could speak a long time on this estimate. My question is directed to the government house leader and President of the Privy Council. In the House of Commons we have a comparatively new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but there is no basic difference between the latest pronouncements of this minister and his four predecessors going back over seven years. Each and every one starts out by saying their major concern is to bring in a revised citizenship and immigration act. Five ministers in a row have said their top priority is a new amended act. Can the government house leader give us an assurance, a commitment, that we will not have to say in the next session: "Blessed are those who run around in circles because they shall be known as big wheels"? Are we having early next session a revised citizenship and immigration act?


George James McIlraith: I do not think the hon. member really wants me to anticipate the throne speech. It would not be wise for me to make any remarks which would indicate what may or may not be in that speech, but I would hope to have that information very quickly.


Harold Edward Winch: May I point out that this measure has been mentioned in throne speech after throne speech, but we have yet to see a new act. If it is in the throne speech next week I hope it will be acted upon and that the government will fulfil what is promised.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
ImmigrationlOd. Administration, operation and maintenance including trans-oeeanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment: and payments to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $418,000.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration estimates perhaps we might call it ten o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is vote lOd carried? [Translation]


Gérard Perron: I have a question. There is an nem here for $294,000 for trans-oceanic and inland transportation of immigrants and settlers and other assistance.
Is the minister in a position to tell us whether this vote includes the transportation costs, as it was announced nearly a year ago,
13076	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in connection with the Algerians who were to settle particularly in the province of Quebec?
I would like to know if this vote involves this group of immigrants, namely, the number of Algerian families who settled in Canada. Has a part of these estimates been allocated to this group of immigrants? Where did they settle?


George James McIlraith: The main feature of this item, Mr. Chairman, is represented by the additional promotional activity. I am afraid the information the hon. member has asked for is not available to me at this time, but I will be pleased to undertake to ask the minister to provide that information in respect of Algerian farmers.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask another question of the hon. minister concerning immigration.
In view of the fact that as far as I know, in my own district, we pay the moving costs of families who at present are unemployed due to the termination of mining activities in the Megantic district and elsewhere and who wish to migrate to the United States in order to find employment, will this vote allow Canadian citizens to go elsewhere than to the United States? Changes of abode are being mentioned, but it is not stated if this is effected merely in one direction, that is, respecting immigration. Does this vote also apply toward the expenditures or travelling expenses and assistance respecting persons who wish to emigrate?
This is the question I would like to ask: Does this item providing for the admission of immigrants in this country include amounts for assisting persons who wish to leave Canada and migrate to the United States?


George James McIlraith: No. Mr. Chairman, it does not include anything for those people. This is in respect of immigrants to be brought to Canada.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, would the President of the Privy Council explain the reference in this vote to indigent immigrants?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not see anything in the detail of this supplementary estimate in respect of indigent immigrants. This supplementary estimate follows the wording of the main vote, but there is nothing in the detail of it in respect of indigent immigrants. This item has relation to trans-
[Mr. Perron. 1
oceanic transport for immigrants, food, shelter and incidental expenses, but there is nothing in it in relation to indigents.


Edward Nasserden: I may be mistaken in my understanding, Mr. Chairman, but does the law not now provide in some way for individuals coming to Canada under a guarantee posted by someone else?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Do you not know that it is ten o'clock?


George James McIlraith: I am afraid I did not hear the hon. member's question.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could call it ten o'clock and leave my question until tomorrow.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the hon. member would repeat his question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. If we had a little more order in the committee, perhaps the minister would be able to hear the question asked by the hon. member for Rosthern.


Edward Nasserden: I am trying to find out whether there has been any change in the government's attitude in respect of indigent immigrants to Canada.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I am not able to give an accurate or definitive answer to the hon. member's question, but I will be very pleased to undertake to ask the minister to provide that answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: It being after ten o'clock shall I rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it my understanding that certain hon. members have called it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Frank Howard: It is ten o'clock, whether or not we want to call it that, Mr. Chairman.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


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

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works an opportunity to show his mettle. On March 311 addressed a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works in order that I might reply to many questions which have been directed to me by people in my constituency who are concerned about the particular and unusual situation. My question was:
Will the parliamentary secretary inform the house as to whether his department accepts responsibility for replacing wharves, launching ramps, rip-rap. pilings and dredging on the completion of the Columbia river treaty projects?
Naturally the people of my district are very concerned about the effect that the Columbia river treaty will have on their lives and their communities. They are also concerned about the clearing of the basins behind the High Arrow, Mica Creek and Duncan lake dams according to the standards established by the west Kootenay rod and gun association, which standards were later endorsed by the British Columbia fish and game federation.
However, the people who still reside in what is left of various communities between Robson and Revelstoke are anxious to know who is responsible for rebuilding the various wharves, launching ramps and other facilities which to date have been undertaken at the expense of the federal Department of Public Works. As far as one can judge at the present time, wharves or launching ramps will be required at Deer Park, Broadwater, Edgewood, Needles, Fauquier, Burton, East and West Arrow Park, Nakusp, St. Leon Hotsprings, Halcyon Hotsprings, Galena Bay, Shelter Bay and Revelstoke.
In addition, the federal Department of Public Works has expended over a period of 60 years thousands of dollars on rip-rap to prevent the erosion of the shores of the lakes or the river at two or three points. The department has installed piling for the convenience of tugs and other watercraft. The Department of Public Works has also undertaken the dredging of any channels necessary between the upper and lower lakes for the safe passage of tugs and other watercraft during low water.
It is because of my constituents' concern that I was asked to ask the minister for a statement of policy in connection with the Columbia river treaty related to the re-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion building of the wharves, docks and other facilities that will be required. The residents are working at the present time for a paved highway from Revelstoke to Robson in order to connect the trans-Canada highway with the southern provincial highway and to serve those small communities that, in some instances, will be left after the flooding has taken place.
I keep in touch with some 250 people in my district on this question. Some of them write me every day about the problems that concern them, whether it be compensation, river basin clearing or something else. They keep me informed about their problems. They say they are getting the runaround from the B.C. hydro and power authority. They deplore the lack of information and they certainly deplore the lack of planning on the part of the provincial government before the treaty was signed. They are simply groping forward blindly, as it were.
My question is this: They want to know to whom they should appeal for the rebuilding of these wharves and other facilities which will be necessary before the Columbia river project is completed. If it is to the federal authorities, they know with whom to deal. If the responsibility is that of the B.C. hydro power authority, then they will soon get into action to present their case to that authority.


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) stated, he raised this question yesterday. I am not going to repeat the question because he has put it on the record again. When he finished asking the question, the Speaker interjected and stated this was a proper question for the order paper. The hon. member for Kootenay West intervened and said, "that was really a dud". I do not know what he meant by that. Perhaps he was classifying the subject matter of the question, although I believe he said he had no reference to the subject matter- at least I hope not.
I realize the hon. member has had many representations from people in his constituency who are worried over what will take place in relation to this Columbia project. I cannot tell him at the moment whose responsibility it is to see that these installations are replaced or that new ones which may be required are built. I shall make inquiries and let the hon. member know as soon as I get the information so that the people in his constituency, and the hon. member himself, will be able to direct their efforts into the proper

Supply-Items Passed
channels to bring about the desired results. I think that was the main point the hon. member had in mind in raising this question at this time. I cannot tell him at the moment who is responsible. If it were a matter of policy, I could not tell him anyway because the minister would have to make that announcement. I will get all the information I can for my hon. friend, and let him know as soon as I can.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Production and marketing-
Administration-
15d. Administration, operation and maintenance, $215,000.
17d. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, $26,900.
Animal and animal products-
20d. Administration, operation and maintenance, $48,000.
25d. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $110,650.
Plant and plant products-
35d. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $500,000.
Health of animals-
45d. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $21,711.
Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects-
55d. Irrigation and water storage projects-To extend the purposes of agriculture vote 55 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to include Canada's fee for membership in the international commission on irrigation and drainage, and a special contribution of 16,500 rupees to the international commission on irrigation and drainage for construction of a central office building at New Delhi, India, $1.
60d. Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including the south Saskatchewan river project, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program, land protection, reclamation and development-Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,500,000.
Special-
70d. To deem a block of land that is eligible for an award under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as though it were a complete township by virtue of paragraph (b) of section 6 thereof, to be an eligible township for purposes of paragraph (a) of section 6 thereof, and to ratify any award made in the current and previous fiscal years in respect of any land that would have been eligible land had this provision been applicable at the time of the making of the award, $1.
75d. Estimated amount required to recoup the Prairie farm emergency fund to cover the net operating loss for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, $367,000.
80d. Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board as at March 31, 1965, $57,118,000.
85d. Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural products board account to cover the net operating loss recorded in the account as at March 31, 1965, $300,000.
90d. Estimated amount required to provide for the operating loss of the Farm Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, $1,540,000.
95d. Payment to the Farm Credit Corporation for carrying out the purposes of the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, $50,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $24,500. ImmigrationlOd. Administration, operation and maintenance including trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment: and payments to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $418,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 2, 1965