1965-06-09

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
ROGER DUHAMEL, F.R.fi.C.
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA. 1965
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 9, 1965


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement to the House regarding the order of business for the days ahead, subject of course to the usual reservation that there may be emergencies which will change the order and indeed change the matters brought before the House.
After we complete the two resolutions dealing with parliamentary procedure it is our intention to bring before the House the two banking bills now on the order paper, Bill C-102 and Bill C-103, the revision of the Bank Act and the bill respecting savings banks in the Province of Quebec. After they have been given second reading they will be sent to the appropriate committee. Their consideration in committee will undoubtedly take some time; therefore special legislation will be required to provide for a necessary extension of the present bank charters.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Then, Mr. Speaker, we expect to bring forward the resolutions and bills implementing the budget proposals, which do deserve some priority, particularly in view of the 10 per cent cut in personal income tax due to take effect on July 1.
Then progress in consideration of supply is both desirable and indeed important. For instance, there will be a supplementary estimate to implement the program to pay grants and loans to unemployed workers who seek jobs. Another important item which should be given early consideration is the new incentive for industry in certain areas to increase employment and incomes. There is also additional legislation which is important, but I think non-controversial, which we should like to bring forward at any early date;-the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; item No. 20 on the order paper, the bill to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act; certain veterans legislation; the bill to establish the Indian Claims Commission which is now on the order paper; and the order setting up a joint committee of the
House of Commons and the Senate concerning the state of penitentiaries.
That is the immediate program, Mr. Speaker, which I venture to submit to the House. I think it takes us far enough ahead for the present part of this session, and I think its completion would undoubtedly entitle us to that summer recess to which we are all looking forward with such great anticipation.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the program enunciated by the Prime Minister on this, the 39th day of the session, indicates that (here will be many days ahead before the program will have been completed, even in the face of the co-operative attitude taken by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition respecting legislative matters necessary to be passed by Parliament.
However, I should point out that the measures that are referred to in the budget resolutions will not meet the economic situation which to an unusual degree in the last two or three weeks has revealed portents both in Canada and the United States that are anything but hopeful. There is the stock market situation. There is the increasing balance of payments problems in so far as United States-Canadian trade is concerned. There is the relatively small increase in exports as compared with the very material increase in imports; and there is the necessity for action being taken now to meet a matter which on several occasions we have brought before this House, namely the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery. This is something that is needed and I am sure, with the co-operation of the House, if we could but soften the heart of the Government in this regard, progress would be rapid and effective. At the annual meeting of the C.M.A. in Toronto yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -it was stated that the 11 per cent sales tax has placed Canadian industry in an unfair position.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The statement of the Prime Minister was very important but quite short, and I would hope that under the rules as given me by the House the various

June 9, 1965
Business of the House
commentaries will also be within the limits of the statement and reasonably short.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the applause which has just occurred, with which I am in entire agreement, indicates that those people opposite feel exacerbated by the suggestion I made which would be beneficial to Canada as a whole, and which was demanded yesterday by the Manufacturers Association as necessary to preserve and extend the economy. I made that suggestion in the spirit of helpfulness which at all times I endeavour to exhibit. I thought the very suggestion on my part, when taken in conjunction with the serious views expressed by the Manufacturers Association as to this need, would be met with a different response from the Liberal Party than contemptuous jeering.
As far as the other matters are concerned, Sir, to which the Prime Minister referred, generally speaking they are, with one exception, mainly non-controversial. It was in that non-controversial state of mind that I made the suggestion that action is needed now in respect of these matters that affect the economy in the face of an extensive increase in the number of bankruptcies, never equalled since 1932; and let that fact be made clear.
I hope that between now and the date of the Prime Minister's departure to attend the Prime Ministers' Conference, he will give the House a general idea of his views regarding those matters which will come before the conference, to which reference has been made in the press. All of us will want to join in wishing him the very best as he represents our country at that great conference, and all of us hope that when he returns many of the things that will be placed before us will have been passed. I found that during the period I was Prime Minister it was said that usually when I was absent at a Prime Ministers' Conference greater progress was made in respect of legislation.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the last remark of the Leader of the official Opposition was a hint that the Prime Minister might consider taking that right hon. gentleman with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to make that sacrifice in the interests of Parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman would

be completely cancelled out if both of us were to go. If I were here progress would be made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I can assure both right hon. gentlemen that Parliament would do its best to get on without them, and we would guarantee to accomplish a good deal of work during their absence.
I think the items the Prime Minister has announced as being high on the priority list are in the main non-controversial, and I see no reason why we should not be able to deal with them fairly expeditiously. There will be some discussion and disagreement on minor points, but I think these are items with which we will be able to dispose of without too much trouble.
[DOT] <2:50 pm.)
There are one or two items I would hope the Prime Minister would give consideration to advancing in the order of priority. They are items which it seems to me cannot be too long delayed. One is the Canada Assistance Plan, which is of very considerable interest and ought to have high priority. Then there are two pieces of labour legislation. One involves amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. If they are not dealt with it will mean that those who come under the legislation at the present time will have one standard from July 1 onward and those who are employed by Government agencies or work for contractors hired by the Federal Government and who are not covered at the present time will continue to be overlooked after July 1. I believe there would not necessarily be extended debate, and in my opinion it is fairly important that this legislation be advanced.
I had also hoped that some time before the summer recess the Government would at least make a public declaration and if possible introduce a resolution making clear its intention to implement the recommendations of the Hall Commission on national health insurance. We are all aware of the fact that a number of provinces are proceeding with provincial plans. If enough of these plans are established on a provincial basis with no uniformity among them and no provision for their being meshed into a Federal plan, this could constitute a very serious obstacle to establishing national health insurance in Canada. I hope that some time before the recess the Government will make at least a declaration stating that it accepts the principle of national health insurance and intends to introduce legislation at this session of
June 9, 1965

Parliament to provide for medicare, and asking the provinces not to do anything that would make more difficult the establishment of a comprehensive health insurance plan for all Canadians.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in making some comments at this time it would be very easy to take advantage of the situation to list those pieces of legislation we would like to see the Government introduce and make such comments on the basis that it is good politically to be emphasizing those things about which we are most concerned. On the other hand I think we have a responsibility to each other and also to the country to make sure that what happened last year with regard to a summer recess does not happen again this year. I do not believe that a recess is a holiday. I think of a recess as providing an opportunity to go back to our constituencies and do much of the work for our constituents that we should do but have not been able to do for the past year and a half.
I had hoped that the Prime Minister would make some definite statement about the date when he expects Parliament to recess. I appreciate his outline of legislation and the order of priority, but I think it would also be helpful if a target date could be set. I hope he has in mind some date before July 1.
In my opinion it is a good thing that the Government plans to extend the present bank acts because in the period remaining before a recess there will not be sufficient time to consider adequately in committee the report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance and deal with the new bank bills. I would also hope the Government House Leader would make sure that the new standing committees are set up immediately and that the estimates are referred to those committees, because in the few weeks left before the recess they might be able to do a good part of the work on the estimates. Certainly that work should be started before the fall.
As we face the next few weeks I trust we will be able to deal with the legislation that has been outlined with dispatch and effectiveness because, as has been said, most of it is not controversial. We realize the importance of the Commonwealth Conference that the Prime Minister will of necessity be attending. I should like to emphasize that I believe it would be a good policy for him before he leaves to outline to the House some of the objectives which he is looking forward to achieving at that Conference. I think he would be well advised if some statement of
Business of the House
Government policy could be made before he leaves.


Mr. R6al Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we listened with interest to the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) concerning the priority measures he wants the house to examine until the adjournment or the end of the present session.
In his view, those measures are the least controversial items of the legislative program. Now, among those he mentioned, there are certainly some that will raise a controversy, for instance, the amendments to the Bank Act, the renewal of bank charters, their extension until the matter is discussed by the banking and commerce committee.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, those are points which not only will draw parliament's attention, but that of the general public.
A moment ago I heard the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) tell us that the government should immediately introduce a national medicare plan or bill. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) reminded us about the 11 per cent tax on building materials; we are one hundred per cent in favour of abolishing this 11 per cent tax. But at the same time I thought that when the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister, not so long ago, with 208 federal members behind him, we had in this country more than one million unemployed. There was no sales tax on building materials at that time, but I only want to point out that when you are in the opposition, as in the case of the Leader of the Opposition at present, it is always easier to blame the government. The same thing applies to the present Prime Minister when he was in the opposition; he was wont to blame the government and the then prime minister.
Mr. Speaker, we are ready to examine the less controversial bills as well as the controversial ones. But we maintain that if the Prime Minister had announced today that from now on the sovereign government of Canada would use the Bank of Canada to finance the economic development of the country, we would not have heard about any socialist plan, as we just did, or any criticism as has been expressed earlier.
We regret that it seems less important to control the country's monetary system than to subdue individuals and to introduce measures directed against, and designed to belittle, the human person. Those are presented as non-controversial matters. But no mention is made of the monetary system. No
June 9, 1965

Federal-Provincial Conference mention is made of the banks. The control of finance over the economic life of our country is overlooked and thought is given mostly to downgrade the human person throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Prime Minister will introduce the least controversial legislation possible, which will provide security and personal freedom to every Canadian citizen.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE STATEMENT AS TO OPENING DATE AND AGENDA

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the other day that I would make a short statement on the forthcoming Federal-Provincial Conference. All the Provinces have now agreed that this conference should open in Ottawa on Monday, July 19. It is expected to last for most of that week. I suggest that my letters of April 9 and May 13 to the Provinces concerning the agenda of the conference, together with the replies of the Premiers, might now be tabled.
The agenda of the conference originally proposed by the Federal Government was considerably expanded to meet the requests of the Provincial Governments. This is one of the reasons that the conference was postponed for a few weeks. The agenda is a very comprehensive one. The first item deals with social security. The conference will discuss the ways in which Federal-Provincial action can most effectively contribute to programs that will provide health services to Canadians on a comprehensive basis. It will also consider the basic features of an integrated Canada assistance plan which has been developed in consultation between the Federal and Provincial ministers of welfare.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The second item deals with economic development, and in particular with regional development and programs for the full utilization of human resources and the elimination of poverty, which can play a most important role in the promotion and maintenance of national prosperity and unity. The Federal Government will seek for the most appropriate and effective ways of concerting federal and provincial action in this field.
Under the third item, the Chairman of the Tax Structure Committee will present a progress report on the studies being conducted for the Committee, and the Conference will examine a number of questions related to the work of the Committee which have been

placed on the agenda at the request of various provinces.
Of the remaining items some, such as item 4 concerning transportation and item 5 concerning inland water resources, have been placed on the agenda at the request of interested provinces. Some of the other items, such as item 6 relating to federal-provincial co-operation to combat organized crime and item 7 on liaison arrangements, which were originally proposed by the Federal Government, have been expanded in scope to take into account the views of provinces.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the attention of the Prime Minister or Members of the Cabinet been drawn to resolutions or requests by organizations such as the Saskatchewan Farmers Union asking for an investigation into the control of mass media in Canada, and particularly the press ownership on the Prairies?
2.	If so, has the government any official reaction to the resolutions or requests?
3.	Does the government consider that it has the constitutional authority to make such an investigation?
4.	Does the work of the Combines Investigation Branch or the restrictive trades practices commission enable them on a continuing basis to appraise trends toward consolidation of ownership in the mass media, and particularly with the press?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Slate):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	This would depend upon the nature and purpose of the investigation.
4.	Bearing in mind the size of the Combines Branch and the responsibilities of the senior staff in its day to day operations, it is not feasible to attempt on a continuing basis to appraise trends toward consolidation of the ownership in the mass media generally but it does do so in the case of newspapers and magazines. In this respect it should be noted that the jurisdiction of the Branch does not extend to acquisitions in the fields of television and radio broadcasting media. In the normal course of its operations, the Branch gives consideration to acquisitions in the field of newspapers and magazines for the purpose of determining whether they raise any question under the Combines Investigation Act and where the Director has reason to believe that the Act has been or is about to be violated, he takes action as required by the statute.
June 9, 1965


MINING COMPANY TAXES, VILLENEUVE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Caouelle: What is the amount of the various federal taxes collected from mining companies in the county of Villeneuve?
Hon E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue): For Customs and Excise Division. There is no specific record available of sales tax paid by mining companies, as such. Their major operations do not bring them within the ambit of the Excise Tax Act.
For Taxation Division.
Statistics relating to income tax returns filed are not maintained on a basis of address by county and therefore the information requested cannot be furnished.
It should be mentioned that the Taxation Division of my department publishes annually a book known as "Taxation Statistics", which provides considerable detail broken down as fine as the information available will permit.


COST OF PRODUCING AND MARKETING LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS
Mr. Rondeau: With reference to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture, as it appears in Hansard, pages 11580-11581. concerning the gross revenue of approximately $2,816 from the sale of products derived from 6 cows and 2 sows, what is the government's estimate of the cost of producing and marketing such products?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: It is not practical to obtain an average for all of Canada of the cost of producing milk or hogs that would have any real meaning. Costs of production vary widely with location, type of enterprise, feed availability, size of operation and other factors. For example, a Quebec study on cost of production of hogs for 1956-57 gave a range of $7.81 to $29.18 per hundredweight live. Applying recent prices gives a range of $9.05 to $33.82 per hundredweight live. If the farms are divided into thirds according to costs, the results are as follows:
Lowest third, $13.10; median third, $18.02; highest third, $25.44.
Studies of costs of milk production show similar ranges.


DORCHESTER COUNTY, QUE., INCOMES
Mr. Boutin: I.	How many individuals in Dorchester county reported, for each of the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964, an income of (a) $100,000 or more (b) between $75,000 and $100,000	(c) between
Questions
$50,000 and $75,000 (d) between $25,000 and $50,000 (e) between $10,000 and $25,000 (f) between $5,000 and $10,000 (g) between $2,000 and $5,000?
2.	How are these individuals distributed by parish?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1 and 2. Statistics relating to income tax returns filed are not maintained on a basis of address by county or parish and therefore the information requested cannot be furnished.
It should be mentioned that the Taxation Division of my department publishes annually a book known as "Taxation Statistics", which provides considerable detail broken down as fine as the information available will permit.


FEDERAL STEPS TO DEAL WITH FARM PRICE PROBLEMS
Mr. Howe (Wellington-: Huron):
1.	What measures does the government plan to introduce to alleviate farm price problems as intimated by the Minister of Agriculture on April 28, 1965, to a farm delegation?
2.	When will such measures be introduced?


Harry William Hays: 1 and 2. This is a matter of government policy and will be announced in due course.


ADVERTISING ACCOUNTS WITH BREITHAUPT, BENSON AND CO., TORONTO
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Does the advertising firm of Breithaupt, Benson and Company, Limited of Toronto have any advertising accounts with the Government of Canada?
2.	Has this firm carried a recruiting account for any of the armed services and, if so, when did such contract commence and when was it terminated?
3.	Has there been any transfer of accounts from Breithaupt, Benson and Company, Limited to Walsh Advertising Company Limited and, if so, when was this transfer effected and what account was transferred?
4.	Do any of the armed services recruiting accounts placed through Breithaupt, Benson and Company, Limited remain unpaid, and are any funds held back to ensure payment of such accounts?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. No.
2.	Yes, 2 July 1963 to 31 March 1965.
3.	No.
4.	Not known at this time because the possibility exists that all suppliers' invoices arising from the 1964-65 program have not yet been received by this agency. No funds are held back; however, provision is made in the 1965-66 recruiting advertising budget to reimburse Breithaupt, Benson and Company

June 9, 1965
Questions
Limited, for charges arising from the 1964-65 advertising campaign.


PASSPORT APPLICATION OF MRS. LUCIEN RIVARD
Mr. Coates: Has a decision been reached on Mrs. Lucien Rivard's application for a passport and, if so, what was the decision?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No. Her application is still under consideration.


OFFICIAL SCULPTOR, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Enns: 1.	What is the name of the official sculpturer for the Parliament Buildings?
2.	How are projects for sculpture decided?
3.	Is there an advisory committee?
4.	Who are the members of the advisory committee?
5.	As the sculpture in the main hall in the front of the House of Commons has stimulated public interest, what is the main theme of each panel?
Answer: 1. R. Eleanor Milne, S.S.C.
2,	3, and 4. Prior to 1961-2 a committee comprising the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament and the Chief Architect of the Department of Public Works met at irregular intervals to choose themes for the sculptures in the Centre Block and to decide on individual subjects within the accepted themes.
In 1963 an ad hoc committee comprising the Minister of Public Works, the acting Deputy Minister of Public Works, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Works and the official scuplturer met and approved the themes and subjects which are currently in work. This work will be concluded during 1965.
5.	The subjects of the separate panels, each arranged as a triptych, represent unique incidents in Canada's development which cannot by their nature be repeated in later times. In order from left to right, beginning of the east wall, the subjects are: The arrival of earliest man; The arrival of European man; The exploration of the St. Lawrence River; New World migration from wars and strife; The first settlers in the east; The birth of schooling; The opening of the west; The northern searches.
A pamphlet is presently being prepared for issue in conjunction with the centennial year. Included in this pamphlet, all details regarding the old carvings and new carvings will be clearly defined.
tMr. Lamontagne.]


GATT NEGOTIATIONS ON FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTS
Mr. Danforih: 1.	Are negotiations currently under way at Geneva concerning proposed tariff changes on fruit and
vegetable products?
2.	What is the target date for the conclusion of this phase of negotiations?
3.	When and by what manner will the results of this particular phase of the negotiations be released to Parliament and to the industry?
4.	Will the various segments of the industry have an opportunity to recommend changes to the government if they feel direct hardships result from the new rates?
5.	Will there be any flexibility whatsoever allowing changes in rates in the event of hardships without full consideration by the nations involved at a subsequent meeting at Geneva?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The tariff negotiations currently taking place under the GATT cover a wide range of products. It has not been the practice in past negotiations to state whether particular products were the subject of negotiations.
2.	There is no target date for the conclusion of the current negotiations.
3.	The results of past tariff negotiations have been announced in the House of Commons, if Parliament was sitting, or made public by means of a press release, at a date agreed with the other negotiating countries. It is likely the same practice will be followed in regard to the current tariff negotiations.
4.	The Government is always prepared to hear representations from any firm or industry which feels that it is adversely affected by any change in tariff rates.
5.	There are detailed procedures embodied in the GATT for changes in tariff rates. In essence these involve negotiation with the country with which the tariff rate was originally negotiated and with the other countries that have a substantial interest in exporting the products in question.


ARDA EMPLOYEES BY PROVINCES
Mr. Dionne: 1.	What, to date, Is the number of employees working as regional directors, program co-ordinators, or in other capacities under the ARDA program in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	What is the salary by category and by classification of responsibility of each employee?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	The responsibility for initiating and carrying out projects and programs under the agreements lies with the provinces. Each of the provinces has its own ARDA organization. At the present time the federal government has one employee working as a program coordinator.
June 9/ 1965

2.	The above federal employee is classified as a technical officer 9 with a salary range of $9,140-$10,700.


J. S. LAROSE
Mr. Peters: 1.	Has the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, Mr. J.
S.	Larose, been recently transferred to the Combines Investigation Branch?
2.	What is his rank In his new position?
3.	What were the reasons given for the transfer?
4.	What qualifications are necessary for officer 6 in the Combines Investigation Branch?
5.	What qualifications are possessed by Mr. Larose?
6.	What is the date and number of the Civil Service Commission circular posting this job and requirements?
7.	How many applicants, besides Mr. Larose, applied and what were the results of this competition and the rating of each applicant?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Department of Justice and the Civil Service Commission as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Combines Investigation Officer, Grade 6.
3.	With the steady increase in the work of the Combines Branch, including the volume of work conducted in the French language, the Director, under the Combines Investigation Act, considered it essential to have a senior bilingual officer who could assume responsibility for work conducted in the French language.
4.	The qualifications for a Combines Investigation Officer, Grade 6, are: University graduation in a course of recognized standing; ability to prepare comprehensive reports and memoranda on business and trade matters; ability to carry on major investigations; ability to direct and supervise the work of less senior officers; ability to assist and instruct counsel appointed by the Minister to conduct prosecutions or other legal proceedings, ability to maintain effective liaison with senior government and business officials and groups. In addition, there may be required extensive experience in law, economics, accounting or related fields, and bilingualism.
5.	Thirty years' administrative and investigational experience in the related field of bankruptcy including approximately ten years as Superintendent of Bankruptcy; extensive knowledge of business operations and practices; bilingual; University graduate.
6.	As this appointment was made without competition pursuant to Section 22 of the Civil Service Act, no circular was issued.
7.	Not applicable. See 6.
Questions


EXPO '67-CONTROL OF EXPENDITURES
Mr. Soulham: 1.	What controls are exercised by the federal government to prevent wasteful and improvident expenditures being made by the Director of Expo '67?
2.	In how many Instances, with the amounts thereof in each case, to date have expenditures been (a) disallowed, and in what amounts (b) reduced, because of objections thereto taken by representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The control of expenditures exercised by the management of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation is based on the requirements set forth in the incorporating Act and involves:
(a)	the approval of the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the over-all plan for the Exhibition, setting forth the various undertakings and projects proposed by the Corporation in connection with the planning, organizing, holding and administering of the Exhibition, the estimated cost of each such undertaking or project and an estimate of the total capital costs and operating costs of the Corporation in respect of the Exhibition.
Any material changes in the over-all plan including estimates of cost must be submitted to the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council for approval.
(b)	The Capital Budget of the Corporation is submitted annually for the approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Industry and Commerce of Quebec and the Federal and Provincial Ministers of Finance.
The Capital Budget for the current year was tabled on April 8, 1965.
(c)	The annual Operating Budget is submitted for approval to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Industry and Commerce of Quebec and the Federal and Provincial Ministers of Finance.
(d)	Within these budgets expenditures of up to $100,000 may be made by approval of the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
(e)	Expenditures in excess of $100,000 require approval of the Governor in Council.
(f)	The accounts and financial transactions of the Corporation are audited by the Auditor General of Canada and the Quebec Provincial Auditor.
2.	(a) and (b)-All recommendations to Treasury Board for expenditures in excess of $100,000 require the signature of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister does not sign these recommendations unless

June 9, 1965
Questions
he is satisfied not only that they are in accordance with the budget but also that the expenditure is warranted and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure economy.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Rapp: 1.	How many farmers In (a) Saskatchewan (b) Alberta (c) Manitoba, have received P.F.A.A. payments for crop failures in whole or in part for
the year 1964?
2.	How many applications have been (a) turned down, or (b) held up, in each of the constituencies of (i) The Battlefords (ii) Meadow Lake (iii) Prince Albert (iv) Mackenzie?
3.	How many appeals in regard to non-payment have been made by aggrieved farmers, and in how many cases have such appeals been allowed?


Harry William Hays: 1. (a) 25,637; (b) 12,784; (c) 1,706.
2.	(a) (i) None; (ii) one; (iii) none; (iv) none, (b) (i>
none; (ii) none; (iii) none; (iv) none.
3.	Seventeen farmers have appealed to the board of review because of non-payment. Five appeals have been allowed and seven are being held pending a decision of the Board.


RESIGNATIONS OF CENTENNIAL COMMISSION OFFICIALS
Mr. Mather: How many officials of the Canadian Centennial Commission have left the Commission within the past three months?


Maurice Lamontagne: Two.


MAIL TRANSPORT, HAMILTON TO TORONTO
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	At what times in each day is first class mail transported from Hamilton to Toronto?
2.	At what times each day is second class mail transported from Hamilton to Toronto?
3.	At what times each day is special delivery mail transported from Hamilton to Toronto?
4.	Have there been any changes in this schedule in the last two years and, if so, what were the changes, and why were they made?


Hon. Ren6 Tremblay (Postmaster General):: 1,	2 and 3. All classes of mail, including special delivery items are transported from Hamilton to Toronto daily at the following times (E.D.T.): 12:50 A.M., 7:00 A.M., 6:45 P.M., 9:10 P.M., 10:50 P.M.
4.	Yes, the cancellation of trains and a major reorganization of mail services in the Niagara Peninsula resulted in the evolution of the present schedules and the elimination of daily dispatches from Hamilton to Toronto at the following times (E.D.T.); 12:15 P.M.; 3:15 P.M.; 7:20 P.M.; 8:45 P.M.


COUNTRIES PARTICIPATING IN EXPO '67
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	Is a revised contract being presented for signature to the national representatives of some 30 governments taking part in Expo '67?
2.	If so, why is such a revised contract being presented to these representatives?
3.	When are the participants in Expo '67 expected to sign binding instruments in regard of such participation?
4.	How many countries have been invited to participate in Expo '67 and how many have accepted to date?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The original version of the standard participation contract was submitted in April 1965 to a Commission of the International Bureau of Exhibitions. It was then suggested to the Corporation to remove from this version the provisions of a regulatory nature and embody the same into the various sets of special rules and regulations which the General Rules and Regulation of the B.I.E. call for. This suggestion was accepted and this explains why the contract was revised.
2.	See answer to question 1.
3.	Some countries have already signed the standard contract while many have already scheduled the signing ceremony. The contract was distributed to all governments represented at the Meeting of Commissioners General of Section which took place in Montreal from May the 19th to the 22nd. They have all expressed their wish to sign a contract with the least possible delay after clearing the same with their own government. Even in the absence of a signed binding document, the governments that have announced their participation are presently working on the plans of their pavilion.
4.	139 countries were invited to participate in Expo '67. To date, 51 countries including Canada have accepted and it should be noted that the 10 Canadian provinces, the cities of Paris and Montreal, and the European Common Market, will also participate.


CATERING SERVICE, MONTREAL AIRPORT
Mr. Groos: 1.	What is the name of the firm which runs the catering service at the main building of the Montreal International Airport?
2.	What is the date and duration of the contract?
3.	On what basis is the contract awarded?
4.	Does the Department of Transport or any other branch of the Canadian Government maintain any inspection services to see that adequate standards of service and quality control are maintained in the catering services provided for the public at airport buildings operated by the Department of Transport?
June 9, 1965


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The
restaurant concession is operated by A.F.C. Limited (Air Food Caterers).
2.	The effective date of the lease is February 1, 1961. The lease is for five years, renewable for two further terms of five years, subject to rental reviews at each renewal period.
3.	The concession was awarded on the basis of evaluation of tenders received.
4.	Sanitation inspections are carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare.


ARDA PROJECTS, ONTARIO COUNTIES
Mr. Francis: 1.	What projects were approved under ARDA prior to April 8, 1963, for the Counties of Renfrew, Lanark, Carleton and Russell in Ontario?
2.	What projects have been approved for these counties since April 8, 1963?


Maurice Sauvé: 1. Nil.
2. Projects which have been approved for the Counties of Renfrew, Lanark, Carleton and Russell in Ontario, since April 8, 1963, are as follows:
Renfrew County: Project No. 6017, Feasibility study of low dam-Snake River Habitat improvement for waterfowl; Project No. 6019, Acquire marginal land for forestry purposes; Project No. 6041, Muskrat River watershed development-Phase I; Project No. 6043, Muskrat River watershed development- Phase III.
Lanark County, nil; Carleton County, nil; Russell County, nil.


P.F.R.A.-WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Laprise: Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, how many farmers have benefited from the water development program, in each of the past ten years, in each province, to which the Act applies, and what amount has been spent in the past ten years in each province concerned?


Harry William Hays: Manitoba
Year	Number	Amount1955-56	35	$ 5,141.211956-57	94	11,759.301957-58	186	22,142.591958-59	790	99,721.371959-60	572	111,500.501960-61	618	138,843.351961-62	1,798	391,765.67
Questions
Year	Number	Amount1962-63	1,062	266,301.281963-64	464	111,543.701964-65	477	114,064.79Total	6,096 Saskatchewan	$1,272,783.761955-56	322	$ 39,865.671956-57	509	66,545.801957-58	1,478	180,759.621958-59	2,114	259,195.511959-60	2,667	534,047.191960-61	3,214	673,116.241961-62	5,826	1,309,091.711962-63	4,446	1,025,443.911963-64	1,702	418,681.531964-65	1,820	452,706.71Total	24,098 Alberta	$4,959,453.891955-56	385	$ 49,991.961956-57	471	53,178.151957-58	895	96,411.351958-59	778	90,997.691959-60	1,086	199,442.151960-61	1,404	272,310.291961-62	2,020	391,889.951962-63	1,914	424,817.441963-64	1,528	359,508.101964-65	1,243	294,552.88Total	11,724	$2,233,099.96Grand	Total	41,918	$8,465,337.61
The above is the number of individual projects (dugouts, stockwatering dams and small irrigation projects). It does not include community projects and large water development projects where all farmers in the surrounding area adjacent to the project would benefit.


ACADIA, ALTA.-ESTABLISHMENT OF TEST FARM
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Does the federal government intend to set up a test farm in Acadia and, if so, where and when is this to be undertaken?
2.	Which governments will share the costs of this farm?
3.	Is the Farm Credit Corporation now looking for a suitable farm?


Harry William Hays: 1. As announced by the Minister of Agriculture on January 14, it is proposed that a series of demonstration farms be established across Canada. To date one has been established and, while no firm plans have been made concerning the locations of the

June 9, 1965
Questions
other farms, it is possible that such a one may be set up in the Acadia area. In the establishment of these farms the Government does not purchase the land but enters into a contract with an existing farm operator to conduct the necessary work.
2.	Answered by (1).
3.	Answered by (1).


BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM- OBSERVERS AT R.IN. DEMONSTRATIONS
Mr. Winkler: What are the names of the 3 staff research workers with the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism who attended officially as observers at the R.I.N. demonstrations in Montreal May 24, 1985?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism as follows:
Two research assistants, Mr. Charles Barker and Mr. Alfredo Levesque, of the research staff of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism attended as observers the R.IN. Conference (Le congres national du RIN) in Montreal on the weekend of Hay 22-24. Neither of these men, nor any other research staff member of the Royal Commission, attended the street demonstrations which occurred in Montreal on May 24, 1965.


POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF EXCISE TAX ON JEWELLERY
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Is the government considering removal of the special Excise Tax imposed on jewellery during World War n and, if so, when will action be taken?
2.	Is the government considering reduction of the special Excise Tax imposed on jewellery during World War II and, if so, when will action be taken and what will be the amount of the reduction?
3.	If no consideration has been given to the removal or the reduction of the special Excise Tax, will the government give consideration to this question?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. The imposition, repeal, increase or reduction of a tax
is a matter of budgetary policy. Any change of this nature needs to be introduced in the normal course of budget presentation. The 1965 Budget did not propose any change in the excise tax status of jewellery.
2.	Same as 1.
3.	Careful consideration will be given during the general review of commodity tax matters scheduled to take place this year to the possibility of repealing or reducing the special excise tax on jewellery.


QUEBEC-PROVINCIAL PARK AS CENTENNIAL PROJECT
Mr. Marfineau: 1.	Is a provincial park along the north shore of the Ottawa River between Carillon and Hull (Quebec) being planned as a joint federal-provincial Centennial project?
2.	Have preliminary plans for the project been presented to the federal Centennial Commission for approval?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES BY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Mr. MacLean (Queens): From March 1, 1964 to May 1, 1965, how many passenger motor vehicles have been purchased by the Department of Fisheries (a) manufactured or assembled in Nova Scotia (b) manufactured or assembled in Ontario (c) imported from the United States (d) imported from other countries?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: (a) Nil; (b) 52; (c) nil; (d) nil.


STANSTEAD, QUE.-APPROVAL OF HOUSING LOANS
Mr. Forest: 1.	For the calendar years 1963, 1964 and 1965, how many C.M.H.C. loans were approved for the County of Stanstead for the construction of single and multiple-unit dwellings and duplexes?
2.	For the same years, how many housing units qualified for the $500 winter construction grant?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: June 9, 1965

Questions
1.
Period	Approved Lenders' Loans	C.M.H.C. Loans	All N.H.A. LoansDwelling	Dwelling	DwellingLoans Units	Loans Units	Loans Units
Home-Ownership Loans
1963		
1964		
1965	Jan-March
Rental Loans
1963	
-	-	-	-	-	-1964	
-	-	1	4	1	41965	Jan-March	
-	-	-	-	-
Note: For part 1. above, data on loans approved for single and multiple-unit dwellings and duplexes are not available for the area specified.
4	4	4	419	21	19	21-	1	1	1	1
2. 1964, 16 dwelling units; 1965, 32 dwelling units. The first winter house-building incentive program was for the 1963/64 season, so that no housing units qualified under the program in the calendar year 1963.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-POSSESSION OF LIVE SEALS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	Did the Department of Fisheries, during the month of March, 1965, place a charge against an employee of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with possesion of two live seals without a permit?
2.	If so, what was the result of the prosecution?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. No.
2. Answered by No. 1.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY-LOCATION OF PERSONNEL EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Slenson: As of April 30, 1965, how many employees were there in the Department of Industry, and of these (a) how many were employed in Ottawa (b) how many were employed in other cities (c) what are the names of these cities and how many were employed in each office?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 371 continuing employees and 11 casuals, (a) 366 continuing, 10 casuals; (b) 5 continuing, 1 casual; (c) Montreal, 1 continuing; Toronto, 4 continuing; St. John, N.B., 1 casual.


POST OFFICES-CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS
Mr. Ricard: 1.	During the past 24 months, have any changes been made to the regulations and requirements governing the construction of post offices with an income under $3,000 per annum and, if so, what amendments?
2.	If no changes have been made, what are the requirements for the construction of such buildings?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: 1. There has been no basic change in the Post Office policy within the past 24 months with respect to the regulations and requirements governing the construction of Crown-owned Post Office Buildings. It is still required that a Post Office be classified as a Semi-Staff Post Office before a request is made to the Department of Public Works for the construction of a Crown-owned building.
As part of the Supplementary Federal Government Winter Construction Program, during the past two winters a number of small Crown-owned buildings were erected for Revenue Post Offices in those locations in certain designated areas and areas of high winter unemployment.
2. See 1.


RESTIGOUCHE-MADAWASKA-CENTENNIAL JOINT PROGRAM POLICY
Mr. Dube: 1. How many applications have been made, by the towns and municipalities, of the County of

June 9. 1965
Questions
Restigouche-Madawaska, under the joint program policy, with respect to the celebrations of the Confederation Centennial in 1967?
2.	How many and which applications, specifically, were accepted?
3.	What financial support is forthcoming from the participating governments, in each case?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Four applications have been received by the Centennial Commission from
the towns and municipalities of the County of Restigouche-Madawaska.
2.	Three applications were approved namely, (1) The municipality of Madawaska, Boys Scout Camp; (2) The municipality of Madawaska, Pavilion-Exhibition Building;
(3)	County of Restigouche, Library.
3.	Federal, Provincial and Municipal Contributions:
Federal
Contribution
Municipality of Madawaska
(Boys Scout Camp)	$13,998.33
Municipality of Madawaska
(Pavilion-Exhibition Bldg.)	$10,500.00
County of Restigouche	$42,050.00
Provincial
Contribution

Other
Provincial
Contribution

Municipal
Contribution


$13,998.34 $10,500.00 $46,977.00 ARRAN TOWNSHIP, ONT.,-CENTENNIAL PROJECT GRANT
Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial Project Grant from the Municipality of Arran Township, Bruce County, Ontario?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of Arran Township, Bruce County, Ontario, as at May 31, 1965.


EMPLOYMENT IN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Slenson: What has been the annual increase in employment In the car and truck industry in Canada in the years 1959-60, 60-61, 61-62, 62-63, 63-64, 64-65?


Mitchell William Sharp: See table page 2159.
[Mr. Dubi.l
June 9, 1965

Orders for Returns


EMPLOYMENT INDEXES AND AGGREGATES 1959-1965
[Stage Direction]
Year	Annual Average Index (1949 = 100)	Average Employ- ment(1)	Year-to Year Change	Year-to Year % Change	January Index (1949 = 100)	January Employ- mentO)	January to January Change	January to January % Change
			A. Motor Vehicles (iincluding Trucks)					
1959	106.0	29,519	102.2	28,461	1960	104.3	29,045	474	- 1.6	119.2	33,195	+ 4,734	+16.61961	99.7	27,764	-1,281	- 4.4	105.4	29,352	- 3,843	-11.61962	107.5	29,937	+2,173	+ 7.8	109.2	30,410	+ 1,058	+ 3.61963	122.6	34,142	+4,205	+ 14.0	121.3	33,780	+ 3,370	+ 11.11964	139.3	38,792	+4,650	+ 13.6	143.5	39,962	+ 6,182	+18.31965	n.a.	n.a.	-	-	161.3	44,919	+ 4,957	+12.4B. Motor	Vehicles Parts and Accessories	1959	107.1	19,137	108.9	19,458	1960	103.6	18,511	- 626	- 3.3	114.3	20,423	+ 965	+ 5.01961	102.8	18,369	- 142	- 0.8	100.1	17,886	- 2,537	-12.41962	113.0	20,191	+1,822	+ 9.9	106.4	19,012	+ 1.126	+ 6.31963	131.5	23,496	+3,305	+ 16.4	125.4	22,406	+ 3,394	+17.91964	155.0	27,695	+4,199	+ 17.9	150.9	26,963	+ 4,557	+20.31965	n.a.	n.a.	-	-	169.3	30,251	+ 3,288	+12.2c.	The Motor	Vehicle Industries {Motor Vehicles and Parts and Accessories, Combined)	1959	106.4	48,656	104.8	47,919	1960	104.0	47,556	-1,100	- 2.3	117.3	53,618	+ 5,699	+ 11.91961	100.9	46,133	-1,423	- 3.0	103.3	47,238	- 6,380	-11.91962	109.6	50,128	+3,995	+ 8.6	108.1	29,422	+ 2,184	+ 4.61963	126.1	57,638	+7,510	+ 15.1	122.9	56,186	+ 6,764	+ 13.71964	145.4	66,487	+8,849	+15.3	146.4	66,925	+10,739	+ 19.11965	n.a.	n.a.	-	164.4	75,170	+ 8,245	+12.3
(''Employment aggregates based on monthly employment and payroll surveys designed primarily to construct employment indexes.

Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial Project Grant from the Municipality of Tara, Bruce County, Ontario?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes.


CANADIAN PENITENTIARY SERVICE-SALARIES
Mr. Coates: Has a decision been reached by the government with regard to the salaries of members of the Canadian Penitentiary Service as a result of meetings which were held by members of the Service with officials of the government and, if so, what was that decision?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Yes.
The Government has agreed, at the request of the Civil Service Association of Canada to have an independent job evaluation study carried out with regard to the various positions in the Penitentiaries Service. This study will be carried out with the help of outside 22620-138
consultants. Salary levels for different categories of employment will be reviewed on the basis of this job evaluation study, and any changes which the Government decides, as a consequence of such study, to make from salary levels already announced will be given retroactive effect to April 1, 1964.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many royal commissions have been initiated since April 8, 1963, and what are the subject matters of the commissions in question?
2.	What has been the total cost to date for each of the aforementioned commissions and what is the estimated total cost of each commission?
3.	How many inquiries have been initiated since April 8, 1963. that do not have the status of royal commissions but have demanded the appointment of individuals outside the civil service commission and what is the subject matter of each?
4.	What has been the cost to date of the inquiries in question and what is the estimated final cost of each?
Return tabled.

June 9, 1965
Motions for Papers ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, EXPO '67

Question No. 461-Mr. More:
1.	Does Expo '67 employ consulting architectural firms and, it so (a) what are the names and addresses of such firms, and (b) what are the projects on which each firm is engaged?
2.	Does Expo '67 employ consulting engineering firms and, if so (a) what are the names and ad-dresse of such firms, and (b) what are the projects on which each firm is engaged?
Return tabled.


ASSISTANCE IN SETTLING CANADAIR STRIKE
Mr. Coates: 1.	What action has the federal government taken to assist in the settlement of the strike at Canadair, Montreal. Quebec?
2.	Have firms holding sub-contracts on government work with Canadair had to effect lay-offs and, if so, what action is being taken to assist the companies in question?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 42 is acceptable to the Government. I understand that motion No. 37 is to be withdrawn. I ask that notices of motion Nos. 41 and 43 be called. I ask that notices of motion Nos. 32 and 39 be allowed to stand.



MEGANTIC, QUEBEC-MAIL CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Langlois:
That an Order of the House do issue for a return with regard to the mail contracts award in Me-gantic County showing (a) the names of the tenderers (b) the expiry date of said contracts (c) the amount of each contract.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Coates:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy nt any letter or correspondence received by the government from the Garter King of Arms prior to the adoption of the new Canadian flag, January 20, 1965.
Lester Bowles Pearson: In the absence of the mover could this motion be allowed to stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.
[Mr. Coates.)
COAT OF ARMS ON SOCIAL INSURANCE CARD Motion No. 42-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters and/or other communications received by the Minister of Labour or other Ministers of the Government in which objection has been taken to the Canadian Coat of Arms on the social insurance number card and/or requesting that the Maple Leaf as it appears on the flag be substituted therefore.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
IMPORT DUTIES INCURRED BY E. J. BENSON Motion No. 43-Mr. Nasserden:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, official notices, and other relevant documents since April 30, 1965, relating to custom duties incurred by Mr. E. J. Benson, 119 McMichael St., Kingston, Ontario, on any goods imported by him into Canada.
Edgar John Benson: In view of the fact that I have already provided the hon. Member and the House with more information than is required in the motion, and in view of its implication with regard to the privilege attaching to correspondence between my Department and individual taxpayers, I respectfully request that the hon. Member withdraw this motion.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I was quite surprised when I first brought this motion forward that the Minister should have asked me to withdraw it before it appeared on the order paper. The answers which have been given in the House so far do not engage those aspects of the matter in which I was interested; therefore I should like the motion to be proceeded with.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to point out that an explanation of this matter was given the other day by the hon. Minister and unless the hon. Member has other information it does seem that there is no further information to give. Of course the Chair is in the hands of the House.
Do I understand that the hon. Member would like to withdraw the motion now?


Edward Nasserden: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gregoire:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: No seconder.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there a seconder to this motion? There being no seconder the motion cannot be put to the House and will be withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
June 9, 1965	COMMONS



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. It arises out of an article which appeared in he Devoir of June 7 and a report of the hon. gentleman's speech. Is it correct that the so-called war on poverty is to be placed under provincial control at the insistence of the Premier of Quebec, as reported in that statement and in that article, which is accompanied by a picture showing the smiling faces of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Forestry and the Postmaster General?


Maurice Sauvé: That picture was a very good picture of a most successful meeting. I think I explained yesterday that there was some difference between the text I delivered and the headlines in the papers.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask simply this. Is the program in connection with the project in question to be given exclusively to the provinces to look after, and was this decided at the request of the Premier of Quebec? That is the question.


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker.



STEPS TO MEET REPORTED INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hev/ard Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):
A supplementary question relating to the war on poverty. My question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and is based on an answer given by the Minister in the House yesterday as well as on figures released during the past 48 hours showing a most disquieting rise in the cost of living, notably in relation to food, clothing and housing.
Will the Minister of Finance inform the House whether it is the intention of the Government to take immediate and specific action, thus beginning the war on poverty by alleviating the effects of serious inflation on the millions of Canadians who are living in want and who must pay these higher prices on fixed or shrinking incomes?
Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is very interesting and important but I do not see how the hon. Member can expect a detailed answer on the orders of the day. Perhaps he will put this question on the order paper.
DEBATES	2161
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Graffiey:: I sought to circumvent that possibility by asking whether any specific action was contemplated. However, in view of the lack of information both yesterday and today this question must be debated at ten o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I put the question in these terms. With reference to the statement made by the Minister of Finance yesterday to the effect that in the past 12 months the cost of living has risen 2.2 per cent, and in view of the fact that the report of the Economic Council says that a 2 per cent annual increase is the maximum that should be allowed, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether the Government has any plans to deal with the situation in the event that this trend continues beyond the danger point, which it has already passed.


An hon. Member:: That is the same question.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minisler of Finance):: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a word about one or two-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -of the hon. gentleman's comments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem, in fairness, that if the question of the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi is to be placed on the order paper perhaps-the second so-called supplementary is just an elaboration of the first question-then perhaps the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would also put his question on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Minister for any detailed information at all; I am asking him simply whether the Government has any plans to cope with this problem if the present rising trend in the cost of living continues beyond the danger point. All the Minister has to say is yes or no.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments and speeches that have already been made on this subject I think I should perhaps make a remark or two. In the first place, the Economic Council to my knowledge have never suggested that any particular increase in the cost of living or in prices was desirable. They did suggest in their review that in working out their model they had arbitrarily taken into account an average increase of 2 per cent.
2162	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
I certainly cannot agree with my hon. friend that the increase in prices to date has reached the danger point, to use one of his rather excitable phrases, if I may say so. This question of the state of the economy, including the question of prices, is under very considerable and continuous study by the Department of Finance. I received a very long memorandum on this subject last night, and I can assure my hon. friend and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that conditions are not nearly as bad as they have tried to let on.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman saw fit to bring me into this may I ask him this question. Did he read the observations of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and does he disagree with them, as he disagrees with the views of Mr. Kierans?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the tail to that remark implies, but I am in a position to reassure my right hon. friend that conditions this year have been very good indeed and that the prospects look very good. If when the opportunity arises, when the next supply motion is before the House, he would care to make a motion to this effect, I would be very glad to debate the situation with him.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: On a question of privilege-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has risen on a question of privilege.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam rose and asked his question you said it should be put on the order paper, but you allowed the Minister to rise and make a long-winded speech. Today we have 30 minutes in which to ask questions; many of the backbenchers have questions to ask, and this is not fair to them.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the purpose of the interjection very well. It was precisely for the reason of the lack of time during this half hour period that I did try to suggest that this question be put on the order paper. Perhaps it is the heat under which we are labouring, and we will now try to make more progress.

DEBATES	June 9. 1985


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponliac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. The Minister indicated that he had received a memorandum from his officials on the rise in the consumer price index. Can he state whether that memorandum indicates that we are to expect further rises in prices, or does he himself expect or foresee such further rises?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might leave this question until we have an opportunity to debate the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask this supplementary question of the Minister of Finance following a question asked about the cost of living; however, in view of the fact that on another occasion the Minister replied to the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that the increase in the cost of living means nothing to the ordinary man, will he now indicate whether he is still of this opinion, in spite of the fact that the recent cost of living increase has more than wiped out any tax benefit?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have never said any such thing.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I fully intend on another occasion to bring forward a copy of Hansard to prove that the Minister of Finance did make that statement.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Go ahead and do that.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that yesterday the Minister stated to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association that Canada's foreign aid program is far below that of other major countries in the world and that it should be at least double what it is now, up to approximately 1 per cent of our g.n.p., could the Minister tell us whether he was stating Government policy
June 9, 1965
and if so, does he plan to extend Canada's foreign aid expenditure during this current year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was both surprised and perhaps a little chagrined at one of the stories to which my hon. friend directs my attention. I suggest that he read that story together with the text of my statement which appeared in another part of the same newspaper. I did point out, of course, that the Government had considerably improved and augmented the Canadian external aid program, and that it was our objective to take into consideration our capacity to meet future obligations arising in this field.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Gordon L. Fairweaiher (Royal):: I have a supplementary question, too, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I could not resist this one, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is quoted in today's Globe and Mail as having said:
Don't quote me as saying that we will or that we should increase our external aid. That would be my opinion if I had an opinion, but as a member of the Government I don't have any opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I suggest that the implications of this are serious for the country and for the world; and is it the Minister's opinion that he has been misquoted?


John George Diefenbaker: Or was it confession?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad this question has been asked by an industrious but relatively new Member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This gives me the opportunity to give him advice which I am going to follow myself in this instance. It is advice that is supposed to have been given by the Earl of Shaftesbury when in the government, and it is "Never take issue with the chroniclers of the day".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: So it was confession.
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER LEVELS


QUEBEC-LETTER RESPECTING RAIN MAKING OPERATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell us today whether he has received a letter from the vice president of Weather Engineering Co.? Can he tell us also since when has he been expecting that letter?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if over the noise in the House I heard the hon. gentleman correctly, he asked me whether I had yet received a letter from the vice president of Weather Engineering. The answer is no, and I am quite surprised that that gentleman did not keep the promise that he gave to me.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence on the subject that has been raised by the hon. Member. In view of the large number of Air Force planes that went over at noon, and the fact that a badly needed and very heavy rainfall has now started in Ottawa, would the Minister indicate whether they were seeding the clouds at noon?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, they were not seeding the clouds, but this gives me an opportunity to say that they were rehearsing for the first Canadian Armed Forces Day that will be held here commencing at 10.30 a.m. this Saturday.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, only half an hour is allowed for the question period today, and the Minister in answering
a somewhat planted question is getting up to make a long statement-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Starr: -and deprive the backbenchers of their opportunity to ask questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The half hour question period started at 3.10 and will be over at 3.40. May I urge hon. Members to ask their questions quickly and in as few words as possible.



June 3, 1985
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE


EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW ANTI-SUBMARINE DESTROYERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. The question is based on an editorial appearing in the Daily Packet and Times regarding Canada's projected new anti-submarine destroyers. The title of this editorial is "Will our new antisubmarine destroyers be too slow to run and too weak to fight?" Would the Minister like to comment on this?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise my hon. friend that he has been badly misinformed in this regard. The new destroyer escorts which are planned, together with the heavy helicopters they will carry, will be one of the most effective anti-submarine systems in the world. The anti-submarine helicopters are very fast and well equipped. They have worked out a technique which is unique in the western world, and in combination with the weapons system employed will probably be paramount among anti-submarine systems. I can assure my hon. friend that he should take this message back to the paper to which he referred.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question is based on many current complaints and newspaper stories respecting the slow movement of grain out of western Canada and particularly southeastern Saskatchewan. Can the Minister say whether the Canadian Wheat Board is getting the proper co-operation from the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. in moving grain out of these congested areas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in reply to a question recently, the main problem has been that Canadian Pacific Railway did not start moving grain to the Lakehead as early as the Board would have wished. Consequently quotas at delivery points in southeastern Saskatchewan along the C.P.R. route

to the Lakehead are not as high as they should be for this time of year. However, I am happy to say there has been a notable improvement in recent days, and if the C.P.R. continues to haul grain to the Lakehead at the rate it has been doing over the last few days the Wheat Board expects that the quotas will be equalized at a higher level at the end of the year.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. According to the Wheat Board's statement on quota distributions it is to be noted that the provinces are now on a six bushel quota whereas last year most provinces were on an eight bushel quota. The Minister mentioned the southeastern part of Saskatchewan. Does this answer apply to the question which I asked as to why the provinces were two bushels per point ahead last year compared to this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I should take that as notice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. It is rumoured that the Dorion report is now in the hands of the Government. I am wondering whether the Minister would care to confirm that. Second, in view of the fact that the report is either in the hands of the Government or about to come into the hands of the Government, could he give the House a report on the very interesting escape of Rivard?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member for Kootenay West.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I will put the question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Dorion report is now in the hands of the Government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



CONSIDERATION OF STAFF BOARD REPORT ON STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, we have been considering draft agreements on this subject, but I am not in a position to say whether any particular draft will be considered tomorrow.']
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the
June 9, 1965

appropriate Minister, of which I failed to give you notice. Can the appropriate Minister inform the House when action is going to be taken to implement the Civil Service survey or report intended to improve the economic circumstances of employees of this House?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, assuming that the hon. Member is referring to the staff board report rather than the Civil Service report, the answer is tomorrow.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since the President of the United States has just announced that he is ready to send troops to Viet Nam if the generals of the South Vietnamese army request them, and since Australia and New Zealand have sent contingents to South Viet Nam, has the Canadian government consulted in that connection or did it offer any military assistance to South Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the answer
is no.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister
intend to discuss an international agreement which is designed to prevent the further spread of nuclear arms in his forthcoming talks with Prime Minister Shastri of India?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think in discussing international afEairs with the Prime Minister of India, whom we are welcoming tomorrow, this is certainly one subject which will come up.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question. Has any draft of any such proposed agreement been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, or has he himself brought any such draft agreement to the attention of Prime Minister Shastri?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have been considering draft agreements on this subject, but I am not in a position to say whether any particular draft will be considered tomorrow.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg!:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries. Last year the Danes increased their catch of salmon on the Greenland coast from 200 tons to 1,200 tons, among which were found tagged salmon from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. As the International Commission on the North Atlantic Fisheries is presently meeting in Halifax and it is my understanding that the question of the conservation of our salmon resources is not on the agenda, would the Minister impress upon the conference the importance of discussing and attempting to resolve this problem, which is of vital importance to our inshore fishermen and to our tourist industry?
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. Member I first wish to mention that I believe he is misinformed when he says that the problem of salmon being caught in Greenland waters is not on the agenda. As a matter of fact I arrived back from Halifax yesterday and the matter is being brought up at the annual meeting of ICNAF which is now taking place. Furthermore, I wish to state that this situation is of serious concern not only to Canada but to other countries which are interested in this fishery. The matter is more complicated because a proportion of the catch is being caught in what could be considered as Greenland territorial waters.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY RESPECTING PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House if he did state yesterday that the Address to Her Majesty the
2166	COMMONS DEBATES	June 9, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry Queen adopted by the Quebec Legislative Assembly with regard to limiting the powers of the Legislative Council is unconstitutional?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister in connection with the question I have already asked him.
Did he receive an official protest from the Legislative Council of the Province of Quebec in connection with the petition forwarded by the Quebec Legislature to the federal government to amend the powers of the Legislative Council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received no such communication.



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether reports that the Canadian Wheat Board has completed another sale to Poland are true. I would also ask him whether any flour was included in this latest sale, if one has been made.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the Canadian Wheat Board has in the last few days sold another 300,000
metric tons of wheat for shipment to Poland. The sales totalling 11 million bushels will be moved through east and west coast ports. I regret to say that there is no flour involved in the contract.


Mr. Roberi Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce following his reply to the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, but the public address system failed at the time and I did not quite hear the Minister's answer. Did I understand the Minister to say that in respect of the new sale of wheat to Poland, shipments would be made through eastern and 
western ports? If that is accurate, can the Minister say whether any of these shipments will be made through the Port of Churchill?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that the program for the shipment of wheat through Churchill will be at a very high level this year.


Robert Simpson: I have a supplementary question. At this stage last year the report was made that there would be a record shipment season at Churchill and, as the Minister knows, the shipments last season dropped by some 1,500,000 bushels. In view of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board report shows once again that substantial savings were made as a result of shipments of grain through Churchill, can the Minister indicate whether this has been pointed out to the purchasers from Poland?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the great virtues of the Port of Churchill, which have been expounded by my hon. friend, are well known throughout the world, and particularly to the Wheat Board which does everything possible to encourage buyers to take wheat from that port. This year it is fully expected there will be a high level of shipment through that port, and it is hoped it will be a record year.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask the minister whether he is in a position to tell the House when the farmers will be receiving their first cheques under the new dairy policy recently announced. Will it be in July?


Hon. Harry W. Kays@Minister of Agriculture: Mr. Speaker, considerable work is required to collect the necessary information; some 200,000 farmers across Canada are involved. However, we are hoping that the initial payments can go out as early as July.



PROHIBITION OF EXPORT OF HORSES FOR SLAUGHTERING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Because of representations made by the Humane Society
June 9. 1965	COMMONS
of Canada, has the Minister taken the necessary steps to introduce legislation to prohibit the shipping of horses-that is, horses of less than a certain value-to other countries for slaughtering purposes, thereby assuring that these animals will have a humane end in Canada and that the horse meat can then be exported from Canada?


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


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. For days and days on end hon. Members have asked questions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Hon. Members have asked questions regarding the killing of seals-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There does seem to be an electric atmosphere in the House this afternoon.
QUEBEC-COST OF PRODUCTION OF LIVESTOCK On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
On April 9 last I put on the order paper a question bearing No. 137 in which I asked the Minister of Agriculture to tell us the approximate cost of producing and marketing six cows and two sows which, according to one of his statements, brought a revenue of $2,816.
Now, the minister has just answered me with these figures: lower third, $13.10; median third $18.02 and upper third $25.44. And that is the cost of producing six cows and two sows. Could the Minister give me more detailed information than what he has supplied to me in writing today?


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure if the hon. Member goes out, observes the conditions and does a little multiplication, he will then have satisfactory information in this regard.



FEED GRAIN-REQUEST FOR EASTERN MARKETING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry.
DEBATES	2167
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister announced this afternoon the legislative program until the Summer recess, could the minister tell us whether his department has considered or studied the report of the committee on agriculture and colonization concerning feed grains and more particularly the matter of the establishment of a feed grain agency for eastern Canada, so that the matter could be discussed by the House before next Winter?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the department did study the committee's report and I must point out to the hon. Member that the Prime Minister has announced this afternoon the legislative program for the weeks ahead.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which I am prompted to ask by the comments of the Secretary of State with respect to external aid. Is the Government considering increasing federal aid to higher education in our country, which is now only one sixteenth of one per cent of the gross national product?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under consideration. It is a very illuminating question.



NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour which arises from his answer to a question asked yesterday about the National Employment Service advertising for help in areas where a shortage of help now prevails. Once the fact is established that there is a shortage of help in an area, is it the Minister's intention, or the intention of the unemployment service, to discontinue advertising for help in such an area?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to confirm my impression that advertising will cease just as soon as available workers are placed in jobs that are open.
June 9, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



MONTREAL-FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN LABOUR DISPUTES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the importance of labour disputes in the Montreal region, does the minister propose to intervene in order to facilitate negotiations?


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Ask
Mr. Lesage.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to hear the hon. Member's question, but I will be glad to take it as notice and answer it tomorrow.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. On April 13 the right hon. gentleman told the House that he was giving consideration to the setting up of a royal commission on divorce reform in Canada. I wonder whether he has now completed his consideration of this question, and whether he can announce when this commission will be set up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will have to check what I said on April 13, as I do not recall having made that commitment in those terms. I will be glad to look into the situation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, asking him how soon he expects the newly announced manpower program will be implemented. Can the Minister also indicate whether there will be any retroactive feature to this program, perhaps to the time of the Prime Minister's announcement in this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is not intended that there will be a retroactive feature to this program. The Prime Minister indicated that we hoped to deal with this particular program during this part of the session. As soon as staff and administration arrangements can be made, the program will be put into effect.



QUEBEC-DELAY IN PAYMENT OF WINTER CONSTRUCTION BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour.
Could the minister expedite the matter of paying the $500 promised to owners of homes built in wintertime since up to now, in the Quebec region, only 25 per cent of the owners received that bonus.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, an extension to this particular program requires additional authority from Parliament, and just as soon as the House can deal with the supplementary estimates which have to be brought forward we will be able to make these payments. I hope that will be possible very soon.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is there any chance that the Government will consider including in its legislative priorities to be dealt with before the recess the minor amendments to the Northwest Territories Act? I am sure these would receive unanimous agreement in the House, thus allowing everyone in the Northwest Territories the right to vote in forthcoming territorial elections?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct
June 9, 1965	COMMONS
a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that both Ontario and Quebec, and perhaps other provinces, have made public the details of their legislation to provide for the regulation of pension plans that come under provincial jurisdiction, would it not be desirable that the legislation at the Federal Government level which the Minister promised last December 18 be put on the order paper?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to discuss this with the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, to see whether that can be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order originally raised by the hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, are we as backbenchers to understand that restrictions are placed on us during the half hour question period on Wednesday even though the Minister of National Defence deliberately violated the purpose of this period this afternoon?


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to the Chair that no comment is called for. The hon. Member knows the difficulties involved in conducting public assemblies, and he will have to use his own discretion in reaching his own conclusion.



AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING CONDUCT OF BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 8, consideration in Committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the Chair:
That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:
1. That Standing Order 6 be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
Standing Order 6
6.	(1) At 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, unless provided otherwise in these Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put until the next sitting day.
(2)	A motion that the House continue to sit after the hour specified in Section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion. If no member objects or if fewer than ten members rise in their places, the motion shall be deemed to be 22620-1391
DEBATES	2169
House of Commons Procedures carried. No debate or formal vote shall be held on such a motion to extend a sitting. An extended sitting under the provisions of this Section, unless a closing time has been specified, shall not be terminated except by the adoption of a motion to adjourn and Mr. Speaker shall not deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made by virtue of the operation of any other Standing Order.
(3)	If any member objects to the taking of a vote at any time between 1:00 o'clock p.m. and 2:30 o'clock p.m. or between 6:00 o'clock p.m. and 8:00 o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if five or more members rise, the taking of the vote shall be postponed until after 2:30 o'clock p.m. or until after 8:00 o'clock p.m. as the case may be.
(4)	When it is provided in any Standing Order or in any order of the House that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until the specified proceedings be completed.
2.	That Section (1) of Standing Order 12 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 12, Section (1)
12. (1) Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, nor shall any such decision be subject to an appeal to the House.
3.	That Sections (3) and (4) of Standing Order 15 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 15, Sections (3) and (4)
15. (3) Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order of business for the consideration of the House, day-by-day, after the daily routine shall be as follows:
(Monday)
Questions.
Government orders.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Notices of Motions.
(Tuesday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Private bills.
Public bills.
(Wednesday)
Questions.
Notices of motions for the production of papers.
Government orders.
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Notices of motions.
Public bills.
(Thursday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
June 9, 1965
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures
A.	On the first and each alternate Thursday thereafter:
Notices of motions (papers).
Private bills.
Public bills.
B.	On the second and each alternate Thursday thereafter:
Private bills.
Notices of motions (papers).
Public bills.
(Friday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Public bills.
Private bills.
(4) When a debate on a motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply is in progress at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on either a Monday or a Tuesday, the order for Private Members' Business on that day shall be suspended.
4.	That Section (2) of Standing Order 31 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 31, Section (2)
31. (2) When the business of Private Members is being considered, no member shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time.
5.	That Section (5) of Standing Order 39 be enacted to read as follows:
Standing Order 39, Section (5)
39. (5) Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that if in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question is not urgent, he may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper, provided also that the time allowed for a question period prior to the calling of the Orders of the Day shall not exceed thirty minutes.
A member who is not satisfied with the answer given to a question asked an any day at this stage, or a member who has been told by Mr. Speaker that his question is not urgent, may give notice that he intends to raise the subject-matter of his question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the question period before the Orders of the Day, must be given in writting to Mr. Speaker not later than 5:00 o'clock p.m. the same day.
6.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 41-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 41-A
41-A. Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 41, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
7.	That Standing Order 43 be amended by adding thereto a new Section (2), to read as follows:
Standing Order 43, Section (2)
43. (2) When debate on any motion made under Standing Order 15 (2) is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under Government Orders.
[Mr. Speaker.)
8.	That Standing Order 44 be amended to read
as follows:
Standing Order 44
44. When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to extend the sitting of the House; or for the adjournment of the House.
9.	That Section (4) of Standing Order 59 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 59, Section (4)
59. (4) The Chairman shall maintain order in the Committees of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to Mr. Speaker; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof. No debate shall be permitted on any decision.
10.	That Standing Order 65 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 65
65. (1) At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of seven members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the House:
(a)	on Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development, to consist of 45 members;
(b)	on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, to consist of 22 members;
(c)	on Crown Corporations, to consist of 22 members;
(d)	on External Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(e)	on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
U) on Fisheries, to consist of 22 members;
(g)	on Health and Welfare, to consist of 22 members;
(h)	on Housing, Urban Development and Public Works, to consist of 22 members;
(i)	on Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration, to consist of 22 members;
(i) on Industry, Research and Energy Development, to consist of 22 members;
(Jc) on Justice and Legal Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(l)	on Labour and Employment, to consist of 22
members;
(m)	on Miscellaneous Estimates, to consist of 22
members;
(n)	on Miscellaneous Private Bills, to consist of
22 members;
(o)	on National Defence, to consist of 22 members;
(p)	on Northern Affairs and National Resources, to consist of 22 members;
(q)	on Privileges and Elections, to consist of 22 members;
(r) on Public Accounts, to consist of 24 members;
(s) on Standing Orders, to consist of 22 members;
(t)	on Transport and Communications, to consist of 22 members; and
(u)	on Veterans Affairs, to consist of 22 members. (2) The Special Committee shall also prepare
and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees;
on Printing, to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the printing of Parliament, to consist of 23 members;
June 9. 1965	COMMONS
on the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of the Joint Committee of both Houses to consist of 21 members;
provided that a sufficient number of members of Joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of the House of Commons and Senate.
(3)	A majority of the members of a standing committee shall constitute a quorum unless the House otherwise orders;
Provided that, in the case of a joint committee, the number of members constituting a quorum shall be such as the House of Commons acting in consultation with the Senate may determine.
(4)	The Standing Committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House; to report from time to time their observations and opinions hereon; to send for persons, papers and records; and to print, from day-to-day, such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and Standing Order 66 shall not apply in relation thereto.
(5)	Any member of the House of Commons who is not a member of a standing committee, may unless the House or the standing committee otherwise orders, take part in the deliberations of the standing committee, but shall not vote or move any motion or any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
11.	That Standing Order 99 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 99
99. No Bill for the incorporation of a railway or canal company, or for authorizing the construction of branch lines or extensions of existing lines of railways or of canals, or for changing the route of the railway or of the canal of any company already incorporated, shall be considered by the Committee on Transport and Communications, until there has been filed with the committee, at least one week before the consideration of the bill, a map or plan drawn upon a scale of not less than half an inch to the mile, showing the location upon which it is intended to construct the proposed work, and showing also the lines of existing or authorized works of a similar character within, or in any way affecting the district, or any part thereof, which the proposed work is intended to serve; and such map or plan shall be signed by the engineer or other person making the same.
12.	That Standing Order 105 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 105
105. Every private bill, when read a second time, is referred to one of the standing committees as follows: bills relating to banks, insurance, trade and commerce and to trust and loan companies, to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; bills relating to railways, canals, telegraphs, canal and railway bridges, to the Committee on Transport and Communications; the bills not coming under these classes, to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, and all petitions for or against the bills are considered as referred to such committee.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. When the Committee rose last night an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Lapointe
DEBATES	2171
House of Commons Procedures was being considered. This amendment reads as follows:
That all the words after the word "decision" In line 4 of the proposed Standing Order 12, subclause 1, be deleted.
Is the Committee ready for the question?
e (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, there are a few comments I should like to make concerning resolution 15, and especially with regard to section 2, in support of the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).
Mr. Chairman, before the house is called upon to vote on this amendment, I suggest that all members should examine carefully the provisions contained in section 2 of the said resolution, the purpose of which is to eliminate the right of appeal from rulings made by the Speaker.
If we had a permanent Speaker, we would be the first to vote in favour of section 2. But I would point out to the house that we are still governed by old principles. That is to say, the Speaker of this house does not hold a permanent post but is selected by a political party from among its own members and, consequently, he will often be inclined to go along with his party before considering an issue peculiar to a given area or group.
That is why we say it is not desirable at present to adopt the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 15, so long as we shall not have a permanent Speaker.
Mr. Chairman, we are told we should not question the honesty of a Speaker. I for one try not to have doubts about the honesty of the Speaker, but he has to be settled in his job and protected so that his honesty be preserved. I maintain that at the present time it is almost humanly impossible for a Speaker, considering the way he is appointed, to preserve his honesty a hundred per cent.
Mr. Chairman, they must not take us for mugs. When a man is elected within his party, when he is chosen by a party for the Speakership, it is logical, it is human-you cannot fool us, we were not born yesterday -he will always be inclined to go along with his party.
As for his impartiality, we wonder if he is well conditioned to be truly impartial. I realize that the present Speaker and his deputy-whom I wish to congratulate-endeavour by all possible means to be fair, but on some occasions, the impartiality of a Speaker does not simply depend on his will;
June 9, 1965

House of Commons Procedures it can depend on external causes or still it can be due to a lack of knowledge of a question or its circumstances.
In fact, many things must be taken into consideration. The Speaker must be acquainted with the matter. For example, there is the case of the rain-making operations in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. Many problems with which the Speaker is not familiar may crop up.
That is why we say that, in such a case, the opposition must have the right to appeal from the Speaker's ruling to make him understand the matter. Then it will be up to the house to decide by a vote whether it should maintain or reverse that ruling, as the case may be. But as long as this system is in force, we will be unable to accept the changes proposed in resolution No. 15.
Besides, it is also a matter of justice for the opposition parties because that is our only way to protest legally when for some reason or other, which might have nothing to do with the Speaker, efforts are made to prevent us from getting justice. That is the only weapon at the disposal of the third parties to get justice in this house when they are not satisfied with the Speaker's ruling.
It was also suggested that this undermines the Speaker's authority. On the contrary, I think it strengthens it. In fact-and I am always thinking in terms of our present conditions-if we leave full freedom of decision to the Speaker, it simply becomes a dictature, directed against the opposition. Because since the Speaker comes from a party and is selected by a party, he is inclined to follow his party. As long as these conditions prevail, I maintain that the right of appeal from the Speaker's rulings will ensure the fairness and authority of the Chair. Knowing that his rulings can be appealed may cause the Speaker to think twice before making a ruling. In my opinion, far from undermining the Chair's authority, it strengthens it by helping the Speaker to make fair rulings while they might have been not as fair for the various reasons I have given. An appeal from the Speaker's ruling allows the house to consider the whole question with him; then, if the vote taken is in favour of maintaining his ruling, it means that the appeal was not valid; on the other hand, if the Speaker is overruled, justice is done to the opposition parties. Even in that case, the Speaker's authority is confirmed as far as the principles of justice are concerned.
I believe the Speaker is there to uphold the rules of the house, but he must be the

first to respect them and he must endeavour not to break them.
I am sure that the knowledge that his decision can be appealed will refresh the Speaker's memory; it is a constant reminder that he, himself, must first of all, observe the rules and then, have the others observe them as well.
Others have claimed that the purpose of this provision is also to make the house more effective. I think that the first reform to make to ensure the effectiveness of the house -and I said something about that at the outset-would merely be to eliminate confidence votes. Then the house would be more effective but it would not be so through the abolition of the right to appeal the Speaker's ruling. Indeed such an appeal can only delay the business of the house for 15 or 20 minutes. If the government had proposed, in its reforms, the abolition of want of confidence votes, which enables the government to pass legislation that the opposition does not like, whenever the latter wants to keep on governing, that would have been more effective. By means of the want of confidence vote, the government forces us, should we want to keep on with the administration of the business of this country without defeating the government, to accept measures that we regard as bad and that we would not want to accept; but not wishing to overthrow the government, thus causing the population a further expense in the tens of millions of dollars, we are forced to accept some of that legislation. In my opinion, resolution No. 15 and the provision relating to appeals against the Speaker's rulings has nothing to do with the efficiency of government.
I would now like to say a few words on paragraph 3 of resolution No. 15 which proposes mealtime sittings.
My motto has always been, Mr. Chairman, that there is a proper time for everything. When it is time to work, one works; when it is time to eat, one eats; when it is time to rest, one rests. I am surprised to see that in order to increase the weekly sitting hours, we shall have to work while eating or to eat while working, o (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, should a manufacturer follow such a rule, he would soon be bankrupt. If, in order to accelerate the business of the house, we must sacrifice our lunch and dinner hours, you will agree with me that we cannot work and eat while sitting here.
To me, this is another gimmick on the part of the government to have the greatest pos-
June 9, 1965

sible number of members out of the house so as to be able, often, to pass measures they want adopted fast but which deserve discussion. The government would take advantage of the absence of a number of members who would be out to eat. That may not be of great importance for a party with 100 or 120 members, although it should not be so, for it is just another opportunity or reason for a member to be absent for two or three hours during lunch or dinner.
On the other hand, if two or three members of our group are on a delegation, and if two or three of us are out eating, there will not be enough left to call a vote, because we must be at least five for that. If there are not five of us present, the government will do as it pleases. It is intended that we should sit during lunch and dinner, thus removing us from the house at all costs, so as to pass quickly legislation which often affects our localities and in respect of which we shall not have the occasion to defend the interests of our ridings.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the government wishes to increase the sitting hours, but there are many other ways of doing so without depriving us of our meal hours.
Let us simply take an hour for lunch or dinner, instead of two hours or two hours and a half; let us work in the morning, let us work on Wednesday night. As long as we are in Ottawa, let us have regular working hours, but let us not be deprived of time for meals and rest. I perceive something mean in this amendment to the rules, and I am surprised that not a single member of the opposition should have spoken on this matter. I do not know whether they prefer to skip out for an hour or an hour and a half in order to eat while the house is sitting, but I frankly admit this is very difficult, for I feel that we are here not to let legislation go by without debate, but rather to discuss it. While the house sits, our duty is to be present to debate our problems, to try to pass the reforms put forward by the government and to adopt legislation to the needs of our constituencies.
That is why we should be present in the house instead of resting or eating. The right to eat is sacred and a member could not be blamed for leaving his seat in order to take his meal. That means the government must change its attitude concerning this provision and allow us at least one hour for meals, even though we may have to make up for it on Wednesday nights or in the mornings. No one
House of Commons Procedures will convince me that it is impossible to find 40 hours outside of mealtime. Come now. I notice that on the same day, we will take the four hours formerly set aside for meals, and that we will work during mealtime. For me, as for many others, that is nonsensical. Let us decide on other hours, let us shorten the mealtime but let us be allowed to be present when the house sits, without depriving us of our right to three meals a day.


Some hon. Members:: The vote.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments to make on one of the questions dealt with by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) who preceded me. It relates to paragraph 3 (1) of the resolution before us.
The previous speaker said that members should not be deprived of their lunch hours. The suggestion surely has merits, but I think it is cause for more concern, not particularly for the inconvenience it would cause to the members themselves-we know they can leave the house whenever they please, although this is not recommended-but to the staff of the house who cannot leave at will; I think that in suggesting sitting during lunch hours, insufficient thought has been given to the staff.
We have in this chamber interpreters, reporters, the clerk and his assistants, not to mention Your Honour, who must remain on duty during our long sitting hours. In my opinion, not only will this proposal affect the personnel, but it is quite inhuman. Labour unions would never allow private enterprise to deprive their members of normal meal hours. And now it is proposed that employees who have an exacting, delicate and very strenuous job to perform should stay at it during long hours and even give up their meal hours.
As I say, such a proposal runs counter to social justice and I have no hesitation in calling it inhuman and antisocial.
Mr. Chairman, if such conditions would not be tolerated within private industry, can the government indulge in the luxury or even have the gall to lay down for its staff labour conditions it would not allow in private industry?
Since the government has the responsibility to implement normal labour standards, and since it would not allow private industry to apply such labour conditions, I appeal specially to it to change its proposal so that every employee of this house can have normal meal hours. It is a fact that one may answer:
June 9, 1965

House of Commons Procedures Well, hire more staff. However, we must not forget that there are many and real difficulties involved when you want to recruit the qualified employees required for the dispatch of the business of the House.
Mr. Chairman, these remarks apply to every employee of the House, to the interpreters, and to the reporters who accurately report the proceedings of the House. It is a highly specialized work for which the reporters are inadequately paid in comparison with those who do similar work in private industry.
In fact, I know many official court stenographers who receive a much higher salary than those who are now serving in the same capacity in the House of Commons. They are highly qualified employees who seldom make mistakes or blunders.
It is not sufficient to hire other employees. The working conditions must be favourable to find extra personnel.
Up to now, because of the salary offered and especially of the inhuman conditions the staff must accept, the government is unable to hire the required personnel. To show how difficult it is to find qualified personnel for the debates section, especially the French debates section, it could be pointed out that a young stenographer from France had to be employed. We are very happy at the appointment of this young woman, because like the other members of the staff, she performs her work exceptionally well. But the fact that skilled personnel must be recruited abroad shows once again that recruiting is extremely difficult.
Also, if working conditions are going to get even worse, it seems to me that not only will it be impossible to recruit new personnel, but I am very much afraid that the present house staff members will plan to change jobs and go to private industry, because as I indicated a while ago, working conditions in private industry are surely much more attractive.
Mr. Chairman, the provisions of subsection 3 of paragraph 1 of resolution No. 15 are to allow hon. members to leave the House during meal hours because they provide for a suspension, so to speak, of a vote during normal meal hours.
I think that such a provision is discriminatory-
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what that argument has to do with the amendment to paragraph 2 which is before us.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the President of the Privy Council very briefly. It is not strictly pertinent to the amendment. The remarks that I have to make will be very, very brief; I have only two or three other points to raise. I believe that in view of the latitude shown by the Chair with regard to the discussion of this amendment we would certainly be able to dispose not only of the amendment but the whole question much more quickly if I were allowed to finish my remarks, instead of having to begin them over again when the amendment has been disposed of. I admit that the President of the Privy Council is right in his remarks, strictly speaking, but if you will be indulgent, Mr. Chairman, I will terminate my remarks as soon as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he is saying, but I think it would be advisable if we had some clarification from the Chair as to what the procedure is to be. Are we going to deal with each paragraph, pass it so it is disposed of and finished with, or are we going to roam all over item 15; because that way it seems to me we are going to have a great deal of difficulty. I had understood that what we were going to do today was start with paragraph 2, dispose of it, then revert to paragraph 1 and then go seriatim through each of the paragraphs. It seems to me that only if we do that will we know where we are. I have no objection to the hon. Member finishing his remarks, but I think there should be some clarification with regard to the rest of the debate. Otherwise I can see us wandering all over the place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. In this matter the Chair is in the hands of the Committee. It is my opinion that with a resolution of this kind, particularly when the time for debate is limited, we might well work a little more effectively if we were to follow this resolution through paragraph by paragraph. On the other hand I must point out to the Committee that there is a single resolution before the Chair, and unless the Committee decides to discuss the resolution paragraph by paragraph the Chair would have to consider any comments made within the bounds of the resolution as being in order.


Mr. Winch:: On this point, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that when you took the Chair you read out an amendment that was before the Committee of the Whole House. I
June 9, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	2175
House of Commons Procedures
understood we were discussing the amendment his remarks we proceed with the discussion which is before us.	of this resolution paragraph by paragraph?


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might say a word or two on this point. My understanding was that, by unanimous consent, when we began consideration of this resolution last night we did agree, in effect, upon an order which would provide for paragraph by paragraph consideration. It was on that ground that we agreed to commence with the consideration of paragraph 2. I think this was in effect an order of the House and that last night the Chair had received that direction from the Committee.


George James McIlraith: If I might say something on this point, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it would be quite accurate to say there was an agreement last night as to the way in which we would proceed. Technically the resolution is one resolution and any amendment should be made to the whole resolution, and I suppose it is in order, technically, to discuss the whole resolution. But it seems to me that because of the nature of the resolution this could only lead to a confused and unsatisfactory type of discussion in Committee and I would suggest that if it meets the wishes of the Committee, subject to the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue having an opportunity to complete his remarks, we should seek to complete paragraph 2 and from that point on discuss the paragraphs as they come, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and so on, until we finish. It seems to me that this would be a more orderly way to proceed and would be more satisfactory to the Committee.


Harold Edward Winch: That means a decision on the amendment now before the Committee?


George James McIlraith: Yes. I would point out that I have undertaken in one way or another, mostly because of suggestions from private Members on both sides of the House, to present amendments to paragraphs 1, 5, 7 and 10, and there will also be an amendment at the conclusion to make a term provision rather than a permanent change in the rules. If we followed the orderly procedure that I have suggested, rather than putting them all forward together I would put them forward on each paragraph as we come to it. I think that is the fairest way of proceeding, and if it meets the wishes of the Committee I would suggest that we proceed in that way.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the Committee now agree that after the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue has completed


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I point out to the Members of the Committee-


Michael Starr: After the vote.


George James McIlraith: Yes, after the vote.


Herman Maxwell Batten: -that if we are to
follow that procedure we will, of course, not pass each paragraph but will terminate the discussion on each paragraph.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, my understanding was-and I think this has been more or less agreed on, with the co-operation of all parties of the House-that we would deal with paragraph 2 and then call the question and bring it to a vote; then we would revert to paragraph 1 and deal with each paragraph separately, in rotation, with the amendments and the votes that may be required.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Then I presume that the Committee is directing the Chair to confine the discussion to the paragraph under consideration at any particular time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: After the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue has finished his remarks.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes, after this particular amendment has been voted on. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for your indulgence. I will be very brief in terminating my remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I was saying that this provision seems to me quite discriminatory, because it allows hon. members to leave the house during meal hours. It provides for a specific exception whereby hon. members who make such a request can block any vote during meal time. Therefore, such a provision is to accommodate, to a certain extent, hon. members who wish to go out for lunch.
But a similar privilege is not granted to the members of the staff who have to remain on the job all the time during lunch hours and perform more exacting duties than the members who may leave the house at will.
Such discrimination against those whose responsibility it is to expedite the business of the house is beyond comprehension.
June 9, 1965

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
House of Commons Procedures
In my opinion, the adoption of this suggestion to sit during normal meal hours would have the effect of quickly wearing out the staff. The efficiency of work of the house is the reason mentioned for this amendment. Far from increasing efficiency, it would, I think, lessen it considerably if employees became exhausted because of the extra work involved as a result of this excessive number of overtime hours as compared to normal conditions existing in private industry.
It was suggested that it would solve the problem if the debates were not taken down by the reporters during the meal hours. This solution cannot of course be considered seriously. Replacing the staff by machines, during those hours, cannot be considered seriously either. Either those machines can function efficiently and satisfactorily or they cannot. If they can, then they should be used all the time; if they cannot, there is no reason why they should be used during meal hours and not during normal sitting hours.
In essence, this would not lead to efficiency but to exhaustion. This could lead to a situation where the house would surely lose its most efficient and skilled employees; should we insist on passing this measure, employee efficiency would surely be lessened.
With respect to the French debates division, where recruiting of staff is so difficult, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I suggest that the enforcement of this provision would result in downgrading the French debates division which is now working in a very acceptable, and I would even say, excellent way. On the one hand, new personnel cannot be recruited and, on the other hand, the staff which might remain faithfully on the job would quickly be faced with chronical exhaustion.
A much simpler solution is to keep the normal hours and also to determine the opening and adjournment periods of the house; in this way, members of the staff could fully rely on vacations which would be set beforehand.
A revision of the salaries of the house employees would also have to be seriously considered in order to put them on an equal footing with those paid for similar work in private industry. If instead of showing indifference for the well-being of employees, normal reforms were proposed, I am convinced that there would be an increase in the efficiency of the house thanks to a staff which would be reasonably paid, satisfied, able and enthusiastic.
[Mr. Martineau.l


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the Committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 18; nays, 50.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I desire to say just a few words on paragraph 2, which abolishes the right of appeal from the Speaker's ruling. There is not any doubt about the fact that this right of appeal has been abused by using it to get the view of the House on the substance of what is before the House, rather than on the actual ruling of the Speaker. But the fact that this right has been abused does not warrant abolishing it completely, any more than we would abolish many of the other rules that are abused from time to time by Members of the House. [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I have two basic objections to this complete abolition of the right of appeal. The first is that there is always a danger of bias on the part of the Speaker and, even if there is not actual bias, there is always the danger that Members may feel the Speaker is biased in favour of the Government by whom he is nominated. Moreover the history of Canadian parliamentary life has been that the Speakership has often been a stepping stone from a private Member's position to a Cabinet Minister's portfolio. Because of that fact the Speakership has not been thought of as having that degree of impartiality that would free the Chair from any feeling that there was bias on the part of its occupant.
The suggestion has been made that appeals could be abolished if we had a permanent Speaker. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour have each talked about the idea of a permanent Speaker, and even names have been tossed around, I think somewhat unwisely. No one to date has spelled out what the Government or the Official Opposition means when they talk about a permanent Speaker. The Minister of Labour went so far as to ask the different political parties to express their views about the acceptability of a certain individual as a possible permanent Speaker. I hope before this debate concludes that someone on behalf of the Government, preferably the Prime Minister, will tell the House exactly what is
June 9, 1965	COMMONS
meant when they talk about a permanent Speaker. Certainly until they do I am not in a position to give the views of this party with regard to the establishment of a permanent Speakership. So far the responses to the suggestion of establishing such an office have been very nebulous and vague, indeed.
There have been three ideas advanced by various people, and I think they are contained in the brief which was prepared by Professor Denis Smith. The first is the so-called McGee Plan, which proposes that the Members of Parliament elect from among themselves one Member to be the Member for Parliament Hill. This would mean amending the constitution to make Parliament Hill a constituency, so that the Member elected would resign the seat to which he had been elected. A by-election would be held, and the hon. Member would become the Member for Parliament Hill. If that is what the Government has in mind, we would like to know. We are prepared to consider and examine that suggestion very carefully, but we do not know whether that is in fact what the Government has in mind.
The other proposal, which is usually mooted when one talks about a permanent Speaker, is that someone who is the Speaker, or is being promoted as a person suitable for the occupancy of the Chair, should be given an acclamation at the next election, in that all parties would undertake to refrain from opposing him. Under that proposal when such an individual returned to the House following an election would automatically be elected by the new House to the Chair. I want to make it very clear that in my opinion this is not a very satisfactory arrangement. I do not think that we here, whether it be the political leaders or the political parties, have any right to make a commitment that we will disfranchise the people of a particular constituency for an indefinite period of time.
If the people of any constituency decide that a man has been a very good Speaker and consequently ought not to be opposed, that of course is their privilege. Many of us would probably encourage them to take that point of view; but any political party that believes in the autonomy of the constituency organization, and I am one of those, certainly could not undertake to tell any constituency that they must not put up a candidate in a forthcoming election. I am not sure it would be a good thing for any other political leader to undertake such an assignment, because this would not necessarily be for one term, but could be for three or four terms; and that
DEBATES	2177
House of Commons Procedures is a long period of time during which to deny the people of a constituency the right to exercise their franchise.
The third concept that usually is associated with a permanent Speakership is that of continuity of tenure of the Speakership. In my opinion this makes a great deal more sense, and is to a very large extent the practice that is being followed in Great Britain. If a man has occupied the Chair with distinction and to the satisfaction of Members in all parts of the House, I think it would be all to the good if at dissolution all parties indicated that he had discharged his duties so satisfactorily that in the event of his being re-elected at the polls, whatever party formed the next Government, he would be nominated as the Speaker. That would ensure the continuity of tenure without committing any party to refrain from nominating a candidate to run against the Speaker. It would also ensure that a change of Government would not necessarily entail a change in Speakership. I have no doubt that, as has happened in Great Britain, if the Speaker has been continued in office over one or two terms, the likelihood is that the people of the constituency and the Members of the various parties would refrain from opposing him during an election, but they would do so on the basis of a voluntary decision made by the people. That would not require some of us here to decide who should be the Speaker, or who should nominate and who should not be nominated in a particular constituency.
I hope that this question of the so-called permanent Speakership will be clarified, because I think it is important that if we are going to abolish appeals against the Speaker's rulings the Speaker must more and more be divorced from partisan considerations. The continuity of tenure by the Speaker, irrespective of a change in Government, would go a long way toward removing any suspicion that there was bias or prejudice on the part of the Speaker when he makes the decisions he must make from time to time in order to carry on the work of the House. I trust that we are going to get some clarification of this point. That would be a forward step. If we are to reach some agreement, we ought to reach it on the basis of a distinct understanding of what we are talking about.
Certainly as far as I am concerned, I think the third alternative to which I have referred, the continuity of tenure, is the one which would cause the least dislocation and would be the easiest to apply. If this worked satis-
June 9. 1965

House of Commons Procedures factorily over a period of years, then some future parliament could decide whether or not further improvements could be made so as to guarantee the impartiality of the Speaker and the appearance of impartiality, which is just as important as the impartiality itself.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The second objection I have to abolishing appeals from the Speaker's rulings concerns not only the matter of bias which may be attributed to the Speaker but also the question of errors of judgment. No individual is infallible. No Member, no matter how conscientious or how scrupulous he may be, can guarantee that he will always be right. The rules of this House are exceedingly complicated and in the final analysis the man in the Chair has to make a decision. He must interpret those rules on the basis of precedent; he must analyse the situation before him and reach a decision.
It is quite conceivable that the decision will be wrong. The difficulty is that not only will that wrong decision work an injustice at the time but, even more serious, it will become a precedent upon which other decisions will be based in the future. In parliament we build up a series of precedents, as we do in the common law, and one erroneous decision could start a whole trend of decisions which could not be reversed and could have very unfortunate results.
I think there is a half way ground between what the Government is proposing and the amendment just defeated which sought to amend paragraph 2 so as to permit appeals against the Sepaker's rulings. The middle ground was referred to yesterday by the hon. Member for Edmonton West and it is also contained in the brief which was prepared for the Committee on Procedure by Professor Denis Smith of Trent University. I will read only a couple of paragraphs which I think set forth the proposal in fairly succinct terms. He says:
The Speaker, however, may sometimes make mistakes in applying the rules, and occasionally invites appeals on this ground. On February 24, 1965, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton admitted the possibility that "even the Chair is perhaps in the position sometimes of making an error," and invited an appeal against his ruling that a prima facie case of privilege had not been made by Mr. Douglas. The decision was appealed, and the Speaker's ruling was reversed. The simple abolition of appeals would provide no recourse for the House against patently mistaken rulings, except the extreme recourse of a substantive motion of censure.
An intermediate measure of reform might provide that an appeal could only be made by substantive

motion accompanied by the citation of authorities and precedents in writing, and that such an appeal would be referred automatically by the House either to the Committee on Privileges and Elections or to the Committee on Procedure, if it were to become a standing committee. The appropriate committee would examine the merits of the appeal, and report to the House, which would act upon the recommendation of the committee to sustain the ruling or to allow the appeal. This deliberate and formal procedure would eliminate most nuisance appeals, but would permit legitimate appeals based upon careful study of the rules.
I want to commend to the Committee consideration of the point put forward by Professor Denis Smith. It is absurd for us to begin with the assumption that a Speaker, no matter how fair, no matter how impartial, no matter how learned, will never make a mistake. If we abolish appeals from the Speaker's rulings we are left with no alternative but to move a motion of censure, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, there are many instances where one disagrees with the Speaker on a matter of law or on the interpretation of the rules of the House, but where one would certainly hesitate to move a motion of censure which calls in question not just his judgment but his integrity.
It seems to me that this middle ground of having a standing committee on procedure to which an appeal could be referred is a good idea, not so much for the purpose of rectifying an immediate situation but to prevent the establishment of a precedent which could lead to great misunderstanding later. I think the proposal made by Professor Denis Smith is worthy of the Committee's consideration. I believe that abolishing appeals completely is going too far. I am quite willing to admit that there have been abuses and there ought to be some restriction on the right to appeal, but to leave Members no recourse when they disagree with the Speaker except to move a motion of censure on the Speaker seems to me not to be the essence of wisdom. Therefore I move:
That the proposed new Standing Order 12 (1) be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: "provided, however, that an appeal on a substantive motion, accompanied by the citation of authorities and precedents, may be submitted for study to a special committee to be appointed for that purpose."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about this amendment. When the hon. Member for Edmonton West spoke about this procedure, which if I remember correctly I think he said is followed in the West German Parliament, it did seem to me that the general idea had a certain amount
June 9, 1965

of appeal, if I may make a very bad play on words. I think I was the first Member of the House who as a member of the Opposition proposed the abolition of appeals. I did so consistently for three successive sessions when I was sitting on the other side of the House, so I do not think anyone can accuse me of being an advocate of the abolition of appeals because I think they are an embarrassment to the Government.
I think that the idea that a majority of the Members of the House can reach a better decision about a matter concerning the rules is so absurd that it just cannot commend itself to any sensible person. In that regard I point out that in the normal course an appeal in a legal matter is to another court, not to the jury that has participated in a trial at a lower stage, if I may mix my metaphors thoroughly.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I think the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was quite right when he said that appeals had almost never been taken on the grounds that the rules were incorrectly interpreted, but in an effort to get a phony decision on the question which was itself ruled out of order. This seems to me not only an abuse of our procedures but a very serious affront to whoever may be Speaker. I do not believe we will ever be able to get a continuing Speaker of this House until after we have abolished appeals. I know I would never take the position if there were any appeal from me. I think once this matter has been debated in the House, I do not think any other Member will be willing to take the office if the House is not willing to trust him. Some of the reasons that haye been given for not trusting the Speaker, that he might conceivably be biased, do not impress me very much. They did not impress me when I was sitting on the other side, either.
This is a very ingenious idea but one which I feel that at this stage, since it is also novel and has been sprung upon us without warning, might be something which a committee ought to study very carefully. I would find it difficult, myself, to support the amendment in its present form. In saying that, however, I should like to add that I do believe it is a matter which should be studied by whatever body the House sets up to study the rules over the next period. After all, the rules we are debating now are to be effective for a trial period only, which will expire at the end of the next full session. It seems to me that, in view
House of Commons Procedures of the general expression of confidence, we could abolish the appeals now and consider this suggestion very carefully. If I interpret it correctly, the appeal would not be against the effect of that particular ruling. The ruling would stand, but there would be an appeal against its becoming a precedent. It would be only on that basis that I think it would be feasible at all, because obviously you could not suspend all the proceedings of the House while the committee studied the ruling in order to determine whether or not the decision should be allowed in that particular case.
In other words, I am speaking only for myself as one Member of the House when I say that the idea embodied in the hon. gentleman's amendment has some attraction for me. No one wants to move votes of censure against a Speaker to express dissent. I think the hon. Member for Edmonton West, in bringing this matter before the House, with the kind of special experience the hon. gentleman has had in a very difficult parliament, has done us a real service. At the same time, I would hope that we would not be rushed into the adoption of the proposal without considering all its implications, particularly as there will be a chance, in the further consideration of the rules, to consider the best wav of doing it in our own Canadian fashion. If there were a general understanding that this idea would be considered and, if we could work out something satisfactory, we would have it brought back to the House as the view of the whole House, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would consider not dividing the House but withdrawing his amendment?


Mr. Baldwin:: I think this is a very interesting suggestion, particularly because it follows along the lines of an idea I expressed when I first spoke in this debate. I said, as reported on page 1579 of Hansard, that I was quite convinced, as a result of the proposal to abolish the appeal from the Speaker's ruling, that certain things would come about which we did not contemplate at this time. Then, I said, and I quote:
I believe as well that if the particular proposal by which appeals from Mr. Speaker's ruling are abolished, it might not be a bad idea to have in existence a committee which would be seized of an understanding of these rules, and which would meet from time to time and to which Mr. Speaker could have access.
This is not quite the same as the proposal in the amendment, but I make this suggestion that I am quite in agreement with what the Minister of Transport said. You could not
June 9, 1965

House of Commons Procedures have the House left in suspended animation. If Mr. Speaker made a decision, the House would have to act in accordance with the rules. We could not wait for a week or ten days to have the committee which is proposed in the amendment of the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam inquire into whether or not the decision was one which should stand, then bring before the House its views contained in a substantive motion upon which the House could vote, and confirm or alter the ruling of Mr. Speaker.
I do believe, however, it is quite essential that in connection with a decision which is made, and which might not be one the House feels is in the best interests of all concerned should stand, not only for this Parliament but for subsequent parliaments, rather than put it in the form that there could be an appeal, such a committee might be seized with the duty of carefully considering the issue. If the committee thought the decision was one which should not stand as part of our procedure, they could then bring a substantive motion, just as is proposed in this amendment, and the House could then divide on this question. If it is left in this form, you would then have a situation where Mr. Speaker has given his decision and yet there is still an appeal outstanding. I think you would be in difficulty. I believe there is merit in the suggestion. Possibly the Government might consider, before we have completed our deliberations which will continue until tomorrow, holding consultations with the hon. Member who has moved the amendment and the hon. Member for Edmonton West who brought this matter forward. The House should have an opportunity to alter a ruling which it feels should not stand.


Mr. Lambert:: I think the situation might be clarified to the satisfaction of all if we could get an undertaking from the Government that we would have reinstated the Special Committee on Procedure. There has been no provision made for that committee to continue the studies it had undertaken. I believe this procedure would take care of the matter, if we could have that undertaking. After all, while the Government says these rules are going to be reviewed, it does not say how or when. I suggest that the reinstitution of the Special Committee on Procedure might facilitate things.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif):: Order; it being five o'clock I must interrupt the

business to permit the House to consider private Members' business.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate the increased costs of farm machinery across Canada in relation to the price of farm products.
He said: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to introduce my motion for discussion at this hour. The purpose of my motion is this: to have a Royal Commission appointed to investigate the increased costs of farm machinery across Canada in relation to the price of farm products.
In the past such investigations have usually been carried out by the standing committee on agriculture of this House, as was the case in 1960-61. In my opinion the disadvantage of having an investigation of this kind carried out by a standing committee is that very often-and this is what happened in 1960-61-parliament is prorogued and an election called, with the result that the recommendations of the committee are neither properly studied nor implemented. I understand this was the case not only in the particular year to which I have referred, but in previous parliaments in the past. Similar circumstances arose. If a Royal Commission were set up as suggested in my motion the investigation could continue whether the House was sitting or not, or whether parliament had been prorogued or not; the commissioners would not be interfered with.
As hon. Members know, at the present time one of the great problems which faces our farm industry is the high prices of farm machinery. These prices are out of all proportion to the price the farmer receives for his produce. What is worse is that the prices of farm machinery rise year after year while the prices of farm products remain the same or, in some cases, are even lower. What is the reason for this? Well, a Royal Commission would be empowered to investigate and discover the reason for this inequality of price.
The 1960-61 Agriculture Committee of which I was a Member investigated farm machinery prices. The first step at that time was to call in the four main farm machine
June 9. 1965

companies of Canada. These companies were: Massey-Ferguson Ltd., International Harvester Co. of Canada Ltd., John Deere Ltd., and Cockshutt Farm Equipment Ltd. It was a most interesting investigation and we listened with great interest to what these machinery companies had to say about the steady rise in the cost of farm machinery. They gave many reasons. Each company contended that its margin of profit was below 4 per cent and also that its volume of business was decreasing. Well, the reason for a decline in business might be found among the records of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. During the period 1951-61 the number of farms decreased by 23 per cent. Maybe this is one reason why the volume of business done by these companies had decreased. It was also stated by the machine companies that the costs of labour and materials had climbed to a much greater extent than had farm machinery prices.
We also invited the Canadian Labour Congress to present its views and it is interesting to note that in their statement the C.L.C. representatives contended that wages in the farm implement industry had not risen as much as they had in other industries. Though their wages had increased by 100 per cent since 1949, the standard of living had not increased as much as it had in the farm implement industries. They admitted that steelworkers' wages had increased by approximately 200 per cent since 1949.
As I say, we heard from the four main farm machine companies. We were also presented with a statement by the C.C.I.L.-the Canadian Co-operative Implement Company of Winnipeg. This was very different from the statement made by the four major companies, who said their profit amounted to only 4 per cent. We were particularly interested in the financial statement of the C.C.I.L. According to this statement the experience of the company over the years had been that in relation to total sales of slightly more than $54 million a net savings amounting to $5,640,000 had been made on sales which represent only a very small percentage of total machine sales in western Canada. In 1959, when C.C.I.L. had a better percentage of total sales than in several preceding years there was a saving of approximately 14 per cent on sales. More than $1,650,000 has been paid in cash to member customers and more than $500,000 has been placed in a deferred dividend position. This is very interesting. Here we have the four main im-
Farm Machinery Prices plement companies contending that they are making a profit of only 4 per cent from their sales while the C.C.I.L. is making a profit as high as 14 per cent on sales.
I have in my hand some information from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which will throw some light on the subject and endorse my argument that a Royal Commission be set up to investigate the increased cost of farm machinery across Canada in relation to the price of farm products. Here is a table headed "Value of Farm Implement and Equipment Sales, Canada, 1954-1964". I will give the figures in millions of dollars. In 1954, sales of farm implements and farm equipment amounted to $146 million and the price rose continuously over a ten year period until in 1964 it stood at $366 million. This represented an increase of about 100 per cent. The sale of repair parts in 1954 amounted to $27 million and by 1964 there had been an increase to $52 million. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that prices have continuously increased; they rose by almost 100 per cent during this nine or ten year period.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Now let us consider the D.B.S. table entitled "Index Number of Wholesale Prices of Canadian Farm Products, Canada, 1949-1964". The basis of these figures is that the index 1935-39 equals 100. In 1949 the index stood at 228.7, while in 1963 it stood at 229.9, an increase of only one point over a 15-year period. I now come to the index numbers of wholesale prices of field products. We find that in 1949 the index stood at 191.9 and in 1963 it decreased to 184.4. Then for animal products we find that in 1949 the index stood at 265.4 while in 1963 it rose to 275.4.
You will see from these tables, Mr. Speaker, that the prices of farm products have not kept pace with the increase in the prices of farm implements and machinery. I also have another table, obtained from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, entitled "Selected index numbers of prices of commodities and services used by farmers". It is based on the index 1935-39 equalling 100. With regard to the composite index exclusive of living component, in 1949 the figure was 204.1, while in 1963 it stood at 298.6. In 1949 the index for farm machinery stood at 158.3, while in 1963 it rose to 272.9.
These figures reveal a very, very interesting and at the same time sad picture. The prices of farm machinery and services of which a farmer must avail himself have gone up 100 per cent to 200 per cent in some cases, while

June 9, 1965
Farm Machinery Prices the prices of farm products over a 15-year period have not only failed to increase but in many instances have decreased. This is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why I would like to have a Royal Commission investigate this matter and take appropriate steps to correct the unjust and unfair situation that exists today in our agricultural industry.
I have just one more table. This deals almost exclusively with prices for wheat, oats and barley in the Prairie Provinces. Here, too, the index is based on 1935-39 equalling 100. We see that in 1949 the index stood at 255.4, while after a 15-year period in 1963 it rose to 268.4. There has been a tremendous increase in the cost of farm machinery, while there has been an increase of very few points in the price of agricultural products, in this particular case wheat, oats and barley.
As I stated earlier in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, the number of farms has decreased during the 10-year period 1951 to 1961 by 23 per cent. This is the reason why farm delegation after farm delegation come to see the Federal Government, ask to have their plight investigated and come up with suggestions and recommendations whereby our
farmers may receive the same treatment that is accorded other segments of our population. I would like to see the House approve this motion so that the Government might go ahead and appoint a Royal Commission to investigate this problem.
I could deal with many more points in this connection and supply more information from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, but there is only one hour in which to discuss this matter and I would like to see other Members from all parties in the House stand up and express their views. I would like to have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to submit the tables I have mentioned, which were received from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, for either printing in the body of Hansard or as an appendix to Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Does the House give permission to having the tables referred to by the hon. Member included in his speech or as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]



VALUE OF FARM IMPLEMENT AND EQUIPMENT SALES, CANADA, 1954-1963

[Stage Direction]
(Values at Wholesale Prices)
Farm
Implements
and	Repair	TotalYear	Equipment	Parts	Sales
- dollars -
1954	
146,702,695	27,335,796	174,038,4911955	
153,124,434	28,451,964	181,576,3981956	
170,767,455	31,824,672	202,592,1271957	
149,901,593	33,820,056	183,721,6491958	
172,014,376	33,978,663	205,993,0391959	
212,231,379	38,887,438	251,118,8171960	
217,465,183	41,312,625	258,777,8081961	
201,776,532	39,643,554	241,420,0861962	
238,797,225	43,879,451	282,676,6761963	
287,839,732	49,721,863	337,561,5951964s	
366,503,241	52,594,582	366,503,241
Preliminary.
Source: Farm Implement and Equipment Sales, Cat. No. 63-203, and 63-009, Dominion Bureau of Statistics.

June 9, 1965
[Stage Direction]
Farm Machinery Prices

[Stage Direction]
Wholesale Prices of Canadian Farm Products
Year	All Farm Products	Field Products	Animal Products1949	
228.7	(1935-39=100) 191.9	265.41950 . 	
236.7	191.9	281.41951	
268.6	200.4	336.91952	
250.2	223.0	277.51953	
221.6	179.4	263.81954	
213.6	170.9	256.21955	
212.6	180.1	245.11956	
214.2	181.6	240.91957	
213.6	169.2	258.01958	
222.9	171.4	274.51959 	
223.9	176.1	271.61 960 	
226.6	189.1	264.11 961 	
230.9	191.7	270.01 962 	
240.8	195.5	286.01 963 	
229.9	184.4	275.41 964 	
218.3	169.4	267.2
Source: Prices and Price Indexes, Cat. No. 62-902, Prices Division, Dominion Bureau of Statistics.

[Stage Direction]
Composite Index Exclusive of
year	Living Component Farm Machinery
	(1935-39 = 100)	
1949 	
204.1	158.31950 	
210.4	165.11951 	
230.0	186.81952 	
243.1	195.41953 	
239.8	196.71954 	
237.2	197.91955 	
238.3	198.81956 	
247.6	209.41957 	
255.9	223.81958 	
259.9	236.71959 	
269.5	248.4I960 	
276.7	254.21961 	
282.2	261.41962 	
290.7	268.11963 	
298.6	272.91964	
308.6	279.6
Source: Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services Used by Farmers, Prices Division, Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
[Stage Direction]
June 9, 1965
Farm Machinery Prices
INDEX NUMBERS OF FARM PRICES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS*
Year	Index Number
	(1935-39 = 100)
1949		
1950		
1951		
1952		
1953		
1954		
1955		
1956		
1957		
1958		
1959		
1960		
1961		
1962		
1963		
19641		
* Excludes Newfoundland.
t For 1964 the index is based on initial prices only for wheat, oats and barley in the Prairie Provinces, for the period August to December inclusive. The 1964 index will be revised upwards when final prices are known for these grains.
Source: Index Numbers of Farm Prices of Agricultural Products, Cat. No. 62-003, Agriculture Division, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, March 1965.
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce my remarks, in dealing with the motion of the hon. Member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), by saying that I think all of us in this House are concerned with and appreciate the problems in the agricultural industry which the hon. Member has described. But I think he is perhaps taking a rather narrow approach to the whole matter and that the setting up of a Royal Commission as the hon. Member requests, while this in itself might be helpful, would entail wasting a great deal of time, pending the inquiry and the report of the Commission, before the Government would be in a position to take action in this respect. Also, there are indeed other facets of the problem facing the agricultural industry today that are of equal concern, and the whole scope of the agricultural problem is one which the Government has under constant review. The legislation introduced-I shall refer later in my remarks to this legislation and the policies of this Government-has been helpful in approaching a solution to this problem.
I wish to refer, as my hon. friend has done, to some statistics which will indicate that the matter he has discussed is not, relatively speaking, as pressing as other problems

in this particular field. The hon. Member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale referred-and I am pleased that he did-to the work carried out by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization in 1960 and 1961 when it was empowered by this House to inquire into the matter of the cost of farm machinery in relation to the price of farm produce. The hon. Member who preceded me was a Member of that Committee and speaks with more authority than I can, because I was not in the House of Commons at that time. However, a review of the proceedings shows that the Committee sat 36 times during this period. I think the first hearing was on July 12, 1960, and the Committee sat until June 5, 1961. It did not meet again because, as has already been mentioned, an election was called the following year. In view of the volume of work that was done by that Committee in connection with this problem, I think I might be a bit critical.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Committee was not reconvened after the election of June 18, 1962 because the Parliament which was then returned after that election did not have the opportunity to set up the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization. So that the great volume of work which was done by that Committee
June 9, 1965

has really never been reduced to the form of a report, and I think in that respect it is regrettable that something more concrete has not emerged from those rather lengthy, and I think important, deliberations.
The difficulties in the farming industry today have, of course, been partly overcome. The farmer is approaching the solution to his problems through more efficient operation, and in doing so requires newer and more efficient machines. It is a matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, that machinery investment on farms in Canada today amounts to $2.5 billion. We can compare this with 15 years ago when investment was $1.5 billion. I mention this to show the rapid increase both in size and cost of farm machinery in the post-war period.
However, we all know that the cost of other farm expenses is also going up, for example labour, machinery, operating expenses, and so on. I think it is interesting to look at the rate of these increases. I have before me some information supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicating the relative rate of increase of these other operating expenses as compared with machinery costs. It is an index of prices of commodities and services used by farmers, and I introduce these figures by saying, so as to make them more intelligible, that the index I refer to is a measure of the change in prices of things farmers buy for use in their farming operations. The composite index reflects changes in the average prices for large groups of production goods and services.
While the prices of most goods and services have moved up since the 1940's the prices of some have moved more rapidly than others. The sub-indexes have been calculated for the major components of the composite index.
During the 1950's, the price of farm machinery rose more rapidly than the average of all prices of goods and services used by farmers. From 1949 to 1959, the index of farm machinery prices rose 90.0 points while the composite index rose 65.4 points. The index of prices of building materials rose 88.5 points. Since 1959 however, the rise in the index of farm machinery prices had been at a slower rate than the index of prices of many other goods and services by farmers. During the past five years, during 1960 to 1964, the index of farm machinery prices advanced 25.4 points. The composite index in the same period advanced 31.9 points and the building materials price index advanced by 30.1 points. Farm wage rates advanced even
Farm Machinery Prices more rapidly. From 1949 to 1959 the index of farm wage rates rose 164.9 points as compared to the 65.4 point rise for the composite index and 90.1 point rise for the machinery price index. During the past five years farm wage rates have continued this trend, their index rising 72.2 points as against 31.9 for the composite index and 25.4 points for the index of farm machinery prices.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I do think-I say this with respect because I know the hon. Member, like all hon. Members in this House, is very concerned about the problems facing the agricultural industry- that we have to approach the question, as the Government is doing, from the over-all, broad approach; and this is the reason I read into the record the relative increase in prices in the farming industry, because it indicates that while the price of machinery is a serious and important factor, relatively speaking, in the cost of farming, it is no more important, or in late years as important, as the increase in the cost of labour and other services and requirements for which the farmer must pay.
I mentioned earlier that one of the solutions to our problems-all of us in agriculture refer to the cost-price squeeze-is greater efficiency. This has resulted in bigger and better and more expensive machines, and this in itself is a very important approach which we must take to our agricultural problems. The farmer has done an exceedingly fine job of increasing his efficiency, but that is not the whole answer; and certainly we cannot find the answer to the broad, over-all problems entirely within the scope of increased efficiency. The problem, of course, is that the price the farmer is receiving for his produce is not keeping pace with the cost of his operations, the various facets of which I have already described.
Another problem, one which this Government is moving and has moved very rapidly to assist, although it is not the entire solution-and I do not think anyone on this side has ever suggested it is-is the question of better credit facilities. The amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation legislation, which doubled the amount of credit available to farmers, and the amendments to farm improvement loans legislation, which increased the amount available from $7,500 to $15,000, in fact doubling it, have put the Canadian farmer in the position where there is more credit available to help him consolidate his land, purchase equipment and so on, thus making his operation an economical or more

June 9, 1965
Farm Machinery Prices economical and more viable one. These approaches which the Government is taking are helpful, and I have mentioned others. They are all part of the whole pattern of solutions to these problems of our agricultural industry. One of them, and a very important one, is the question raised by the hon. Member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp); and as I have already said it is one of the important problems with which we in this House have to deal.
However, I wonder whether a Royal Commission is really the answer. I think the motion is a reasonable and certainly conscientious attempt on the part of the hon. Member to bring this matter to the attention of this House, but I think, as I have already said, that we may be approaching the question within too narrow a scope.
I should like to put on the record a quotation which may be helpful from the proceedings before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization when it dealt with this problem in 1960 and 1961. 1 am referring to some remarks of the late Dr. Hannam, who was then President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. This quotation appears in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, No. 3, when he was giving evidence before the Committee, as reported at page 102 of the report. In his evidence he did not, nor did others on behalf of farm organizations, suggest the approach of a Royal Commission.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This is what Dr. Hannam said when dealing with the problem with which the Committee was faced in respect of agriculture generally in Canada:
In our view the basic difficulties of agriculture arise out of the technological forces making for rapidly rising productivity in agriculture, together with the failure of the demand for farm products to increase correspondingly. The result is a chronic tendency to overproduce and a downward pressure on farm prices and on numbers of farmers.
We think that farmers recognize this fact, and would not want us to run any risk of leaving an impression that we think the problems of agriculture are essentially caused by exploitative increases in costs, though these can be damaging when they occur. To leave such an impression would not serve the best interests of farm policy needs in Canada.
It is in the improvement of conditions of marketing and pricing of farm products, in expansion of markets, in the creation of economic opportunity for rural people, and in progressive credit and resource use policies that the greatest hopes for improvement in the farmer's condition lie.
I should again like to refer to the proceedings of that Committee and, in particular, to

a recommendation made by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool through its President, Mr. C. W. Gibbings, who presented a comprehensive brief containing a number of interesting and useful recommendations. Again, these recommendations did not include a reference to the setting up of a Royal Commission.
The recommendation I think is of interest in the context of this problem reads as follows:
That Governments, organized farmers and individual farmers themselves consider methods of encouraging custom hiring and renting, the sharing and co-operative ownership of farm machinery in areas and under conditions where each is feasible and desirable.
Hon. Members will recall that a few months ago this Government passed the Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, which I think is in fact the implementation of that recommendation made by Mr. Gibbings at the time he appeared before the Committee. I do not intend to go through the details of that legislation because hon. Members are familiar with it, but it does provide a method for co-operative purchase and ownership of farm machinery, when three or more farmers wish to join together for the purposes of obtaining loans under this Act.
The legislation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has been in effect for only a few months. Up to this time in Canada 46 syndicates have been established and have received some $500,000 in loans. This is the sort of thing that can and does help toward solving the problems of the farmer. There is a great deal more to be done and I would not suggest for a moment that that is not the case. However,
I do believe that the steps this Government has taken have been of great assistance.
I should like to mention one or two other steps the Government has taken, if I may, which were included in the budget resolutions now before us. One is the provision for the write-off, in the year in which they are incurred, of all the expenses of draining and of clearing farm lands. I believe this is going to be very helpful, and this is the way a farmer can be realistically helped in his battle against rising prices of things he uses, and his battle for stabilized prices for the things he sells.
One other measure referred to in the budget resolutions that I wish to mention is the provision for storage and handling of grain, whereby purchase and construction costs may be written off in a much shorter period of time than has been the case heretofore. Again this is a practical demonstration of the things
June 3, 1965

-that can and in tact are being done to assist the farming industry.
That is about all I wish to say, but I want to conclude by suggesting, and I am sure many hon. Members on this side of the House will associate themselves with me in this belief, that I appreciate the sentiment and goodwill behind the motion moved by the hon. Member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale (Mr. Rapp). That is one way of approaching this serious problem, but I hope that by my remarks I have to some extent shown that the problem is much broader and much more complex than would appear to be the case as reflected in the narrow, and I use that word in the sense of a specific approach, concept the hon. Member has mentioned.


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?


Russell Clayton Honey: Yes.


Siegfried John Enns: In his earlier remarks the hon. Member quoted some statistics to show how much money had been lent to farmers under the provisions of the Act sponsored by this Liberal Government. Would the hon. Member not agree that statistics regarding the increased amount of money lent to farmers does not show the whole picture? If ten tractors cost $20,000 ten years ago, there would be an entry of $20,000 in the statistical table, and if this year the same ten tractors cost $40,000, a comparison of the amounts of loans would not give a complete picture and might be misleading.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member has misunderstood me. I do not recall quoting any statistics to that effect. What I did say was, and I have not got the exact figures and suggest that the hon. Member check Hansard in this regard, that in the last four years there has been a shift in the relative cost of farm operations. Again 1 suggest the hon. Member check me by reading Hansard in this regard, but during the ten years after the war the greatest expense to a farmer related to farm machinery; but that expense has shifted so that, relatively speaking, labour and other costs of farm operations are taking more of the farmers' dollars today than machinery costs. I think those were the only statistics in that context which I used, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I shall be as brief as possible, but there are one or two pertinent points I want to raise. The hon. Member in moving
Farm Machinery Prices this motion has brought a most important and serious matter to the attention of this House. However, I do not think the hon. Member meant exactly what his motion says. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate the increased costs of farm machinery across Canada in relation to the price of farm products.
Surely what the hon. Member had in mind is not the relationship between the costs of farm machinery and the price of farm products, but rather the price of farm machinery in Canada. If that is tied in with the price of farm products, it does not mean the same thing. I may be wrong, but I take it the major question in the mind of the mover of this motion relates to the increase in the cost of farm machinery to the agriculturists of Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I agree completely that this is a matter that should be of immediate concern, study and report. Unfortunately there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to the base of the cost of farm machinery. I have read article after article in this regard. I have talked to farmer after farmer and they all have the idea that the increased cost of farm machinery has been brought about because of increased labour costs. Steel is the basic material that goes into the production of farm machinery, and investigation will prove that the increased wages and fringe benefits given over the years to those working in the steel industry have not added to the cost of farm machinery, because the increase in production per man hour in that industry has more than compensated for the increased wages and fringe benefits of the workers.
There is another important aspect to the cost of farm machinery with regard to which we run into a problem, brought about by the fact that there are those who believe in the capitalist system of free enterprise and competition. The fact is that many different types of machinery are produced by different firms but all these machines are designed to do the same job. What is the result? Farm machinery costs are sky high because the supplier has to keep on hand parts for so many different types of machinery produced by so many different companies. If hon. Members sincerely want to reduce the cost of farm machinery they are going to have to decide to accept standardization based on the most efficient equipment to do the job. If that were done, carburetors,

June 9, 1985
Farm Machinery Prices transmissions, gear boxes and so on would be interchangeable between various machines. If we continue to have six to a dozen different types of machinery all designed to do the same job, which means suppliers have to have the spare parts for all these machines, we will never get the price of farm machinery down to a level where it will not be such a major factor in the farmer's costs of production.
If the idea of the mover of the motion is, as I think it must be, that he wants a real study made of the costs of farm machinery resulting in recommendations to the Government and the House of Commons, and if he believes that the Government and the House of Commons will have the intestinal fortitude to do what is then required to bring down farm machinery prices to a level in keeping with the pocketbooks of the farmers, I think this will be a marvellous step forward. I said I would be very brief but I want to add that any inquiry must have the guts-I said "intestinal fortitude" but I will now say "guts"-to face up to the situation that nothing can be done in this regard under our competitive system unless we are prepared to accept standardization of equipment. If the hon. Member is prepared to have an investigation made with that idea in mind, then I say glory be to him for introducing this motion.
The hon. Member has asked for a Royal Commission. My personal opinion is that a Royal Commission is not required. A study, an investigation in depth, is required, and I believe that because of the experience we have had of certain studies in depth being made by special committees of the other place this would be an excellent task to give the other place, so they can do the same kind of job of investigation they have done with regard to at least two other matters and make a report to the Government and to Parliament.


An hon. Member:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: One of my hon. friends says "no". I say that if you are not going to abolish the Senate, if you think there is a task the Senate can perform and that the Senate has a worth-while contribution to make, then this is exactly the kind of job we should give to that body. If you have not got that kind of faith in the Senate, then abolish it.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the Standing Committee which studied this matter in 1960 and 1961 was not able to complete its work and bring in recommendations. I

agree with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Honey) that it is unfortunate the Committee was not reconstituted in the succeeding session to complete the work it began in 1960 and 1961.
I believe that the hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) has pinpointed one of the problems that has been uppermost in the thinking of farmers right across the country, a problem that has been the subject of a great amount of study and investigation and has contributed greatly to stirring up feelings of resentment on the part of those who are being victimized, it seems, by the high costs of production while at the same time their products bring them such a low return. This was emphasized quite definitely in the submission of the National Farmers Union to the Government of Canada on March 1, 1965. On page 22 we find this statement:
The high cost of farm implements is one of the commonest complaints among farmers. The cost index of farm machinery has increased more than two and a half times since 1940. As farms have decreased in number and increased in size, the investment in new farm machinery and repair parts has been steadily rising and the dependance of the farmer on equipment has increased proportionately.
In my view there are a number of things that enter into the high cost of machinery. There are those who argue that in actual fact the cost of machinery has not increased as much as appears on the surface. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) to the cost of steel. In an addendum to the submission of the National Farmers Union to the Government I find the following with reference to the increases in the basic price of steel:
The inflationary implications in the rise of basic steel products are certain to have widespread repercussions. In the main body of our submission we have outlined to you the concern of farmers at the rising costs of production and declining prices of farm products. The price increases announced by the steel industry promise to increase costs of farm machinery, repair parts and other basic steel requirements of agriculture.
In addition to the increase in the cost of steel we must bear in mind the fact that more complicated and more costly types of machinery are required today. The fact is, of course, that such machinery is available, and naturally when new types of equipment are produced they are produced to be put to work for the benefit of the people. There is also the aspect that farm units are larger, with a resulting need for larger farm equipment. I believe this is one of the main reasons why
June 9, 1965

costs of production are increasing so rapidly in the agricultural industry.
I should like to mention another point, the cost of financing. I believe the hon. Member for Durham referred to the very many ways in which the Government has made credit facilities available to the agricultural industry.
0	(5:50 p.m.)
I know that it is absolutely essential that the farmer have access to the necessary capital and to credit. However, the thing that disturbs us is that, even with the opening up of additional facilities, the interest rate remains at a relatively high position. I believe that a move in the direction of lowering the interest rate would help tremendously to solve this particular problem.
I was told just this afternoon that in New Zealand farmers have access to capital at an interest rate of 1 per cent. I think any one of us can readily understand the tremendous benefit that such a program would be to agriculture, if instead of paying the rates that have been established they could find their capital requirements at an interest rate of 1 per cent. We can readily understand that this would reduce tremendously the cost of production. I believe therefore that this is one point to which we must give careful consideration in seeking to establish adequate credit facilities for farmers. We would then place the farmer in a better position to finance his operation.
I have been advised that at the present time the depreciation on farm machinery is equal to 50 per cent of the total cost of production. I think that is a startling fact, Mr. Speaker, and something that ought to cause us to agree to some very definite study being given to this matter, whether it is by Royal Commission or some other agency. This matter ought to be taken into consideration because if the depreciation on farm machinery is equal to 50 per cent of the cost of production, then something is seriously wrong. I was discussing this matter with a farmer not long ago and he said: You know, many of us are forced to live or exist on the depreciation on our machinery. This is an unfortunate situation.
1	believe, therefore, the hon. Member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), and other Members who are interested in this subject, have a legitimate reason for requesting an adequate study of this matter in the interests of our farmers.
A suggestion was made that one of the necessary things is adequate farm prices. I do not know if the Minister of Agriculture
Farm Machinery Prices (Mr. Hays) is aware of this fact, but within the last few days I was discussing with some of the farmers of Quebec the new price formula for milk. I asked them if this was going to have any beneficial effect on their income. The reply of these farmers was, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture recognizes this, that immediately upon the announcement that there was to be a set price for manufactured milk, the tests were dropped and a lot of the farmers are no better off now than they were before. I do not know where the fault lies, but it does seem again that even though the farmer is assured of a set price for his milk, those who buy it immediately drop the test rate and he is not going to be any better off than he was before. This is something which ought to be taken into consideration.
I should like to refer briefly to a statement appearing in the Throne Speech concerning agriculture policy. I quote from page 3 Hansard for April 5, 1965:
My Government is developing new policies to enable farmers generally to achieve larger and more reliable incomes so that their living and working standards will be comparable to those enjoyed in other sectors of our economy.
Now, reference was made by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Honey) to the many plans the Government has, some of which have been implemented. However, I believe the Government would be well advised to accede to this request that has been made to establish some body, whether it is a Royal Commission or some other agency, to go into this matter in detail and come up with some satisfactory solution to it. The suggestion was made again this afternoon that possibly the appointment of a Royal Commission was not the best idea, because the Government might be handicapped in bringing in remedial legislation in the meantime. I do not believe that would slow up the Government at all. They are slow enough. I do not believe this would affect that particular problem. I believe the Government should take this suggestion seriously, which has been introduced in the form of this motion, and give adequate consideration to the problem involved.


Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: In the few
moments remaining, I cannot attempt to cover the various items to which I should like to refer in connection with this particular motion introduced by the hon. Member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). I join in the views expressed by my colleague, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Rapp),

June 9, 1965
Farm Machinery Prices and tell him that we are concerned and interested in the problem, in the cost of farm machinery. However, I have to agree with my colleague and say it is not my view that a study by a Royal Commission will in any way assist in reaching a satisfactory solution of the problem.
There are three things I think I should mention very briefly, and which I think may help in reaching some satisfactory solution. They do not involve a study by a Royal Commission. First, I believe that the basis of the problem, and it is encompassed in the words of the resolution, is the fact that farmers are not receiving a fair return for their agricultural products. In order to enable farmers to buy machinery and to meet the other costs of farm operations, they must receive a better return for their agricultural products. Second, I think farmers will have to make more intelligent use of their farm machinery. In order to use machinery intelligently, they will have to have economic units. This most expensive and efficient machinery, such as we have today, cannot be effectively operated on a small farm. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that farmers should be encouraged to make a greater use of the legislation which has been enacted by this Parliament on the initiative of this Government. The hon. Member wishes them to acquire machinery, and they need to acquire it at a reasonable cost, at reasonable rates of interest.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


John Cooney Mullally: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 10, 1965