1966-02-24

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
February 22-The Minister of Public Works-The following proposed motion-That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed respecting the parliamentary restaurant:
That twenty five members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of this house as members of the said committee and report from time to time, and that standing order 67 (1) be suspended in relation thereto; and
That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting their Honours thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to communicate with the Prime Minister in this regard; I had no information on the matter until we arrived back here a few minutes ago. Has the Prime Minister anything to say regarding the coup in Ghana involving the overthrow of the Nkrumah administration; and what is the position in that country of the 100 or so Canadians who usually live there?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as my right hon. friend knows I have had only a few moments to look at the overnight telegrams, but I did examine this particular one. While it is not definitive, in that there may have been developments since this message was sent, it did indicate that there was a military coup early in the morning; that there was some firing which went on for a comparatively short time, then Accra became calm.
What will be the further course of the move against the government, of course, I do not know at the present time. It seems to have been a military revolt against the existing government. The disturbances have been short and were reduced to a minimum, according to the message I received.
With regard to the position of the Canadians in Accra, we are told that at the present time there is no cause for anxiety. There are a good many Canadians there, but the information I have at the moment indicates that they were not in any danger of any kind. I will be glad to keep the house and my right hon. friend informed of events as they occur.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the Prime Minister did not have time to look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time I should like to ask a question which I think is uppermost in the minds of many Canadians, and it is this. What is the basis upon which recognition is granted of an insurgent group that takes over government in this way? What length of time is usually allowed to elapse before a government ceases to exist diplomatically, and recognition is given to an incoming government? Is this insurrection and the ousting of the Nkrumah government of such a nature that early recognition may be expected?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy or wise to be dogmatic in regard to the conditions which warrant recognition after a government has been overthrown. It depends, of course, on circumstances. Sometimes the new government is given recognition very quickly, as in the case of Nigeria a few weeks ago. At other times we have waited. A most important consideration is whether the new regime seems to be in control of the country, a control which is at least tacitly admitted by the country's people in so far as this can be ascertained.
Another consideration is that we should get in touch at once with our friends, and especially with our friends in the commonwealth, to see if they have information that we have not got. Very often we act in concert in these matters.
I do not think I can add anything more at the present time, Mr. Speaker. There have
February 24, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry been occasions, and I think that the instance of Nigeria was one of these occasions, when we in this country gave no formal recognition but just carried on under the assumption that there had been a change of government, there might not be the kind of revolution which required formal recognition.
I am not sure whether that is the situation which will apply to Ghana. In the Nigerian situation we acted in concert with other commonwealth governments, which took the same attitude we did, that no formal recognition of the new regime was required.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the reason for the question. I wondered whether a new rule had evolved within the commonwealth by which, where an insurrection takes place and a change of government results, the course is no longer followed of recognizing the new regime but rather of regarding it merely as a continuation of the one that was in power at the time of the overthrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Such a development, Mr. Speaker, might become a kind of normal attitude inside the commonwealth. It has not always been the case. I think in respect of Zanzibar there was formal recognition of the change. Whether that applies to Ghana I cannot say, because I think it is too soon after the event to know exactly what will happen.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister or to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask if there is any word about the situation in Uganda that might clear up rumours we have heard, and that might also clear up rumours relating to the well-being of Canadian citizens there.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has indicated the word we have received from our high commissioner is that according to present reports the safety of Canadians is not in question.


Some hon. Members:: Uganda. The question was about Uganda.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I thought the question was about the safety of Canadians-


Robert Norman Thompson: In Uganda, about which rumours are rampant today.


Mr. Churchill:: That is a country in Africa.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the wise course would be to wait and see whether those rumours have any foundation in fact.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the country of Ghana on the west coast of Africa. Would the minister inform us how many Canadian service personnel are in that country for the purpose of training the Ghanaian army, and whether or not these men might now be recalled?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are 19 personnel there; three R.C.A.F. officers, 14 army officers and two N.C.O.'s, who assist in a training program. In the formal agreement between Canada and Ghana which defines the functions of the team it is stipulated that the members of the team will in no circumstances, of course, become involved in operational roles of a police or military nature. We shall have to consider in the light of events whether or not they should be recalled.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the situation now existing in Ghana have any fresh instructions been sent to the Canadian military personnel there, in particular as to whether they are to continue their normal training activities with the Ghanaian armed forces; or have they been instructed to suspend this in the meantime?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the instructions they have received.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence which is consequent upon the answer he gave to a question I asked a moment ago. Does he not think that it would be desirable to send instructions to the Canadian military personnel in Ghana to suspend their ordinary training duties in association with the Ghanaian forces until the present situation has cleared itself?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think we should first find out what the facts are. As soon as we have received a report this will be discussed with the Department of External Affairs, which really is responsible for financing these training operations in countries other than NATO countries.

February 24, 1966



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether there have been any recent changes in United States customs regulations which would further aggravate the present disparity between the large numbers of Canadian box cars in the United States compared with the numbers of United States box cars in Canada.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice of this question. Early last week I learned that the United States customs had approved the suspension until March 1 of normal customs duty requirements in the use of Canadian box cars for the handling of paper products originated by two shippers at Plattsburg, New York. I took immediate steps to draw the unfavourable aspects of this matter to the attention of the United States authorities, and I am very glad to say that this arrangement operated for only one day. I could give a more detailed answer, but I think that that perhaps might suffice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether any representations are being made to the government of the United States to rectify the great disparity between the numbers of Canadian box cars in the United States and the numbers of United States box cars in Canada, which disparity for some time has been running at a ratio of almost three to one against Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the United States railways are not under the direct control of the United States government. I understand that constant conversations are going on about this between the Association of American Railroads, as I think they are called over there, and our railways. I may say that the American Association of Railroads itself took action against this suspension, which was applied for by one railroad in the United States.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State
1703
Inquiries of the Ministry for External Affairs. In the light of the announcement made yesterday evening by the President of the United States of a major anti-pollution campaign in that country, is the minister giving consideration to discussing immediately with the United States government co-operative measures to clean up the pollution of the great lakes with special reference to lake Erie, and accelerating action on this problem in relation to the program announced by the President of the United States yesterday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I dealt with part of this question some days ago when it was indicated that the International Joint Commission had made an interim report with regard to pollution particularly in lake Erie, and that the recommendations of the commission were now before the governments of the United States and Canada.
In this connection my colleague more particularly concerned with natural resources did make a statement in the house.


Mr. Fulion:: I am sorry; I did not hear that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With respect to the position the government of Canada would take, my colleague did, make a statement in
answer to a question put to him, I believe, by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question related primarily to the announcement reported last evening and in this morning's papers, the anti-pollution program announced by the President of the United States. What is the relationship between that program and the problem of pollution in the great lakes? Perhaps the minister concerned could tell us something about that.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I am meeting this afternoon with Mr. Heeney, the Canadian chairman of the International Joint Commission, and this subject will be brought up.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question either to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or to the Minister of Agriculture depending on which of them deals with this matter. I may say I gave both hon. gentlemen notice of this question.
February 24, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
Has the minister concerned or his department received reports of surveys made to determine whether the level of dieldrin or other pesticides in milk supplies has reached dangerous proportions in certain areas of Ontario; and if so, have the contents of such reports been communicated to the Ontario Department of Health?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In a continuing survey of pesticide residues in food products, the laboratories of the food and drug directorate of my department have found detectable amounts of pesticides in milk from certain areas in Ontario. The levels are not, however, considered to be dangerous. The Ontario departments of health and agriculture have been consulted with regard to the results of these sample surveys.



REPORTED THREAT TO MEMBER AND BOMB SCARE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of a report that a member of the House of Commons has been threatened, and in view of a report in the press of a bomb scare in the building this morning, may I ask whether the minister has been made aware of these things and whether he has taken appropriate action?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been made aware of this. It is possible that investigations such as the one referred to by the hon. member would be carried out by the R.C.M.P., and this comes under the Solicitor General.


Eric Alfred Winkler: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I place the question before the Solicitor General.


John George Diefenbaker: It is hard to know what is the division of responsibility over there.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the rumour with officials of the R.C.M.P. and I am satisfied they will take the appropriate action.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the

Minister of Justice whose department, I think, deals with bankruptcy matters. Is his department prepared to ask for an investigation into the death of Frangois Payette, who apparently is the eighth victim of gangland in reference to corrupt bankruptcies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is making an allegation of facts. This question was asked yesterday and it was considered it was not so urgent that it should not be placed on the order paper. In view of the fact that the estimates of the Department of Justice will be under consideration I shortly suggest we should do the same thing today.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I put the question a little differently. I think it is a question of national importance when already eight Canadians have met their death-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not a matter of the importance of the question. It is the matter of urgency in putting the question at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely the protection of the lives of Canadians is of national importance. We have already had eight murders in this country, and if this is not of national importance and urgency then there never was a question of importance and urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with the hon. member that it is very important, but as I told him that is not the issue at all. It is a matter of the urgency in asking the question, and I suggest to the hon. member that this very important question could be asked in a regular way in a very few minutes during consideration of the departmental estimates. It would be a more appropriate time to ask it then.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I shall pose my question this way. Is the Minister of Justice prepared to have an investigation in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask that question a little later on. I do not want to obstruct this type of questioning but it seems to me, when the estimates of the department will be before the committee in just a few minutes, the question might be asked then. In fact I would ask the hon. member to put the question then.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will.
February 24, 1966	COMMONS



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister give the house any information as to the conditions and situation on the R.C.N. vessel Cape Scott, now in Brazilian waters, about which there are reports that due to this vessel not being equipped for hot weather, temperatures below deck are 140 degrees, with consequent effects on the health and morale of the crew? At the same time could the minister inform us whether there have been any deaths on R.C.N. ships presently in the Brazilian area and, if so, what are the causes?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I did have some information in respect to this matter the other day. I do not have it with me now, so perhaps I could take the question as notice or it could be put on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My question is based on a radio report given to the people of Kootenay East by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport. I am informed that the parliamentary secretary advocated that persons working in industry should have the opportunity to continue working until age 67. Would the minister inform the house if this represents government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this question might be placed on the order paper.
I do not think it is the type of question that should be asked at this time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamillon (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to 23033-108J
DEBATES	1705
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Finance with reference to the written answer given yesterday to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). In this study that is going on has the minister or the government considered putting out guide lines for Canadian businesses operating in the United States, and guide lines for subsidiaries of U.S. business operating in Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, all of these matters have been given very careful consideration. I am sure the hon. member wants me to go further than that, but at the present time I am not disposed to do so.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a supplementary for clarification. The question I asked was, has the minister considered this? Could I get a yes or no answer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, all these matters are receiving very careful consideration by the government.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question either to the Minister of External Affairs or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I believe I shall ask the latter.
Has the minister received any correspondence from the American government concerning the new American restrictions and requirements with regard to Canadians who wish to go and work in the United States? If so, would the minister be willing to table that correspondence?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no correspondence from the American government, but have received some from the American consul here in Ottawa. It is true that since last December the American government requires employers to fill out a special form. I have no objection to tabling that correspondence and I shall surely do so.
February 24, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether there is any farm safety organization in Canada supported by the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the opinion of the Chair that this question should be placed on the order paper.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, this is supplementary. I think this is an important question and we should have an answer to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize it is important in the view of the hon. member, and if he thinks it is a matter of urgency he has the recourse of discussing it in the adjournment debate.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION TO FARM LABOUR On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of urgency which I would like to direct to the Minister of Labour. I am informed by farmers and persons in agriculture that there is going to be a terrific shortage of farm labour this spring, and they attribute this to the fact that farm labour is not covered by unemployment insurance. Will the minister look into this serious problem?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer to the question to the hon. gentleman a few weeks ago. The matter is still being studied and as soon as we have anything to announce, since it involves government policy, it will be announced.


Reynold Rapp: Will that be before spring?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Are the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare keeping a close watch on the virus pneumonia epidemic which has been assuming alarming proportions in British Columbia? Two more deaths among school children were announced today. Would the department look into this matter with a view to [Mr, Marchand.)
giving federal assistance, possibly in the form of a crash immunization program; or has the minister something to say on this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the problem with my officials and give an answer to the hon. gentleman later.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: In view of the substantial cost to Canadians of the oil lift into Zambia, and in view of the fact that the commonwealth committee studying these sanctions in London yesterday, or some of the countries on that committee, questioned the effectiveness of the oii sanctions, I would like to ask whether the Canadian government is considering withdrawing from this obligation; because at least in the minds of some countries it is a useless expense.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: No, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I presume the proper minister to whom I should direct this question would be the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would ask him whether he and the Prime Minister have received communications in the last couple of days from an organization in Toronto, which states it has national connections, asking what is the attitude of the government of Canada regarding the voluntary enlistment in Canada of a corps for service in Viet Nam, serving under the aegis of the United States and under United States regulations.
What is the attitude of the government of Canada toward such a proposition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a Mr. Mitchell wrote to the Prime Minister and a Mr. Echlin to me about a month ago with regard to a proposition in the general terms stated by the Leader of the Opposition. We sought the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, who advised that under the Foreign Enlistment Act such a proposal would appear to be incompatible with the laws of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the minister or the Prime
February 24, 1966
Minister have replied to the letter in question and advised this individual regarding the Foreign Enlistment Act.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I think the reply on behalf of the Prime Minister was sent the day before yesterday and on behalf of myself yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question arising out of the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the formation of such a corps or body would be incompatible with the Foreign Enlistment Act, does the minister suggest that anyone so enlisting, in view of that incompatibility, would thereby lose his Canadian citizenship?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking for an interpretation of the statute.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I just speak to a point of order? The minister made reference to the Foreign Enlistment Act and said a legal opinion had been obtained, as I understand it, from the law officers of the crown. It is only because he advanced the concept of the law officers' opinion that was given that I asked what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable question. If it is merely incompatible and not inconsistent with Canadian citizenship, what authority has the government to step in?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, so there can be no doubt about this matter, let me say that the suggestion my right hon. friend made may involve a further argument justifying the legal opinion, but the fact is that the Foreign Enlistment Act does not deal with the question of citizenship at all.


John George Diefenbaker: I know that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The legal officers of the crown have advised that such a plan would appear to be contrary to the Foreign Enlistment Act. It may be that on examination of the citizenship act we would have a further argument in support of the position taken, but my impression is that the citizenship act does not necessarily deal with this situation.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to those asked on this subject which I wish to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Justice. What is the present status of the many Canadians who are already serving with the United States armed forces, some of them in Viet Nam?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Martin (Essex East): Well, this is a free
country.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the Foreign Enlistment Act prevented that.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No.


[Stage Direction]
ESTABLISHMENT OF EASTERN FEED GRAIN AGENCY On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Fronfenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). Could the minister inform the house whether a feed grain board for eastern Canada has been or is being established in compliance with the request of eastern farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this question is so urgent as to preclude its being put on the order paper.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister indicate whether he has met with the delegation of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers union which is currently in Ottawa to discuss those matters of public concern affecting that area of policy which falls within the responsibility of the Minister of Transport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not met with them up to the present time, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the minister meet with that delegation of the fishermen's union while they are here in Ottawa?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am giving that consideration.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have a further supplementary question. In view of the fact that the delegation will not be remaining in Ottawa indefinitely, can the minister tell us when his consideration as to whether he will meet with them will be completed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question has already been put to the minister and answered.

February 24. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF FINAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance asking him whether he has any information as to when the final payments through the wheat board will be announced, and what the amounts might be?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the order in council is being approved today and the announcement will be made tomorrow.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the announcement that accompanied the statement about increased profits by Massey-Ferguson Limited, to the effect that the company is forbidden by the securities and exchange commission in the United States to discuss reasons for the profit jump, prevent the agriculture committee from obtaining the full facts on farm machinery price increases when this matter is referred to that committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainl John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with respect to the Atlantic Development Board. In view of the recently disclosed action regarding the exclusion of four cities from the industrial incentives plan, can the minister say whether this matter of additional assistance is officially before the Atlantic Development Board? If it is not, should the cities formally apply on their own behalf?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that that question is really capable of the kind of answer it would be in order to give on orders of the day, because it would involve a long


and detailed statement. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could find some opportunity for discussion with me about it.


Thomas Miller Bell: I will try at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, because the government has been stalling long enough on this matter.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the number of bills and resolutions currently on the order paper relating to a reduction in the very heavy toll of deaths and property damage from traffic accidents, will the Prime Minister consider referring these proposals either to a special committee, as was done in the case of divorce proposals, or to the justice committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consider that suggestion with the house leader.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether the opinion voiced last night, on the Pierre Burton program, by his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. member for Mount Royal, against a special status for Quebec, represents his opinion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, everything I hear affects my thoughts, but I did not hear this program.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if the opinion expressed on this same program to the effect that the President of the Privy Council should leave the cabinet also reflects his way of thinking?


Mr. Speaker:: That question is also out of order.
February 24, 1966

Supply-Justice



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Old Age Assistance Act states that to qualify for assistance the combined annual income of husband and wife must not exceed the sum of $2,220, assistance included. Will the government amend this act to increase the allowable income figure to a sum in keeping with the rapid rise in the cost of living?


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



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the say:
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Yukon asked me a question as to our intentions with regard to a purported resolution of the Indian and Metis Association of Canada in annual convention. I have to tell the hon. member that as yet we have received no resolution from this organization.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he can tell us when he will be bringing down the budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it seems a little premature, in view of the progress that has been made in the house, for me to make a statement of that nature at this time. But may I say that I hope it will be earlier rather than later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Earlier rather than later in what month?



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) asked me if I had received communications from various municipalities requesting an extension of the period during which winter projects may be carried out under the winter works legislation.
I wish to inform him that I did receive such requests.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Is it the minister's intention to accede to those requests by granting the extension asked by the municipalities?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the winter works program is being amended constantly in keeping with changing realities. Such requests will be taken into consideration in the study of that program.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. If the Canadian Expo was to be incorporated into a municipality, could it take advantage of the winter works program to assist it financially?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by treasury board of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,504,300.


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Justice for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966. vote No. 1. Shall vote No. 1 carry?

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I realize that another member has the floor, but if he would yield the floor and allow me merely to ask a question it might assist the hon. member in this debate.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice whether when we were dealing with these estimates, because these are the old estimates, we could deal with all those matters that came within his jurisdiction. I have read what the minister said but we on this side of the chamber are in a quandary still because there seems to be some divisive confusion-I mean that in a nice way-in this respect. Because of the changes in the minister's department, can we now discuss all three branches of the department under these estimates?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is what we want to clear up.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, while we were considering the estimates of the Department of Justice, I noted yesterday that the debate took a rather strange turn after the statement made by the Prime Minister about the Spencer case in Vancouver.
I do not really intend to go into that matter. It is a rather special case. I heard the argument made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), but all the evidence seemed based on newspaper articles. If that is enough to make a case stick, then I could spend half an hour reading newspaper articles to come to the conclusion that some Conservatives should be in a psychiatric ward. With newspaper articles one can prove anything. I also heard, on that matter, the statements made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), which had some rather pathetic overtones. I think that this man lived in his province. I wonder if efforts were made to meet him, to see him personally. There is something shameful about that matter.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) took the trouble of saying he had not met him but that he knew the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who knew Spencer, a little in the style of the man who saw the man who saw the bear; but there again that is not first hand information.
[The Chairman.]
In any event before committing ourselves in this connection, we would prefer additional information, provided of course the government had any to give. We would prefer to await further developments.
There is another point I would like to mention and draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice. During the last general election, it was alleged that the former member for Quebec-Montmorency had gone into a Montreal restaurant with two other individuals, purported to be R.C.M.P. officers, in order to extort from the owner affidavits and statements to the effect that a wealthy Newfoundland manufacturer had tried to bribe certain members of parliament.
At that time, I got in touch with the Minister of Justice and asked him whether it was a fact that two individuals had tried, under false representations or with R.C.M.P. identification cards, to obtain affidavits or statements from a Montreal restaurant owner.
I think that the minister made an investigation; I have not had the opportunity since then to ask him if he had any information to give us, but I would like to know if it is true that one of the two individuals with Dr. Marcoux in a restaurant was a former executive secretary of a former Conservative minister-it would be a former minister of justice-who would have had in his possession a card identifying him as a member of the R.C.M.P., although not a member of the R.C.M.P., and who would have used that card to get statements from a restaurant owner in Montreal, under false representations?
That is an answer I would like to get from the minister. Did he make an investigation in that case? Is it true that two individuals pretended to be members of the R.C.M.P., whereas they had no right to do that, since they were not members of the R.C.M.P.?
Second, was Dr. Marcoux present when those individuals appeared? We suspect that he was present. At that time, was he party to those false representations?
Could the minister also tell us how it is that an individual, a former executive secretary of a former Conservative minister of justice, had an R.C.M.P. identification card? Where did he get it? Who had given it to him? With whose collusion did he manage to have such a card?
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice will agree with me that if anyone can now obtain cards of the R.C.M.P.-which is nevertheless a respectable police corps-and can with the influence of a member of this police corps,
February 24, 1966

attempt to browbeat a person into giving statements or affidavits, I think this is really a flagrant breach of R.C.M.P. regulations.
Has the minister launched an investigation in this connection? Can he tell us what action has been taken, if some people are responsible or guilty? Does the minister know who they are? Can he tell whether there are any accomplices? Can the minister tell us whether legal action was taken against these people? How could these people obtain R.C.M.P. cards?
I believe this is a series of questions I should like to ask and I hope the minister is in a position not only to make a statement but also supply the information.
Mr. Chairman, I will not labour the point.
I think if my questions are answered, the minister will have cleared the mystery by giving us the information we are seeking today.
Now, Mr. Chairman, before sitting down, there are other points on which I have a few words to say. I know that the question was asked on orders of the day, but it is more difficult for the minister to answer during question time than during the study of his estimates. That is why I wish to repeat the question: Would the Minister of Justice see whether the legislation on trusts and investments should not be revised so as to determine whether the owners of the National Hockey League did not infringe the law when they decided, somewhat arbitrarily, to extend their circuit and particularly in the way in which this was done. The minister said that the law does not apply in the field of services.
But let us not forget that it is not necessarily a service that is provided here, because the wage-earner is not paid by the public but by the club owner. The people pay, not to get a service, but an admission ticket. They pay for merchandise in the form of tickets. Then the club owners use the gate receipts to pay the players. It is not a case of players providing a service to spectators, but one where spectators pay an admission fee and, before a sum of money is paid to those who provide the service, that is the hockey players, there are people in between who pay, not commission, but salaries to the players.
I think the people of Canada would welcome an inquiry into this matter, because hockey has always been Canada's national sport; it is a favourite with the people and they would like to enjoy it as much as the Americans, but out of 12 N.H.L. clubs, ten are located in American cities.
Supply-Justice
The minister could also make a statement about that and clear the matter up. He could try to find out whether there is some legislation under which the new developments that took place recently in the N.H.L. could be reconsidered.
In any case I should like to have a definite answer on the question I raised a moment ago, as to whether it is true that two individuals used R.C.M.P. identification cards to make false representations. Who were the accomplices? Who provided the cards? Is the Department of Justice instituting proceedings? What action does the department consider taking in this case?
Does the Minister of Justice intend to reply?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I took due note of the hon. member's questions.
With regard to the first point he raised, an investigation has actually been conducted. I believe the inquiries were completed a few days ago. I am now looking into the findings of the investigation, and I should be in a position, during the study of my estimates, to make a complete report on the events mentioned by the hon. member.
As to the second matter he referred to, this problem comes under the jurisdiction of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau). He is not here at the moment, but I will bring the grievances of the hon. member to his attention and I am sure he will want to reply.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could the hon. Minister of Justice tell us whether one of the two individuals bearing R.C.M.P. cards, although they were not members of the force, was in fact a former executive secretary of a former minister of justice? Could he tell us who this former executive secretary was and for which minister he acted as executive secretary?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be better to make a complete and official statement after I have had time to refresh my memory and give as many details as possible in answer to the questions of the hon. member.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. Baldwin:: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Bow River, who spoke first for our party yesterday, had not completed his general statement. I will have an opportunity to speak later.

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to thank the hon. member for Peace River and I hope that I am not being rude in asking for the floor. Yesterday, of course, we had two statements. We had a statement from the Minister of Justice and then we had a statement from the Prime Minister. I dealt yesterday particularly with the statement made by the Prime Minister. It did seem rather unusual that at the opening of discussion on these estimates we would have two statements, one from the Minister of Justice and one from the Prime Minister, and particularly that the Prime Minister should make a statement on these estimates.
We have dealt at some length with the Spencer case and I should now like to make a few general remarks with reference to the estimates. The first question has been answered with reference to the division of the department. We accept this fact but it has been somewhat difficult to determine who has jurisdiction over what. It does seem that under the present administration there has been, as I have already made reference, some divisive confusion about jurisdiction within the Department of Justice. I would hope that the minister will make a clear statement in that regard.
I would also say this. I wonder whether these hon. gentlemen have ever considered, since they feel there has to be legislation passed in order to set up the divisions, whether they really have the jurisdiction over certain matters which they claim to have. We would like to hear from the ministers, whether it be the Minister of Justice or the President of the Privy Council, under whose jurisdiction the administration of federal offences falls. I assume it would be the Minister of Justice. We should like to know also under whose jurisdiction the following items fall: National Parole Board, bankruptcy-I am going to have something to say about that in a few minutes-penitentiaries, the committee report on juvenile delinquency as well as the whole question of young offenders, and the Combines Investigation Act.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
No one would underestimate the importance of the administration of justice. After all, the tentacles of justice must stretch into all federal departments to obtain good, sound, honest government with equitable administration.
Co-ordination has always been the important thing so far as I am concerned in the administration of justice. What we have in

this administration, I repeat, is no co-ordination at all. What we have is divisive confusion. We on this side of the house do not know, parliament does not know, I do not think the government knows, nor do the people of Canada know, who is really Minister of Justice. As I say, there is divisive confusion. I have come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister, and I say this with respect, has run out of talent and is somewhat concerned, when he assigns a certain portfolio to a minister, whether he has confidence in him.
I used an illustration yesterday which I am going to use today, namely, the Canadian Wheat Board. This is an analogy which I shall come back to in so far as the Department of Justice is concerned. For years the Canadian Wheat Board was under the jurisdiction either of the Minister of Agriculture or of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When the Prime Minister had to look for a new Minister of Agriculture and when he appointed a new Minister of Trade and Commerce he must have looked at both of them and said to himself: Neither of you has any administrative ability so far as the Wheat Board is concerned so I will leave that with the new Minister of Finance because he is the only man who seems to know anything about it.
Exactly the same sort of thing has happened with the Department of Justice. The Prime Minister probably said to himself: The Minister of Justice is a fine fellow but I do not know whether he can handle this or that phase. As a result, Mr. Chairman, we have divisive confusion and we cannot get any answers at all.
Yesterday I asked a question-this is an example of divisive confusion and it is why the Speaker and I seem to be at odds-which was ruled out of order by the Speaker. I knew I would be in difficulty when I asked another question today. But if there is a matter of importance in the nation today it is the question of crime, crime in high places and crime in other places. Its tentacles are creeping all through our society. I have heard the leader of our party and the hon. member for Yukon both say on many occasions something with which I am in full accord, that we should have an investigaton into crime in this nation. A royal commission should be set up.
We have just heard the hon. member for Lapointe talk about the Marcoux investigation. During the election Dr. Marcoux alleged that six members of the Creditistes had said
February 24, 1966

after the 1963 election that they were going to joint the Liberals and the Minister of Justice was asked to investigate the Dr. Marcoux affair. It was alleged, and I say alleged because I do not know the facts-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, this matter is now sub judice. Therefore I do not think the hon. member for Bow River has the right to speak on it any more than anybody else in the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You know, Mr. Chairman, it is a funny thing to hear that voice coming from the background because the hon. member for Lapointe has just made a whole speech on the subject, and if he was out of order then his whole party was out of order.


An hon. Member:: He is not even here now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Of course not; he makes his speech and leaves. Well, I am not going to get into any argument; I am going to deal with the facts. What I was coming to, Mr. Chairman, was that certain charges were made by a former member of the House of Commons either during or before the last election. You will remember that parliament was dissolved because of an election, one which we did not call. I was always of the opinion that the reason parliament was dissolved was that the government were afraid to debate the report of the Dorion Commission. They called an election so they could sweep that under the carpet.
If I may return to the Marcoux matter, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Marcoux made some serious charges. He also made a serious charge against one of your own colleagues sitting on the front bench. But what did the Minister of Justice say? After all, he is Minister of Justice for the government. I am not saying that the decision he took was his personal decision; what I say is that it was the government's decision. I am also not making any personal attack on the minister. I know that he once made the same sort of attack on our leader but I am not going to attack him. Let me make it clear that I am attacking the administration of this department by the government.
When this matter was brought before the Minister of Justice he said that it was not a federal matter and swept it under the carpet. Surely when serious charges of bribery are made against members of parliament it is a matter for the federal government and the House of Commons.
Supply-Justice
Therefore I ask at the outset, what respect can the Canadian people or parliament have today for the administration of justice under a government which sweeps things like the Dr. Marcoux scandal under the carpet and which calls an election so that the matter cannot be debated? This affair is now a thing of the past. The government has also prevented debate on the Dorion report, which was a very serious report indeed.
What respect can the people of Canada have for the administration of justice when one considers the Rivard affair, how he escaped and how he was hustled off to the United States when finally found in Canada? We do not know whether a proper extradition hearing was held. What respect can the Canadian people have for the administration of justice in view of this kind of nonsense?
I would ask the Minister of Justice to walk along the streets and ask the people what they think of the administration of justice in this country. I tell the minister that respect has never been at a lower ebb at any previous period. Where are the Lapointes, the St. Laurents, the Fultons and the Flemings, men who gave respect to this department, men who were strong and could rise above political situations? What the government needs today is a Minister of Justice-again I say this not by way of criticism of the present minister-who can rise above narrow political expediency, one of the same class who have won respect in Great Britain and in our own country. We need a man who can make his own decisions respecting the administration of the law regardless of political expediency even though those decisions affect our Liberal friends, our Conservative friends or any friends we have.
I say that the administration of justice must rise above narrow parochialism and provincialism. But what respect for the administration of justice can the Canadian people have in view of the Marcoux affair, the Dorion report and the Rivard affair?
Let me come to another affair which almost adds comedy to the whole situation and which has reduced the administration of justice to its lowest level in our history. Let us consider the whole sordid affair in connection with Banks. He was charged and convicted. Then he was granted bail. The government said it was the judiciary who let him out on bail. Then for weeks we questioned the government regarding his whereabouts. But no one knew where he was. Today we pick up the

February 24, 19G6
Supply-Justice
newspapers and find him living in an apartment in New York. Many of us know that at the present time there is documentation and evidence sufficient probably to lay another charge of an indictable offence against the same Hal Banks, one for which he could be extradicted and brought back to this country to stand trial. This would put him back into the situation in which he was before he escaped by jumping bail.
What would be the practical result, Mr. Chairman? If he were brought back he would immediately be placed in the penitentiary until his appeal was heard, and the charge could be heard with respect to which evidence is now available so as to determine his guilt or innocence. But I ask, what respect have the Canadian people for justice with the whole sordid Banks mess once more out in the open?
[DOT] (4:10 p.ra.)
That is why I say to the minister, with the greatest respect, that we have crime in high and low places and we have gangsterism throughout the whole stream of society today. That is why the Minister of Justice is now reading about the lawyer, Francois Payette, who is the sixth or eighth victim of gang law with respect to corrupt bankruptcies.


An hon. Member:: The eighth victim.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, the eighth victim with reference to corrupt bankruptcies. Let us have an investigation. Let us lay this thing out and find out what is going on in our nation. Let us set up a royal commission on crime to find out what is going on in the nation and clean up the whole mess. I repeat what respect can Canadians have for the administration of justice when all these things are analysed and taken together?


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I always permit questions.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Would you include Atlantic Acceptance Corporation and British Mortgage and Trust in your investigation?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would include everything. When we look into the administration of justice we find there is such a divisive state of confusion in the Department of Justice that we do not know where the responsibility for anything falls. We do not know whether a matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, under that of the Minister of Justice or under that of the President of

the Privy Council. Three ministers now answer to parliament. When members of the House of Commons rise to ask questions they are invariably confused as to which minister is responsible for what.
If it was the intention of the government to divide the Department of Justice, why was legislation not brought in at the proper time? Why was the matter not dealt with properly so that hon. members could debate, analyse and diagnose the whole situation to see whether the move was for the good of the administration of justice? Instead of going ahead and saying, look, we are going to do this first and then we are going to bring in legislation to make legal what has been illegal all the time, why was that not done? That is the position at the present time with respect to the administration of justice.
I shall now go back to where I was before I was interrupted to answer a question. The best that we have had out of the government is that the Prime Minister has written to members of his cabinet and has said: There has been a little difficulty and you fellows had better be honest; you have got to be truthful and you have got to be good. The Prime Minister issued a code of ethics. What happened after that? We had a whole flock of resignations of cabinet ministers. Yesterday I said that there never was such a mortality rate among Canadian cabinet ministers in Canadian history. In fact, I said that all those who are backbenchers will be members of the Privy Council if they stay for a few months. Their appointment is inevitable because the government is running out of people to appoint. That is the situation today. This may seem like a comedy; of course it is a comedy.
Next I mention Rivard. Do you know what the average Canadian now says about him? He is saying: Who is watering the rink in Bordeau jail this year now that Rivard has gone? Mr. Chairman, that is reducing this most important department to a laughing stock, to a comedy. The situation is extremely serious. Crime has crept through the whole fabric of government and society and the government must take the responsibility for this. The government is responsible for the Department of Justice working out the problem with the attorneys general of the various provinces. If I refer to the Minister of Justice, I want to make it clear that I am not dealing with his department's officials. I know something about the department's officials and I think we are very fortunate to have the kind of staff that exists in that department.
February 24, 1966

Supply-Justice


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.	Mr. Woolliams: I recall-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Justice has a good staff.


An hon. Member:: He has got to use them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Exactly. He has to use them to create the image and show that he means business. Then he will be able to clean up crime in this country. The whole administration is at a very low ebb. I hope the Minister of Justice will deal with the situation with responsibility and I hope he will deal with any irresponsibility which has been the cause of the situation for the last three years in the department.


Mr. Choqueiie:: I have a short question. May I ask it?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly, if it is not going to be on the suggestion of a republic.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. President-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. President? This is not a republic.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that Dr. Marcoux is not taken seriously anywhere and that Dr. Marcoux lost his deposit. Did the hon. member take note of that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is that not a wonderful question? Because a candidate loses his deposit he is never to be taken seriously. That means that we shall never take the Liberal party seriously again in western Canada because most of their candidates lost their deposits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was a wonderful interruption. The fact is that I did not know Dr. Marcoux, but I found out, as anyone can find out, that he was a very reasonable man.


Auguste Choquette: That is where you are wrong.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me finish. That is what I heard. You can make statements as to what you heard. I always thought that Dr. Marcoux was a man of integrity. I respected him while he was here although I did not always agree with him. If he made a charge he might be wrong. That is not the point. He might also be right. Let us have an investigation and get the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Auguste Choquette: Have you read his book?


Auguste Choquette: Have you read his book? It is a stupid book.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I recall very well when reference was first made to the whole Dorion scandal. I might point out that I have just read Hansard in that regard and there is one word missing in connection with a question of privilege or point of order that I raised at that time. When the hon. member for Yukon said that there seemed to be a situation where men in high places might be involved in crime the then minister of justice used the word "liar". That word has not been recorded. He also used the word "coward" at that time and I raised a question of privilege. The Chairman and some others said they had not heard the second word.


An hon. Member:: I heard it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly we heard it. The government's position was that there was to be a whitewash and that discussion was to be prevented. In fact, an election was called which cost the Canadian people between $6 million and $12 million so that the members of this house would not have an opportunity to debate the Dorion report at the proper time. That is why the election was called. It was not to get a majority but to get the Liberal party back in power before the Canadian people had really seen inside the covers of the Dorion report. That is the situation. As long as the government conducts its affairs in that way the Canadian people will not have respect for the administration of justice.
Think of Lapointe. Think of St. Laurent. Think of other Liberal Ministers of Justice who have sat in this house. Think of other ministers of justice. When my good friend from Kamloops was Minister of Justice and when the former member for Eglinton was minister of justice. When my good friend for law and order? The answer is no. During their tenures of office the people of this country had respect for law and order. It should be restored immediately.


An hon. Member:: Drivel.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think the minister should show strength. He should show that he is going to administer his department fearlessly and administer the law no matter what happens or on whom the brunt of the law may fall. Only in that way will the Canadian people again begin to respect law and order and only in that way will crime be stamped out in this nation.

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice
Second, we should immediately have a royal commission to examine the extent of crime and its tentacles, to find out where they stretch, into what departments they stretch and into what high places they stretch. When one analyses all the deaths that have taken place, some in recent days, in relation to bankruptcy scandals one realizes that there must be some involvement of gang law. A lawyer was murdered recently and found in the trunk of his car. What about that situation, Mr. Chairman? I asked a question about it and I should like to hear the minister get up and say: We are going to have an investigation; we are going to stamp out crime.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I say to the hon. gentleman that he must be careful with regard to the appointment of judges. Our judiciary, and this is a most important thing, has always been independent. On the whole we have always respected our courts. I speak with great favour so far as the courts in my own province are concerned. But respect for the courts will not be maintained by the appointment of men such as Meunier who was subsequently incarcerated after having been charged with a criminal offence. It will not be enhanced by scandals such as the one concerning Landreville in Ontario. This will not promote respect for the judiciary. It will drag the courts down to the level to which I say this government has dragged the administration of justice.
There should be immediate implementation of the recommendations of the report on juvenile delinquency. I know that hon. members sitting opposite do not want to hear this. They do not want these affairs looked into. They do not want to fight another election on scandals because they are afraid of it.
I should like action to be taken on all these recommendations. I do not intend to deal with this subject at any length now because I shall have another opportunity. There is a bill, to which first reading has been given in my name on the order paper dealing with this subject. The commission's recommendations should be closely studied to see whether they are practical and will work effectively. After all, when young people run afoul of the law the sole question to be considered is that of rehabilitation and rehabilitation is impossible if young offenders are held in penitentiaries together with hardened criminals. I should like the government to take a serious and positive look at this question.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
Last but not least, there should be a thorough review of our attitude toward penitentiaries so that the whole emphasis is laid not on punishment but on rehabilitation. This started under the leadership of the hon. member for Kamloops when he was Minister of Justice and I urge the government to get on with the projects he initiated at that time.
All our penitentiaries today are overcrowded. We cannot expect to rehabilitate people in conditions like these. I recognize the department is faced with many problems. There is a shortage of psychiatrists and psychologists to deal with inmates who are suffering from emotional troubles which very often have resulted in the offences that led to their confinement.
There is one further subject to which I would direct the attention of the department. I would ask the combines investigation branch to take a good look at one monopoly which affects most Canadians though in all probability they do not realize it exists. I refer to the monopoly in regard to casket manufacture. The cost of funerals today has reached an all-time high. Most people say it costs too much to die. I am led to believe there is a monopoly in relation to the hardware used in the manufacture of caskets. If there is such a monopoly, let the combines investigation branch go into the matter.
The undertakers of this country as a profession are not responsible for the high cost of funerals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let hon. members check the prices of caskets and find out what this monopoly means. I have referred to the monopoly on hardware, the handles and other ornamentation used on caskets. If a monopoly exists, as I suggest it does, let us have an investigation and a prosecution. Let us bring this thing to light.
These are some of the questions I wish to leave with the ministers concerned. Finally, I would say that we are still at a loss to understand the division in the jurisdiction of the department. There are three men looking after what used to be one job. I do not believe that under our law this division of jurisdiction is permissible. The ministers concerned are saying in effect: We shall, at the proper time, bring in legislation to make our powers retroactive. At the moment they are guilty of divisive confusion.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I hope it is not unreasonable on my part to emphasize the
February 24, 1966

fact that this is my first intervention in the debate from a new geographical position in the chamber. Since the traffic in party warfare does not appear to be as heavy or as loud as on other occasions I am tempted to seek the indulgence of the committee, which I understand is traditionally granted on the occasion of a maiden ministerial address, particularly when estimates are being dealt with. I ask to be allowed a little more leeway than perhaps is normal. On most occasions I attempt to address the house with few notes but since I am now dealing with estimates I ask the indulgence of the committee to refer to them in close detail.
The hon. member for Bow River raised a very fair question as to the division of responsibility between the Minister of Justice and myself. May I say to him, with great respect, that I believe the Prime Minister tabled orders in council under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act under which certain responsibilities heretofore assigned to the Department of Justice, namely, the penitentiary service, the National Parole Board and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have been assigned to the office of the Solicitor General. Hon. members will note that I used the word "office", not "department". The machinery necessary for that transformation has not yet been brought before this chamber.
Allow me to deal first of all with the penitentiary service. I wish to acknowledge with sincerity the creative plans and reforms designed by the previous administration. I am pleased to inform the house that there has been no slackening in the efforts to transform the penitentiary service into an effective and forward-looking organization which I hope will bring dividends to all of us.
Perhaps the house will allow me to strike a brief personal note. The nature of my professional life brought me in close contact with many young people who had run afoul of our criminal laws. It appeared to me at that time that penal reform should not be as difficult as some people suggested. I must candidly admit that things do not seem to me now as they seemed to me then. The reason can be explained in part by the fact that we are attempting to do two things which by their very nature appear to be in opposition to each other. In the first place, we are attempting to rehabilitate the offender so that he achieves a sense of self-respect for the rights of others. At the same time we are trying to protect society by dealing with the prisoner
Supply-Justice
with a view to deterring him and others from repeating the same offence. It is almost like riding two horses at once, an accomplishment which, I am informed, requires great skill and patience.
The task is made tremendously more difficult by the size of our prison population, the overcrowding of our institutions and the need for more research in criminology and the problem of staff recruiting. Each year the penitentiary service receives more than 3,600 inmates from the courts. On the basis of a careful study of inmate population trends in the past it is estimated that the penitentiary population will be approximately 8,500 in 1967 and 10,500 in 1973. On December 31, 1965, there were 7,362 inmates in penitentiaries, and it is disappointing and disturbing to realize that on past performance approximately 40 per cent will return after release.
There is the other side of the coin. I am glad to say that the penitentiary service is making considerable progress with the building program. During the next eight months five new medium security institutions will be opened at Springhill, Cowansville, Wark-worth, Drumheller and Matsqui, together with a start on a special correction unit at St. Vincent de Paul. The approximate cost of these institutions is $40 million.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Perhaps I should say a word about the special correctional unit under construction at St. Vincent de Paul, particularly as there has been some criticism. I should emphasize that the penitentiary service is pleased to have the views of the various associations and individuals who have an enlightened interest in this subject. The special correctional unit is not for the treatment of psychotic inmates. It is for hostile, aggressive and dangerous inmates who disrupt normal institutional programs. It is designed for a population that will not exceed 160 inmates. It incorporates training facilities with the very necessary degree of maximum security for the hostile and dangerous inmates who will be held there in detention. I am informed that the hostile type of inmate I am referring to comprises roughly 3 per cent of the present inmate population.
It is only fit and proper that I put on record that inmate training programs for the special correctional units and the design of the units were developed under the guidance of the director of inmate training, Mr. J. C. A. LaFerriere, who has had 15 years experience at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice
Dr. Jean Garneau, an experienced psychologist, Dr. L. P. Gendreau, a psychiatrist of 18 years experience as a senior officer of the penitentiary service, and other senior officers with long experience.
Construction on three other proposed correctional units has been stayed pending the experience that will arise from the operation of the unit at St. Vincent de Paul. It is my earnest hope that the proposed joint committee on penitentiaries will be able to inspect this unit in the near future.
The program provides for the discontinuance of St. Vincent de Paul as a maximum security institution by 1970, by which time new facilities will have been built at St. Anne des Plaines. It will be a source of satisfaction to all hon. members to know that the "bucket wing" at St. Vincent de Paul will be closed in 1967.
Subject to the vicissitudes of the future, 20 new institutions will be completed to round out the 10 year plan of institutional development. The burden of success of a penal reform program rests substantially on staff. The penitentiary service is experiencing the same difficulties in recruiting as are being experienced by institutions, industries and businesses elsewhere. There is particular difficulty in recruiting psychologists and classification officers.
A survey of the penitentiary service system of pay classification by P. S. Ross and Company has been completed and is under study by the Treasury Board representatives. I am hoping that the results of this study will be made known very shortly.
Research in criminology is of prime importance, and the committee will be pleased to learn that an amount of $20,000 has been included in the budgetary estimates for the fiscal year 1966-67 to defray the cost of studies to be undertaken by the department of criminology of the University of Montreal for the benefit of the penitentiary service.
It is hoped to achieve by 1968 a universal system of custodial and training facilities in each of the four regions of Canada, so that every inmate can be kept in the degree of security he requires and can receive the training most appropriate to his needs. It is hoped that the policy that no institution should accommodate more than 450 inmates will be put in effect with the opening of five new institutions this year.
The program of penitentiary development for the fiscal year 1966-67 will see the commencement of construction of the new maximum security institution at St. Anne des

Plaines which will reduce substantially the inmate population at St. Vincent de Paul, and the construction of a new maximum security institution at Millhaven near Kingston, which in turn will make it possible to reduce effectively the inmate population of Kingston penitentiary. At Millhaven the penitentiary service will also commence construction of a reception centre to serve the Ontario region.
In addition, the penitentiary service is establishing a community release centre for women in Kingston. Properties will be acquired in the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver that will serve as community release centres. At these centres, inmates who are within two months of expiration of sentence or of release on parole will be provided with shelter, food and counselling while they are finding employment and becoming adjusted again to living again in a free community.
During 1966-67 construction of a correctional staff college will be commenced at St. Vincent de Paul for the training, both basic and advanced, of penitentiary service officers. It will be comparable in size to the correctional staff college that was opened in Kingston in 1964 where facilities are available for training up to 100 officers at a time.
Over the past 10 years some 3,000 trainees have graduated from training courses in penitentiaries and have been released to society. Only 11 per cent of them were subsequently sentenced again to penitentiaries. This is encouraging in the face of the general average of penitentiary recidivism among inmates admitted to the penitentiary system in any year which, as I said earlier, is running at approximately 40 per cent.
There is no need for me to say that I have touched but lightly on this vast and very important subject. The picture that I should like to present to the committee is one of great pressure, but not one of crisis, of expansion and not complacency. However, before I leave this subject I should say I was gravely concerned upon assuming my new responsibilities to learn that juveniles continue to be held as inmates in our federal institutions, and I must say that the hon. member for Bow River first drew my attention to this very disturbing situation in a very admirable speech approximately two years ago. At the present time I understand that there are four 15 year-olds, all in the federal training centre at Laval City, a special institution for young offenders between the ages of 16 to 23.
February 24, 1966



There are 20 inmates 16 years of age and 73 inmates 17 years of age. Teenagers are incarcerated in penitentiaries because they have committed offences under the criminal law and have been sentenced to penitentiary terms by the courts. This is usually brought about because a case has been referred by the juvenile courts to the adult courts.
The report of the departmental committee on juvenile delinquency, which was initiated by the hon. member for Kamloops, is now receiving attention in the Department of Justice and in the office of the Solicitor General, and incarceration of juveniles in penitentiaries will be one of the matters receiving close attention.
I should say a word about the National Parole Board. The staff of the national parole service was increased during the present fiscal year, or is presently being increased, by the addition of 21 new parole officers. I hope that my words will not be construed as reflecting on the members of the National Parole Board who are doing an excellent job in a very difficult and trying position. But the fact of the matter is that at the present time only a small portion of penitentiary inmates qualify for parole. In the calendar year 1964, 650 inmates, or 18 per cent of the total of 3,617 released, were granted parole. It is encouraging to note that in 1965 the number of paroles increased to 1,040 inmates, representing 28 per cent of the 3,730 inmates released from federal institutions. In other words, the great majority of penitentiary inmates are not released on parole but on expiration of their time.
Many inmates do not wish to obtain parole because they do not wish to be under supervision. They prefer to stay longer in the penitentiary and obtain complete freedom than to be released earlier but under supervision for a much longer time.
The committee will be interested to learn that the Parole Act is under active study with a view to proposing amendments that will assist in increasing the opportunities for parole.
Finally, I turn to deal with the activities of the R.C.M.P. Hon. members may be interested to learn something of the volume of work required to be done by the force in discharging its various responsibilities. I am informed that during the fiscal year which ended on March 31, 1965, for example, charges were laid by officers of the force in respect of 41,031 offences against the Criminal Code. My
Supply-Justice
information is that the total number of instances requiring investigation increased during the fiscal year 1964-65 by about 25 per cent over the previous fiscal year.
In addition to these activities the force rendered assistance to various other police forces throughout Canada in the investigation of a further 14,297 cases, most of which arose under the Criminal Code.
In general, the K.C.M.P. figures indicate that the force was called upon during the fiscal year 1964-65 to perform about 17 per cent more investigations, prosecutions and appearances than had been the case during the previous fiscal year. The figures for the fiscal year 1965-66 are not yet available but my information to this point certainly does not give any reason to believe that the work load of the force has decreased during the past 11 months.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It will be seen that the aggregate figure of $80,526,369, the estimated figure for the fiscal year 1965-66, represents an increase of $8,730,799 over the figure of $71,795,570 for 1964-65. This increase is attributable almost entirely to an increase in the amounts required to meet salaries, pay and allowances. About $1 million of this increase is attributable to an increase in the amount required for the acquisition of new equipment for the force.
The increased amount for pay and allowances for members of the force is attributable to two things: (a) pay increases for all members of the force; and (b) an increase in the approved total strength of the force of 426 persons, bringing the approved total strength from 9,130 for the fiscal year 1964-65 to 9,556 for the fiscal year under review. Hon. members will note that the total actual strength of the force of 9,547, including 7,255 regular uniformed members, is very close to the authorized strength.
Perhaps I might give a word of explanation concerning some of the other major items of expenditure. The figure given for "All other services", $8,561,500, is an increase in that category of about $588,000 over the previous year. This category relates to sundry expenses of investigation and the increase reflects accurately the increase in the total volume of work being done by the force.
The figure given for "Acquisition of equipment", $3,392,000, represents an increase in that category over the previous year of about

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice
$1,061,000. The principal sub-item of expenditure here is the purchase of 721 new automobiles to replace existing components of the force's automobile fleet and an additional 87 new automobiles designed to increase the size of that fleet. Hon. members may be interested to know that the R.C.M.P. is a highly mobile force possessing 2,042 vehicles of which 1,770 are automobiles, 219 are trucks, and the remainder consist of motorcycles, snowmobiles, ski-doos and tractors.
I hope the foregoing information will assist hon. members in their considerations of the estimates of the force, and I want to thank all hon. members for the courtesy and patience with which they have received my opening remarks.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the minister? I would be interested, and I think other members would be also, in having some further information with reference to investigations, charges and prosecutions. The minister noted the increase and I should like to know how many are attributable to the use of motor vehicles. I know statistics are kept and I am wondering how much of this represents automobile crime. It would be helpful if we could have information in respect of that proportion which has to do with the operation of motor vehicles and the traffic branch.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I will endeavour before the estimates are concluded to obtain that information for the hon. member and I will relay the information to him.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Solicitor General on his first presentation as minister and to say to him I believe all members of the house will wish to co-operate with him in the work he has undertaken and in bringing a progressive view into the administrative fields which are under his responsibility.
I do not intend to discuss, however, the items he has brought forward at this time. I intend to discuss what I regard as being a very grave matter affecting the administration of the Department of Justice and which in my view has constituted a major scandal. I should like to adopt the words used by the Globe and Mail of Toronto as long ago as June 14, 1963, when they referred to fraud in the field of bankruptcy as being twentieth century robbery on a grand scale.
The failure of the government of Canada and the Department of Justice in particular

to pay attention to the repeated warnings they have received of the colossal scale of fraud in this field is a sorry record of laxity, inefficiency, inadequacy and neglect not only in the legislative field but also in the field of the administration of the law as it stands. Even to this day, as I propose to show, the Minister of Justice, who I know is fairly new at his job, still has failed to accept the full responsibility which lies upon him and his department. He is practising the usual buckpassing.
We want to ask him what his reasons are for inaction in this field. What are some of the facts? I intend to give them in some detail because they present a record which I think is no less than shocking, As long ago as 1961, and maybe it happened before this, the Canadian Lumbermen's Association submitted a brief to the then Minister of Justice, the present hon. member for Kamloops. It contained detailed suggestions relating to amendment of the Bankruptcy Act and pointed out that in the year 1960-this was in 1961-defaulted liabilities had increased by 55 per cent to the figure of $148 million. I am going to point out later that in this last year they are expected to exceed $500 million. So we are not speaking of a trivial matter. The increase in 1960 was an increase of 55 per cent. The Lumbermen's Association represents some 600 members doing business all over eastern Canada. I should like the committee to note the recommendations they made roughly five years ago to the effect that the government should give full publicity to firms going into bankruptcy, particularly fraudulent bankruptcy, and any trustee irregularities. They also urged the government to increase its staff of investigators and to hire chartered accountants. This was in 1961.
In February of 1962 another association of businessmen, the Canadian Construction Association, sent a brief to the then Minister of Justice who at that time was still the hon. member for Kamloops. This association has a membership of some 1,200 firms and 61 affiliated construction associations. They claimed in their brief, with some justice, to represent a cross-section of business and industry in Canada. They referred to the growing number of bankruptcies and the prevalence of fraud and premeditation in bankruptcies. This was in February of 1962. They urged full investigation by a court approved public accountant with a view to disclosing bankruptcy offences.
In March of 1962 the Canadian Credit Men's Association, which has some 4,200
February 24, 19G6

members representing leading manufacturing, wholesale and distribution firms, sent another brief to the Minister of Justice. This brief was prepared about four years ago after consultation with the foremost bankruptcy lawyers in all parts of Canada. It refers to the large number of fraudulent bankruptcies. It recommends-I invite the attention of the committee to this-that to deal with the situation a special department should be established under the supervision of the superintendent of bankruptcy for the investigation and prosecution of bankruptcy offences. Has this suggestion been adopted? No.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
After they sent it to the hon. member for Kamloops, the then Minister of Justice, and nothing happened they waited for a while and sent it in again to a later Minister of Justice, the present President of the Privy Council. Has any action been taken in respect of those suggestions? There has been no action taken as far as I can make out.
Then in October of 1963, which I point out is now two and half years ago at least, a most highly expert and qualified group made their submission to the then Minister of Justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier. Perhaps they hoped that with a new administration action might be expected. But they were to be disappointed. This brief was submitted by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. They referred, as I have, to the description of bankruptcy frauds as "twentieth century highway robbery on a grand scale".
They then set out what the purpose of bankruptcy is and for the benefit of hon. members I should like to read what they say in that regard. It is:
-the expeditious realization of a debtor's assets and the distribution of the proceeds among the creditors entitled to them in law-the punishment of the dishonest debtor-and the ultimate discharge of the debtor from bankruptcy and his integration into society once again freed from a crushing burden of debt.
Then they went on in their preface to the brief to say this, and this explains some of the reasons for the colossal scale of bankruptcy frauds:
Early in the committee's study, it was realized that the sales and credit policies in our highly competitive economy fostered and even encouraged an over-extension of credit. Such credit policies were entirely innocent in most instances; in others, they bordered on exploitation. This economic atmosphere was ripe for the racketeer and his strategies. Furthermore, the ease with which corporations can be formed and transfers of interest made, has created an impersonal atmosphere
Supply-Justice
in which the moral aspect of business can be easily forgotten. These facts, when examined in terms of the Bankruptcy Act, revealed that, while the Act needed certain amendments, one of the principal areas requiring corrective action was in the field of administration.
I emphasize that they suggest that action is required in the field of administration. They then summarized their proposals, which included legislative proposals, but I only want to read from the fourth suggestion in their summary where it is stated:
Suggestions for the reorganization of the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy to assist the department in its supervision of bankrupt estates and the activities of licensed trustees.
They then went on to give detailed suggestions of some of the technical problems and legislative changes that are required. I do not intend to detain the committee by going into them. However, at page 25 they deal with a subject that I am concerned about, the subject of fraud. They quote a speech of Mr. W.
J.	McQuillan, Q.C. delivered on June 19, 1959 to the Eastern Credit and Financial Management Conference and state:
My last comment will be on a subject on which any lawyer whose interests are normally identified with creditors feels very keenly. Some of you may know, having been victims, that in Montreal over the past few years, four or five organized gangs have been operating. The pattern is simple.
Then he goes on to describe the simple pattern in 1959 which he said was operating in the field of bankruptcy frauds. These remarks are quoted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in their 1963 brief at page 26, and I invite the attention of the committee to this statement which shows the total breakdown of the administration of justice in this field. They state:
Appropriate steps are seldom, if ever, taken to bring dishonest debtors and other parties involved to justice.
I emphasize that statement made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. They say:
Appropriate steps are seldom, if ever, taken to bring dishonest debtors and other parties involved to justice.
Then on page 27 they spell out in detail some of the things that ought to have been done and have not been done by this administration or its predecessor. They say:
For many reasons this system is unsatisfactory as:-
They refer to the system in vogue as being unsatisfactory and then list reasons as follows:
The superintendent of bankruptcy seldom takes part in investigations of alleged fraudulent actions relating to bankruptcies.

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice
In fraudulent cases, one or a number of creditors may themselves be involved in the fraudulent action.
In fraudulent cases, by the time secured creditors are paid, there is often nothing left to finance an investigation and creditors are loathe to "throw good money after bad".
They then refer to some of the improper transaction and they state:
Deliberate omission of certain assets from the statement of affairs.
Admission by the trustee of improper claims of creditors.
Failure by the trustee to report improper acts and transactions by the bankrupt prior to bankruptcy proceedings.
Improper repossession of goods by certain creditors to the detriment of other creditors.
If all these things were known to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, what action if any has the superintendent of bankruptcy and the Department of Justice taken in respect of these matters? They then make several suggestions of things that should be done. These are in the form of recommendations and the first one is:
The position of superintendent of bankruptcy is of sufficient importance to justify the status of assistant deputy minister.
The staff of the superintendent should be strengthened by the appointment of three assistants whose duties would be to supervise:
Activities of registrars, official receivers and trustees; investigations of bankruptcy frauds; processing of trustees' statements.
Item 5 in their recommendations is:
The superintendent of bankruptcy should assume the responsibility, financial and otherwise, of conducting investigations where there is evidence of fraud.
I intend to point out later that this Minister of Justice, and perhaps he will deal with this later, has several times asserted that this is not the responsibility of his department.
In October of 1964 the government of the province of Quebec instituted an inquiry known as the Mercier inquiry which reported on July 30, 1965. This inquiry was largely concerned with loss of revenue to the provincial department of revenue in bankrupt estates, but the inquiry was expanded and found, and I invite the attention of the committee to this:
The inquiry directed by this commission revealed a very deplorable if not alarming situation which existed in bankruptcy and liquidation matters in Quebec.
Then on page 7 of the report it is stated that the inquiry demonstrated that dishonesty and fraud deeply penetrated in one way or another a large proportion of bankruptcies and liquidations. I invite the attention of the committee to these words to be found in the

official report to the legislature and the government of the province of Quebec. It states that the underworld did at the same time a lucrative business to the detriment of honest creditors.
In October of 1965 the Canadian Lumbermen's Association returned to the attack. You will remember that they filed a brief pointing out all these things in 1961. Four years later they thought they might try again, and they stated that fraudulent bankruptcies in the lumber industry in Quebec alone amounted to some $46 million. They then added this view which is the result of an inquiry by their members over seven months through a special committee they had set up:
-this sordid situation has links with political campaign funds, narcotics peddling and arson swindlers.
That is not the view I express; it is a view put forward in a brief after investigation by this association of businessmen. Then the Globe and Mail in dealing with the submission of the Lumbermen's Association said, reporting the chairman of the committee:
It had been trying in vain for several years to get action from the federal and Quebec governments. It asked Prime Minister Pearson for a royal commission in February 1964.
The Globe and Mail then stated that Mr. Leblanc, who I assume was the chairman of the committee, had said:
We have the impression of watching a football game between federals and provincials, where the two teams are stalling the game and throwing on each other the responsibility for doing so.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Kierans, then the revenue minister for Quebec, did not agree with this description. In a speech to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association in the fall of 1965 he accused the federal Department of Justice of hindering Quebec's war on the bankruptcy underworld. I should like to know whether Mr. Kierans was making a responsible or an irresponsible statement when he said that the federal Department of Justice was hindering Quebec's war on the bankruptcy underworld. I think a committee of this house should be interested in this matter too.
Mr. Kierans said that Quebec-he meant the government of Quebec-had complained to the federal department for years about laxity and loopholes in the Bankruptcy Act and was now insisting that Ottawa act. Those are the words he is quoted as having used. The present minister may say that he has only been in office for a short time and that he now proposes at long last, after these years of
February 24, 1966

responsible demonstrations of a substantial scandal, to do something about it. But unfortunately he has been in office long enough to demonstrate a settled determination to avoid the issue.
I should like to quote what the minister is reported to have said. This is in the Heavy Construction News, a newspaper published by the construction industry, of September 24, 1965. If I am misquoting the minister I have no doubt he will correct me.
"The real complaint is that certain people are obtaining credit unscrupulously with no intention of or likelihood of meeting their debts after disposing of the goods they obtain." Cardin-
That is the familiar way in which they refer to the minister:
Cardin said: "Bankruptcy is the inevitable result but it usually is the consequence of what has been done, rather than a means in itself of defrauding creditors. The suppression of pre-bankruptcy fraud is the responsibility of the provincial authorities as a part of the administration of criminal justice by the provinces" he emphasized.
"The federal role, on the other hand, exercised through the superintendent of bankruptcy, has always been understood to be especially the supervision of the trustees".
In these words, as I read them, the Minister of Justice is rejecting the emphatic, documented, reasoned pleas of all the business organizations I have quoted, namely, that the superintendent of bankruptcy should take responsibility for the investigation and if not the detailed prosecution at least the preparation of the prosecution of these offences.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member wants to be fair and I believe it would be useful if I said something here, if he would permit me to do so. It is true that the federal government is responsible for the administration of bankruptcy. The superintendent can in fact initiate investigations; but the actual prosecution and investigation of any criminal activity in this field as in any other field and the administration of the Criminal Code are under the provincial authorities. This is all I meant to say in that statement.
We do not claim that we have no responsibility for the administration of bankruptcy. We claim that we do not have the responsibility for actually investigating and prosecuting criminal charges that might arise within a bankruptcy.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am glad to hear the minister's explanation but unfortunately it does not jibe with what he is alleged to have said;
Supply-Justice
at least, I do not think it does. The Canadian Press in an article in the Globe and Mail of February 10 last quoted the minister in this way:
Justice Minister Lucien Cardin said such investigations-
Investigations into bankruptcy frauds.
-are a provincial matter. The federal government was responsible only for the supervision of bankruptcy trustees.
What I am trying to point out to the minister is that all these organizations, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Lumbermen's Association, the Canadian Credit Men's Association, have for years been urging that the responsibility which is in the act be carried out by the superintendent of bankruptcy by setting up a staff adequate to deal with this colossal cancer on our society.
I suggest that instead of putting forward these evasive statements and shoving the responsibility off to the provinces, the minister should accept this responsibility and take steps to solve this very difficult situation. The minister does not have to tell me, because I happen to be a lawyer trained in this field and know it very well, that the prosecution of these matters rests with the provinces. I also know that in narcotics and combines cases the federal authorities provide counsel because they know these are difficult matters. They take their responsibility seriously in these cases. But these bankruptcy frauds are not being taken seriously.
I am not blaming the minister for this, but the miniscule staff available to deal with these situations is totally inadequate. They are not able to deal with racketeers of the type who are defrauding the Canadian public on a colossal scale year after year. Nothing is done by the government that is responsible for this matter. I say to you, Mr. Minister, through the Chairman that it is time we stopped using provincial responsibility as an excuse for inaction in this matter. The field of bankruptcy is clearly defined in section 91 of the British North America Act to be the responsibility of the federal government.
I hope we are not going to see more and more abandonment of federal responsibility in jurisdiction. That this matter should be dealt with adequately by the government and the Department of Justice is essential for the protection of businessmen across Canada. These gangsters or criminals are smart enough to use provincial boundaries in hopping from one place to another. We need a

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice
nationally effective administration, properly staffed with accountants and so on, to deal with this matter.
I hope we will never again hear in the house the statement by the responsible minister that these investigations are just a provincial matter and the federal government is only responsible for the supervision of bankruptcy trustees. I remind the minister, if the government is responsible for the supervision of bankruptcy trustees, that according to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in 1963 many of these trustees are themselves appointed by fraudulent creditors. Many of them do not do their jobs and supervision has been inadequate. We need an entirely different approach in this field to anything we have had in the past.
What does the minister do? He says we will have some amendments to the act. Well and good. Then four years later we are still told we are to have some amendments to the act and the question will be considered by a new group of lawyers. The Institute of Chartered Accountants and the construction industry consulted lawyers expert in this field four years ago. They could sit down with the officials of the department capable of understanding and explain the changes necessary in the law. I suggest also, Mr. Chairman, that this house contains enough competent people who could advise the government in this regard. Why appoint one lawyer in Montreal, one in Toronto and one in Ottawa? I do not know whether they are friends of the administration and need something to do but I do not believe it is necessary to put off these things in this way. There has been a terrible neglect in this field. Again I say that the minister should not bear the brunt of the blame for this situation; it has been happening for quite a long time.
I hope the amendments to the act will be referred to the Justice Committee and that the committee will take the responsibility not only of looking into the amendments proposed but inquiring into the administration, which the Institute of Chartered Accountants said was of crucial importance in this field.
I suggest that the tale of governmental and departmental waiting in this field requires a more searching scrutiny. What is wrong with the department? What is wrong with its administration? For five years they have been investigating this subject. For five years they

have received a flood of complaints and detailed suggestions poured forth from responsible business organizations. I will never again complain that the Liberal government is too subservient to business interests because apparently they are prepared, at least if small businessmen are concerned, to ignore completely the very rational suggestions made to them. It is an unjust accusation for anybody to make that they pay any attention to the needs of business because apparently they do not.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, for five years they have heard these complaints and millions, indeed hundreds of millions, of dollars have been lost by these repeated frauds. The laws designed to protect honest debtors have been used as instruments of fraud. Thousands of businessmen all across Canada have lost legitimate payment for their goods. The need for action has been demonstrated time and again. The direction of the remedial action required has been clearly indicated but nothing has happened. There is something rotten here and if not rotten at least pitifully inept. In my view the committee should not only review changes in the legislation now proposed but should seek to find out why a whole succession of ministers of justice have been unable apparently to secure from the department the advice required to take the administrative and legislative steps needed to eradicate this crying scandal.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
If by any chance this matter does not seem to be of great importance to this committee, and I hope it does, then the sort of headline we saw today should remind us of the gravity of the matter. When we allow criminals to get involved in matters like bankruptcy with great profit to themselves, then it follows as day follows night that honest men will find themselves shot because they had the guts to fight but did not have adequate help from the government in the past. I hope they will have that help in the future in dealing with this major injustice and fraud on the Canadian people.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of addressing a few words to the committee in connection with the field of justice-or perhaps I should now say fields of justice, and the various components into which, I think regrettably, it is in the process of being divided. I want to make it clear that while I intend to confine myself to some fairly general remarks at this stage I do so only because it seems clear there will be
February 24, 1966

other more appropriate opportunities to go into discussion in depth and in detail on other questions when the main estimates for
1966-67 are being considered. Nethertheless I have some observations which while of a general nature deal with matters of sufficient importance that it is desirable to make them at this time. I am not going to follow in detail the line of the hon. member who has just spoken, but I want to refer before I conclude to one aspect of bankruptcy.
The subject which concerns me most at the present time is the proposal to divide the responsibilities formerly discharged by the Department of Justice into three. I want to make it clear also that I make no criticism of the Solicitor General personally. I am sure we all appreciated the brief resume he gave us this afternoon of the work he is undertaking and his approach to it. It is not with respect to his capabilities personally that I am concerned. I am sure we all look forward to the time, if the government's proposal is adopted, when he will bring his considerable and extensive capabilities to the discharge of his new responsibilities.
But I do not believe the responsibility should be divided. I assure you, sir, that I have attempted to keep an open mind, but I am satisfied on the basis of my own experience that it is a mistake to divide these functions as it is now proposed to divide them. I am sure of my ground when I say that what is needed in this field is not more division but more and better co-ordination. My view is that co-ordination will become more and more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve when you have this clear, sharp distinction which it is now proposed to create between the functions of the respective ministers amongst whom this work is to be divided.
I base my position on my own experience, the experience I had during the course of my administration of the department and upon the more recent experience of the present government. I do not want, sir, to claim any special farsightedness or any personal credit for the very good relationships which existed between the various branches, services and components of the Department of Justice that characterized the years between 1957 and 1963. But it was not accidental. I am not seeking to reflect on anybody. I am stating it as a fact that this condition was not in existence in June of 1957.
What we found then was that there was too great a tendency for the various services to operate without adequate knowledge of what the other services were doing. They would,
Supply-Justice
therefore, frequently be working at crosspurposes. I am quite certain, Mr. Chairman, that in no field is it more important than in this field that there be co-ordination. You cannot have the enforcement section operating in a vacuum from the correction section, with policies not co-ordinated, and above all you cannot have the enforcement and correction branches operating in a vacuum and without co-ordination with the administrative and law-making functions. We initiated administrative procedures during those years which would make it certain that there was co-ordination, co-ordination with respect to administration, co-ordination with respect to the passage of information between the R.C.M.P., the penitentiaries service, the parole functions and the administrative and lawmaking functions, all of which came within the scope of the department and the Minister of Justice as he then exercised the responsibilities.
It was a very happy experience and I am satisfied I am stating the matter correctly when I say that the officers of the department who reported to the minister all appreciated the fact that there was this co-ordination. I leave that there, Mr. Chairman. I say next that I am quite satisfied that if there had continued to be that co-ordination, that exchange of information, some of the grievous, far-reaching mistakes that have characterized the administration of justice under the present government, especially in the years from 1963 to 1965, would not have happened because they could not have happened.
I do not want to rehearse all the difficulties surrounding the position of the President of the Privy Council and leading up to the Dorion Commission report, but I am as satisfied as if I had been there that the difficulties in which the then Minister of Justice found himself would not have arisen, the mistakes he made would not have been made, had there been the necessary co-ordination between the R.C.M.P. and the information they were bringing the minister on the one hand and the advice the officers of the Department of Justice were there to provide on the other hand.
It was simply because the officials of the Department of Justice did not have adequate information and access to the R.C.M.P. reports that that far-reaching and grievous mistake was made in a matter affecting the basic structure and functions of representative government itself. The report on these matters received from the R.C.M.P. was not

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice
reviewed as it should have been by officers of the Department of Justice who were there for that very purpose. So the minister in a matter of the gravest consequences, having far-reaching political consequences, placed himself in a position where he made a decision on his own without the advice which he should have taken and which would automatically have come had there been that system in effect which I have described.
I would have thought this government would have learned from its mistake. Instead, what do we see? We see a greater compart-mentalization system being built up under which there will be less and less knowledge by the one hand of what is being done by the other.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am satisfied now-and I became satisfied as a result of the experience I had-that it is not sufficient to leave this matter of co-ordination and co-operation between the various services which report to the one minister, to a matter of mere administrative arrangement within the ministers' office. My experience convinced me that something more formal was required, and so we were working on a proposal which would result in a formal recommendation for a departmental reorganization which would both reflect the need and ensure the fact of co-ordination and co-operation. I should like to summarize that proposal here.
In my view, what is required is that we should have three deputy ministers made responsible for these functions. They would continue to be under the responsibility of one minister but there should be three deputies: A deputy in charge of administration, a deputy in charge of enforcements and a deputy in charge of corrections, all three deputies reporting to the one minister. The situation then would be that there would be one minister who, with the advice and assistance of the deputy in charge of administration -who should be given the responsibility for co-ordinating and reporting on policy to the minister-would assume the over-all responsibility in the government for the co-ordination of that policy.
It may very well be asked of me, "Why didn't you do it"? I think the answer is clear. I said that I became satisfied that this question should not be left to a mere administrative arrangement carried on by individual ministers, but should be reflected in an arrangement which assured co-ordination and

co-operation. However, political circumstances overtook us before it was possible to make a firm recommendation. Therefore I make no apology for saying this after the event.
I am making this suggestion now because the matter is of such importance that I hope the government will reconsider the organization of the work that we are discussing along those lines. Rather than bifurcating, or I think it is trifurcating the department-or as my hon. friend from Bow River has perhaps less euphemistically but more accurately described it, "creating divisive confusion"-I hope that the government will reconsider its proposals in this field and adopt a policy of co-ordination rather than division.
There are many other reasons for this suggestion apart from the obvious necessity of co-ordination and co-operation. After all, what do we see now? Apparently there is an intention to make the President of the Privy Council responsible for much, if not all, of the work in the constitutional field, at any rate as far as it lies within the sphere of dominion-provincial relations. But who is or should be the constitutional adviser to the government? Surely it is the Minister of Justice.
It is a mistake then, because of some temporary situation which may arise, some temporary difficulty in which the government finds itself, to take away these responsibilities and entrust them to others without really thinking of the over-all implications and where they will lead us in the long run.


Mr. Nielsen:: Political expediency.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the Minister of Justice to be no longer the constitutional adviser to the government? I would deplore such a development. I hope that the minister will tell us what is the ultimate intention. I hope the Minister of Justice will be able to tell us that not only will he continue in name to be constitutional adviser to the government but that he will continue in fact to be so. It is important to parliament that both this house and the country know where to look for authoritative statements on constitutional matters and know whom to hold responsible. Both functions are equally important.
Is the President of the Privy Council to continue to be in charge of dominion-provincial negotiations, with the Minister of Justice, who is or should be the constitutional adviser, having no hand in them, merely coming in when the fact is accomplished to pass some
February 24, 1966



sort of ex post facto opinion whether or not the action proposed is constitutional? He cannot be the real constitutional adviser unless he takes the major responsibility for such negotiations.
Similarly, the Minister of Justice is surely the appropriate and obvious minister to deal with the Attorneys General, his counterparts in the provincial administrations in this field.


Erik Nielsen: He is Attorney General of Canada too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As my hon. friend for Yukon reminds me, the Minister of Justice is also the Attorney General for Canada. Surely that function is not going to be removed from him by the process of erosion or osmosis that I am satisfied will set in under this proposed trifurcation.
If the Minister of Justice as Attorney General of Canada is the appropriate minister to deal with the provincial ministers in this field, then does it not follow that he should also deal with them in the immediately and closely related field of law enforcement? I should think the logic of the proposals-I hate to use that word because there is no logic in them-the logical outcome of the proposals which are now being put forward will be that more and more the Solicitor General will deal with matters of law enforcement and co-ordination. So apparently we are to have three different ministers dealing with the provinces, if these proposals go forward, in fields where the utmost co-ordination is again necessary, fields which should be dealt with and co-ordinated by one responsible minister, not by three.
I hope therefore that the government will give serious consideration to this matter, Mr. Chairman, and will ask themselves whether they are not indeed embarking on this course because of a fundamental error in policy. They should ask themselves whether this course, if pursued, will not lead to a compounding not only of the time that must pass by before these serious problems, which have been referred to by others today are dealt with but also a campounding of the difficulty of dealing with them at all effectively.
I wish to say no more on that subject at this time. I leave the matter with the government in the hope that it will give it that reconsideration. However, we will certainly have a great deal more to say on the matter if we find that when the legislation is introduced it reflects what we consider to be this fundamentally unsound policy.
Supply-Justice
I should like now to refer to some specific matters, but before going on I want to say a word or two on the question of bankruptcy which was dealt with in some detail by the hon. member for Greenwood. Again I do not intend to go into detail on this matter at this stage, if only for the very good reason that my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, will be developing the subject in considerable detail on another occasion. But I want to deal with the one question of when the studies of bankruptcy commenced.
The hon. member for Greenwood is quite correct when he says that complaints began to come in as far back as 1961; they did. One very good reason is that we invited the submission of representations on the subject.
I do not want to claim sole responsibilty for this; it was a matter of increasing concern. But I well recall making a speech on this question and asking interested professional and business organizations to give us the benefit of their experience and to let us have their views on how the weaknesses could be remedied.
We commenced a study in 1961 as a result of our concern, a concern which had led to representations being made by outside organizations. We soon found that the study we had started within the department, which we entrusted to the then superintendent of bankruptcy, was obviously of a nature and scope which it was not possible for that one official to handle alone. So it was not very long before we did in fact place that study in over-all charge of, and give over-all responsibility for its conduct to, an assistant deputy minister.
That was the situation when I ceased to be Minister of Justice. I just wanted to make this part of the record clear, that at least at the time when we had responsibility for the administration we did not fall nor were we pushed into a study of bankruptcy. We initiated it and invited outside representations and suggestions.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Among the other matters that should be considered urgently by the Minister of Justice, and upon which I hope we shall get some answers in the course of discussion of these estimates, is the question of co-ordination of law enforcement between the federal and provincial governments. I am quite sure that hon. members of the committee will agree with me when I say that some of the statements which have been made recently by the present Attorney General of Quebec

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice
are serious and far-reaching. His statements criticizing the co-operation between the two governments on the one hand and his statements critical of the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the other cannot and should not be left unanswered. I feel very strongly about this. I feel that they cannot and should not be left unchallenged, certainly in so far as the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned.
I must say that on the basis of my experience with that force when I was minister and on the basis of my impression of the work of that force today there is no foundation for the implications contained in the statements made by the Attorney General of Quebec in so far as the efficacy and the readiness to co-operate of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned. Indeed, sir, I think that some questions should be raised as to the degree of co-operation forthcoming in the other direction.
I want to mention two specific fields. I should like the minister to tell us what is the situation, for instance, in the field of counterfeiting? How much actual co-operation is coming from provincial law enforcement agencies in this increasingly important field, a field where the activities of criminals mean a potential if not actual loss of many millions of dollars to the people of Canada, particularly of course through the watering down and dilution of the currency of Canada.
Counterfeiting is a crime under the Criminal Code. I want to know how many cases of counterfeiting have been prosecuted by provincial police and how many by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. How many cases were investigated by the provincial police, how many by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and what degree of co-operation is forthcoming in that respect?


An hon. Member:: How many of those result in prosecutions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: one of the very matters which should come before a standing committee.
We are all here to work. But it is obvious surely, that by and large the same people who are interested in the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be interested in the work of the Special Committee on Penitentiaries. How can we man both? And are the officials of the Department of Justice to be bifurcated again? Do they have to attend two different committees? It does not seem sensible. Why should not the standing committee lay out a program and decide what it will do? Could it not deal with the estimates first, the private bills and legislation referred to it second, and third, the penitentiary situation? Of course the order could be changed.
I know, sir, that in respect of the work with regard to penitentiaries it is the desire that the other place should name members to join us. But I suggest to you that that does not justify a special committee. Surely if the government chose to it could refer this particular matter to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs along the lines of the motion now on the order paper, the terms of reference of the motion then to include a clause to the effect that, the Senate be invited to join this standing committee at the time it is undertaking its study of this subject.
There is no reason, just because we want the other place to join us, that we cannot make use of the standing committee of the house. I am confident we shall find great difficulty in manning and staffing these committees if a subject which comes under one of these standing committees is referred to a special committee instead.
Further, with regard to the matter of penitentiaries and the penitentiary program generally, I was naturally somewhat interested to hear the minister say that the program which was conceived as a result of the correctional reform committee's report in 1960 forms the basis of the present program. I have some reservations whether the program has in fact been speeded up or whether on the contrary it has been slowed down. I have indeed a very serious question to raise here. Whether it has been speeded up or slowed down, it remains a very heavy, important and far-reaching program.
The commissioner of penitentiaries in charge of that program has a very heavy responsibility. He has demonstrated his ability to carry it out. I am surprised therefore and disappointed that the commissioner of
Supply-Justice
penitentiaries has not received the increase in salary which was received I think by practically all, if not all, the officers in the public service in positions comparable with his. I think that is something which ought to be rectified as quickly as possible.
The other question that I raise and will have more to say about later concerns what I regard as a serious departure from the program of construction and one which I think can only have the effect of delaying the most urgent area of all and that is in the construction of minimum and medium security institutions. I refer to the decision to build two Alcatraz-type prisons.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is a matter which was reviewed at least twice, if not three times, when I had the responsibility for the administration. I felt then and I still feel that it would be a mistake to build more super fortresses at least until we have completed the re-organization which will make it possible to work on a regional basis of responsibility with a proper complex of institutions in each region. We have enough of these fortress-like maximum security institutions at the present time. Surely the concentration should be on building institutions which will make it possible to take men out of prisons like St. Vincent and Kingston in order that such places may be razed to the ground. Those old buildings cannot be made to serve the concept of any up to date correctional program. And so I regret very much we should be building more maximum security institutions before we have completed the other program.
I find in addition that there are at least two medium security institutions, one of them planned for the eastern townships and one of them a young offenders institution, which were in the program as we envisaged it but which do not appear at the present time. I shall have more to say about this in the appropriate committee. I was glad to hear the Solicitor General say it was expected to get 21 more people on the parole board. This work is surely fundamental to a correctional program. I know the board has been hampered in the past by lack of staff. I hope that when the newcomers are trained there will be a speeding up in the granting of releases from penitentiaries under parole supervision and that more prisoners will be let out under supervision instead of having to wait as is now the case until the completion of their

February 24, 1966
Supply-Justice
sentences. Supervision is all important and it cannot be given unless the department has a good staff.
Finally, I wish to refer briefly to the Combines Investigation Act. I raised this matter by way of a question the other day. The President of the Privy Council replied in effect, it seemed to me, that the government regards professional hockey as a service. I do not see how anyone could possibly pretend that this profitable, highly organized, almost industrial activity-that is an exaggeration; but I do not see how this highly profitable, highly organized, closed corporation which now runs professional hockey in the senior league in Canada and the United States can be regarded as a service.
I do not say that at the moment it comes within the purview of the Combines Investigation Act. If it does not I think the act should be amended. But I would be reasonably satisfied that it could not be said that the reason it does not come under the Act is that it is a service. It is not a service. I suggest we need to look at this situation because it is one which gives grounds for concern. The President of the N.H.L. was perfectly candid about it when speaking on a C.B.C. television program the other night. He said, in effect: This is not a sport; it is a business and we are in this business for profit. That is what Mr. Clarence Campbell said. Let us not obscure the issue then by wondering whether hockey is a service.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have concluded what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman. I wish only to ask the government again to take a searching look at the policy it proposes to implement should it divide this department into three. I hope they will reach the conclusion that it would be a gravely mistaken policy.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively and sympathetically to the righteous indignation of the hon. member for Greenwood. I am glad he is present in the committee at this moment. I think we are all stirred and disturbed about the bankruptcy situation. I think too that the hon. member would not mind if I were to continue along the line he took and point out that, although we are justified in being indignant about the situation, it is a situation which seems to me to have little application to the present Minister of Justice.

I am not one to defend ministers. I never was. I agree with what the hon. member had to say and with what was said in the briefs he read from the Lumbermen's Association, namely, that a great deal of the blame must fall on trustees, on creditors, and on lawyers, though they were never mentioned, as well as on fraudulent debtors.
If I heard him correctly, the hon. member said there was no reason in the world why inspectors on the staff of the federal government could not control these trustees. Let us carry this a step further. Let us suppose such control is exercised. There will be no need to go to Quebec or to British Columbia to find out what the reaction will be. It will be forthcoming right here in Ontario. What will the Law Society of Upper Canada have to say? What will the professional organization of the chartered accountants have to say? I think the idea is a fine one. I believe it has merit. But before results can be achieved there is an even greater problem to be solved. As the hon. member pointed out very well in a speech he made during a discussion on the constitution, this is the test, a test which should be applied now by the provinces in connection with co-operative federalism.
My remarks will be directed to many other fields connected with the whole concept of justice. Co-operation has to be established generally if we are to achieve anything as a result of the work of the department in criminal investigation and in the attack on organized crime.
I was not surprised to find some reaction to the proposal to split the department into two. I admire this move. I think this is reform because at least it is a change. I hope it is done properly. I am all for change. The minister would agree with me that change is one of the most difficult things to introduce, because all those who know and rely on the old establishment are enemies of change and doubtful about what their position will be under a new system.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Reform will have to come. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind today that we do have organized crime? I think the evidence suggests that crime has now entered into fields it has never entered before. It is mobile. It is international. Yet we are trying to deal with it on the basis of very old concepts of police work and law. This is why it will be necessary to introduce changes. We are going to see organized crime in the field of bankruptcy, as has been pointed out. There is
February 24, 1966

some evidence of organized crime in the liquor business. We see it in the business of usury, in the traffic in narcotics. We see it in those elements of our business life which, though perhaps not strictly illegal, are quasimoral. We are likely to find heavy pressure put on us to legalized sweepstakes. This will invite that element of society. We are going to have pressure brought to bear upon us to legalize the whole idea of birth control measures. Again, it does not take much to imagine where crime will move in that field and we shall have to come back forcefully with new techniques.
As the hon. member for Kamloops pointed out, we have a division between the local, provincial and federal police forces but with the multiplicity of crime today we need closer co-operation between those forces. We depend on the local police force to give us the immediate information and we need the centralized R.C.M.P. to exercise their administrative powers to provide greater co-operation.
We shall have to change laws and we shall have to accept such changes in laws. We shall have to accept changed techniques in police work and we shall have to adapt our laws to those new techniques. Privacy may be lost. The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam has been disturbed about incidents connected with a person's freedom but we will have to face this problem and deal with it in such a way that we preserve the individual's freedom while at the same time allowing new methods of police work.
We shall have to introduce new methods that will keep pace with the sophistication of crime because criminals are not slouches any more. They are very jet age and we cannot stop them with old theories and old techniques. The police may have to use listening and radio devices that will interfere with privacy.
We shall have to introduce legislation dealing with the fourth estate to prevent the press from publishing things damaging to the individual. We shall have to get accustomed to the idea that freedom will have to be protected in ways different from those used in another age.
Today there are about a dozen manufacturers of machines such as lie detectors. I am given to understand on good authority that using new techniques and equipment, including drugs, we can find out the truth or falsehood of any statement. This is a scientific fact but we still depend on 12 men serving as a jury to decide between truth and falsehood. Even 12 first class psychiatrists cannot do
Supply-Justice
that as well as machines can; yet our laws prohibit the use of those machines.
We shall also need greater respect for police forces and police administrators, but that respect cannot be forced. It must come naturally. We can understand journalistic pride in stories appearing in the press but our police forces require good public relations. However, they do not employ even the semblance of public relations officers.
All this will be for nothing unless we seriously tackle the question of penal reform and rehabilitation. We are really doing nothing if 41 per cent are still repeaters, as pointed out by the Solicitor General. Today we spend more on shoes and boots for prisoners than we do on research and rehabilitation, and from what I understand the prisoners do not walk anywhere, except on the odd occasion.
We shall have to co-ordinate our efforts with those of the United States. There the position is no better. Just recently an article was published by two psychiatrists, a brother and sister team who, working at their own expense, found that they can predict criminal tendencies in children as young as seven and eight years. Their findings can be verified to an accuracy of almost 80 per cent. These two doctors have worked on their own and we do nothing to support them.
We shall have to co-ordinate all these efforts. We need qualified people. I think the minister is doing a fine job. I like him personally and I defend his position. I think we can trust him to do a good job.


Erik Nielsen: He is too forgetful.


Steven Otto: I have said I think he is a good minister. I trust and hope he will continue with his reformation despite all the objections that are going to come his way, and they will be many, in his efforts to bring the Department of Justice up to the reality of today's world.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The hon. member referred to the responsibility of lawyers in the matter of fraudulent bankruptcies of companies. Would he make any reference to the responsibility of directors of companies?


Steven Otto: Certainly, directors and lawyers. I still think that in most cases the shareholders, directors and other people involved are honest and that the bankruptcy is necessary but there are some cases of fraud.


Erik Nielsen: Could the hon. member tell us about Kingsland Estates?

February 24, 1966
Business of the House


Mr.   Olio@: X thought that was coming, but if the hon. member for Yukon will just refresh his mind he will find that I stood in court demanding an inquiry on behalf of certain shareholders and gave evidence in connection with what I alleged to be fraud, and 30 lawyers representing creditors booed me because they wanted their money even if it was stolen. I asked the court as a friend of the court, an officer of the court, to initiate an investigation, and I must say that the Attorney General for the province of Ontario has not seemed to move at all in this matter. In fact-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It being six o'clock, I must now leave the chair.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, I have a number of suggestions to make in order to expedite consideration of the estimates. My first suggestion to the house and to the government is that consideration of the estimates now before us, those of the Department of Justice, be suspended until tomorrow and that we also get agreement to forgo the private members' hour. Then we are prepared to consider National Revenue without debate, Privy Council without debate, Legislation without debate, and Post Office Department without debate.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Then we could proceed with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We are prepared to make one suggestion on the first item and then pass those estimates, also the Department of Fisheries with one suggestion and Forestry with one suggestion. There may be special inquiries in respect of the last three and some questions on certain items. In order to pass all these departments I suggest that we not pay any attention to the clock when it reaches the hour of ten and that we agree to sit to clean up these departments.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we would agree to what the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has just proposed reasonably, that is to forgo the private members hour tonight and come back tomorrow to the estimates of the Department of Justice.
As for the estimates of the other departments mentioned, however, we would have a

member speak on the Department of National Revenue. We are ready to pass without debate the estimates of the Privy Council, Legislation, Post Office, Veterans Affairs, as well as Fisheries. However, in connection with the Department of Forestry, and specifically as far as ARDA is concerned, we would have a few remarks to make, and perhaps two or three members of our party would be interested in speaking on those estimates.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Ontario would agree to an exchange: instead of speaking on Fisheries and Veterans Affairs, we would spend more time on the estimates of the Department of Forestry and ARDA.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this proposal does not take us by surprise; there have been some discussions on it. I may say we are in general agreement with it, although there are one or two points of detail about which I should make our position clear. The most serious proposal in the suggestion of the hon. member for Ontario is the inclusion of the Department of Fisheries. We have members who feel there must be a little more time spent on these estimates than is suggested. We would like that department deleted from the list for this evening.
We are prepared to waive the private members' hour and we are prepared to take up the other departments the hon. member mentioned. Although there may be some questions, we have no intention of carrying on an extended debate. We think if these adjustments are made the program outlined could be completed by ten o'clock and that it would not be necessary to go beyond that hour.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we believe the proposals which have been made by the hon. member for Ontario are reasonable and we do not raise any particular objection because, first of all, we soon will have before us the new estimates for the following year at which time we will be able to deal thoroughly with the various matters which are of concern to us. We recognize, of course, the fact that the Department of Fisheries is a very important department as is the Department of Veterans Affairs also. However, as I have said, in view of the fact that we will be moving on to the new estimates we are prepared to co-operate with the plan which has been suggested.
February 24, 1966	COMMONS


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say another word? Because of the objection by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in respect of the Department of Fisheries, may I suggest that this department be left to the last and then if we are finished in time we can start on it in any event.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his suggestion. It seems to be a very good one. If we agree to waive the private members' hour tonight that will be the first step and then we can call the departments indicated. I think I can undertake now that we would not call the Department of Fisheries tonight and we would revert, of course, to the Department of Justice tomorrow. If later in the evening there is some other department to be called in place of the Department of Fisheries, this would be done only after discussion with representatives of the other parties.
In respect of sitting beyond ten o'clock, I think it is better that we do not ask for any kind of formal order now. There seems to be a general consensus that we try to finish this program tonight and I hope this can be achieved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for Ontario and the government house leader for agreeing to the slight amendments. May I assume from what the house leader has said that it also will be firm that we will revert to the Department of Justice tomorrow?


Mr. Mcllraith:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think emphasis should also be given to the remark of the hon. member for Fraser Valley to the effect that when the house is doing this we will be doing it in the light of the fact that we will be on the estimates for 1966-67 very shortly.


George James McIlraith: Yes. It is the government's intention to submit a supply motion at the first opportunity when these estimates are concluded in order to have the new estimates brought before the house and referred to the appropriate standing committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it my understanding of these discussions that there will be an order of the house for the suspension of the private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES	1733
Supply-National Revenue [Translation]



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Family allowances-possible increase of allowances; the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) -

National Capital Commission-Publicity promotion in connection with centennial; the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), Atlantic Development Board-Inquiry as to additional assistance to maritimes.

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


Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose at six o'clock vote No. 1 of the Department of Justice was being considered. Is it agreed that vote No. 1 stand in accordance with the agreement reached when Mr. Speaker was in the chair?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Customs and Excise-
1. General administration, operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from firms and individuals requiring special services, $45,485,600.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.

[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we have a few remarks to make about item 1. I wonder if the Minister of National Revenue is in the house.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He is here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has been there for the last half hour.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: 
Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. minister for Lapointe has stated-


Gilles Grégoire: Later; in a couple of years but not yet.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Perhaps in a couple of centuries.


Edgar John Benson: I am not sure I will live that long. As my friend has said, there is a serious problem in regard to charitable donations which has been under consideration for a number of years. There have been instances in Canada, and I do not attach them to any
February 24, 1966

area or charitable organization, where some abuses have occurred in the past. Over the past several years our department has tried in several ways to tighten up the administration so that people can claim the actual amount they contributed, no more and no less. There have been a few instances, as a matter of fact, where we have had to prosecute people for issuing fraudulent receipts.
Under the existing statute there is provision for allowing individuals to claim a deduction, a flat deduction of $100. There is also a provision which allows them to claim any amount of donations actually made up to 10 per cent. As my hon. friend knows, this is not an amount that is allowed in every case; it has to be substantiated. I should like to support my department by saying that in no instance have we disallowed receipts for charitable donations without having some basis on which to arrive at the conclusion that the receipts issued by certain charitable organizations recognized under the Income Tax Act have been in excess of the actual amount of money received.
In instances where we have disallowed claims for donations we have gone to the people who have issued the receipts and asked them on what basis the receipts were issued. When the answer had been that the receipts were issued on the basis of a taxpayer's statement that he had given that much money we have questioned this and asked whether the individual representing the recipient was willing to vouch for the fact that the taxpayer had actually given that amount of money. When the individual involved, the officer in charge of the recipient charitable organization, said he would not give that kind of confirmation because receipts may have been issued in excess of the amount received we have disallowed the claim. We have always considered each individual case on its own merits.
In cases where we have disallowed a taxpayer's claim we have taken the cases to the charitable organizations involved and asked whether they would agree that the amount of money claimed was actually donated. If confirmation is forthcoming we have allowed the complete claim for the donation.
The Carter commission, which has been studying taxation laws in Canada, has been looking into the matter of charitable donations in Canada. Perhaps as my hon. friend suggests it might be better that we have some sort of over-all amount beyond the $100 and 23033-110

Supply-National Revenue allow taxpayers to claim that amount of money as charitable donations.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
We shall probably have to wait until we receive the report of the Carter Commission containing their ideas in this regard. However, I should like to impress upon the hon. member for Lapointe that it is the duty of my department to administer the statute as it has been enacted by the Parliament of Canada. It is the duty of my department to make sure that people pay the taxes they are obliged to pay under the statutes and yet treat them as fairly as we can.
Over the past two years since I have been minister I have received many letters from the hon. member for Lapointe. I believe in every specific case the situation has been looked into and the solution which appeared proper has been arrived at. The situations that exist under the Income Tax Act is that it is up to the taxpayer to prove he has paid out a certain amount of money or has made specific donations. We have not in any case questioned the integrity of people except where we felt this was warranted.
If every charitable organization kept an up to date record of individual donations received from people and issued receipts at the end of the year, there would perhaps be no problem whatsoever with regard to charitable donations.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is precisely what the minister just said, if the organizations kept a detailed and accurate record of the donations they received, but that is not exactly the way things are done. If the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin), who is now sitting beside the Minister of National Revenue, attends Sunday mass in his church and puts two dollars in the collection plate; he is not going to stop the priest or the churchwarden passing it to ask him for a receipt. And that priest or that churchwarden does not carry a ledger with him in which to write down the amount given by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I belong to a parish where envelopes are used and all this is done quite accurately.


Gilles Grégoire: I might add, Mr. Chairman, that we want to talk about that system of envelopes. Another system is to be adopted, and the Department of National Revenue is wishing it on us, on our churches. A system
February 24, 1966

Supply-National Revenue of envelopes is to be adopted and, assuming we are dealing with the member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska, his name, his address, his telephone number and a number to identify him correctly will be found on the envelope; we are being driven into making a classified thing out of charity. The name must be given, the telephone number and all. Why should the two thousand year old tradition, with regard to charity be changed, namely that the left hand should not know what the right hand gives?
That is in the Gospel, Mr. Chairman. And yet, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys seems to approve the change in the methods used. Mr. Chairman, everyone does not like those methods, or like that change. That is precisely the crux of the matter: in certain areas or provinces, the circumstances are not the same as elsewhere and this fact is being ignored.
Let us take another example. There are some community organizations with charitable purposes, such as assistance to needy children or others, for instance the Richelieu Club. How are contributions collected? Well, a person is fined $1.00, $2.00, $3.00, but the collector does not have any receipt book and does not give receipts for those amounts. But if you ask certain members of the Richelieu Club, they will tell you that they donate $50 or $60 every year for which they cannot produce a receipt. In some parishes, a parishioner may give $1.00 every Sunday and another member of his family may do likewise, but since no receipts are handed out and there is no system of envelopes, such as in the parish of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, then, it is another $50 or $60 for which the taxpayer has no charity receipt. How can you expect the parish priest to say or guarantee such a thing? These are the conditions that vary according to the areas, parishes or provinces. It is this difference in mentality between areas that should be recognized by the minister. And that is the reason why we are bringing up this problem in order that a solution may be found.
I admit that it is not easy and that the act is there. I cannot say I am in favour of this act that robs everyone through high taxes such as we have today. But the act is there and as long as the members do not change it, it is always there and the minister's responsibility is to enforce it. Just the same, he should not forget the considerations I have mentioned.

The minister was telling us a little earlier: if anyone can prove that he has subscribed to a charitable organization, we will accept that evidence. Is not a receipt issued by a parish enough? Then why do the income tax officials and inspectors insist on cutting down right across the board?
The minister tells us that an investigation is made in each case. Well, I can tell the minister-and I will do it when we consider his next estimates, which should not be so far off-that I will point out cases of parish priests who were never visited or taxpayers who were never investigated but whose receipts for charitable donations were cut down automatically, systematically, uniformly and dictatorially to such an amount. And that exists. I hope that the minister will take these remarks into consideration and not come to us with generalities and forget that differences might exist in the various provinces of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, you will not find my complaint in the gospel but you will find it in the Bill of Rights. I have risen to bring this matter once more to the minister's attention very briefly and ask for the assurance that something will be done to correct this situation in the near future. The question I raise affects the lives of some 2,000 people in my constituency. This problem has been created because of a conflict between the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and the Income Tax Act and regulations. The minister has been most co-operative in this regard and I know he is having a study made in this matter. I wish to read briefly from a letter written to one of my constituents, the owner of a very excellent farm in the Arrow Lakes area, a first world war veteran who is now 83 years of age. The letter reads:
Earlier this year you had some dealings with Mr. Ronald D. Grant and our Mr. T. G. Mead as a result of which we understand that you are not willing to allow the Authority to appraise your property unless you are provided with a breakdown of the appraisal. The provision of this would be contrary to our policy and inconsistent with the practice which we have followed in dealing with other owners in the area.
We are therefore not willing to provide you with such a breakdown. As mentioned to you by Mr. Mead, we feel that our only course is to proceed with expropriation and, in view of our requiring your property in connection with the reservoir clearing scheduled for the spring of 1966, this file has been forwarded to the writer with instructions to proceed to expropriate pursuant to the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964.
Yours very truly,
J. N. Holmes
Solicitor
February 24, 1966	COMMONS
I	raise this matter briefly, Mr. Chairman, because a good number of people in the Arrow Lakes area are very concerned about it. Properties are now beginning to be expropriated and to date these people have refused to accept the appraisal figure because in some cases depreciation of barns, business premises and so on has been claimed. I appreciate what the minister has done to date but I do ask him to let these people have as soon as possible the instructions they should receive from his department because they are very concerned about the situation that exists at the present time.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kootenay West has raised this question with me and my department has tried to do everything possible in order to work out a solution. Of course, I cannot accept responsibility for the administration of B.C. Hydro.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope not.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: I am very pleased that I do not have that honour. However, I should like to assure my friend that we have no authority to force B.C. Hydro to put a valuation on property and the various components that they are expropriating. If they did this it would be much easier for the taxpayers to deal with the matter of receipts they have received and whether or not some part of them, in many cases a small part, would be taxable. My deputy minister has already been in touch with the taxation office in British Columbia with regard to this matter and has instructed them to give every assistance to the taxpayers involved.
If a breakdown between capital items and items which may involve income or recapture of capital cost allowance is not given by British Columbia Hydro we will in each instance try to work out a fair and sound basis as to the various parts of the receipts to be applied to various purposes. We will do this through appraisals or other methods which may be available to us.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Taxation-*
5. General administration and district offices, $46,278,100.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one or two questions I should like to address to the Minister of National Revenue arising from the fact that his department as of the first of this year assumed a very important new responsibility in the area of collecting contributions for the 23033-110a
DEBATES	1737
Supply-National Revenue Canada Pension Plan. I realize that this administrative responsibility stretches across most of the country and involves people in a great many different occupational groups.
First of all, I should like to ask the minister whether, apart from the general information that has been issued in connection with the coming into effect of the Canada Pension Plan, his department has issued bulletins or informational documents dealing with the application of contributions according to any division of occupational groups which would provide definite information to these groups of their position under the plan?


Edgar John Benson: Since my hon. friend comes from British Columbia I assume he is very much interested in the fishing industry. I should like to indicate that my department is continuing the work started last fall. Representatives of my department have visited many employers in Canada. I received a delegation from the fishing industry of British Columbia in my office the night before last. I offered to send someone to British Columbia within the next two weeks to look into the situation of the fishermen with regard to whether or not they are selfemployed or employees under the Canada Pension Plan.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister appears to be something of a mind reader. He is quite correct when he suggests that what I have in mind at this time particularly is the situation of the fishermen as an occupational group. The minister will recall that when the pension plan was under consideration I, along with other members of the house, suggested that so far as the Canada Pension Plan was concerned fishermen should be in approximately the same position under the plan as they are under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to launch into a debate with the minister on the question of whether or not the plan should be amended in the way I have suggested. I am glad to know the minister is taking steps to look into the situation of the fishermen of British Columbia. Since he has indicated he met some of the fishermen recently, he must be aware of the fact there is no very clear line of definition whether or not a fisherman is an employee within the terms of the act as it stands. I am glad to know that some steps are being taken to clarify this situation. I hope that the clarification of the

February 24, 1966
Supply-Privy Council
existing Act will bring some results for the fishermen. Since the minister has given me this information, I will not pursue the matter any further at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
10. General administration, $1,098,400.
Erik Nielsen: I have one quick question, Mr. Chairman, on vote No. 10. I have a motion for the production of papers on the Order Paper, No. 89, which calls for the production of copies of correspondence between the Prme Minister and any minister of the Crown and the Industrial Development Bank at Sudbury and Toronto and replies thereto. I wonder whether the minister can now give me an indication when I can expect production of these papers from the Prime Minister's office?


Mr. Favreau:: If I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, this matter comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance.


Erik Nielsen: I agree that the Industrial Development Bank does but I am calling for the production of papers from the Prime Minister's office. The minister can give me some indication when I can expect this return.


Guy Favreau: I undertake to take the question as notice and refer it to the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Privy Council.


Guy Favreau: I wish to thank hon. members for their co-operation.


[Stage Direction]
5. General administration, $1,077,200.
Mr. Peters:: It is unfortunate that we are not going to allow the Speaker to make a statement on this item tonight. However, I request that some consideration be given to a written report covering some of the things that are the responsibility of the Speaker and which have been discussed in the past by members of parliament.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I refer to one matter in particular, the arrangements concerning the law clerks which have been discussed in the past. Joint law clerks have not been provided for some time. There may be considerable discussion about this matter and the legislation surrounding it but I think that this and a

number of other problems should be brought to our attention in some different way than is normally the case.
There have certainly been great changes here in the last year or two, some good some not so good. I think this matter could be discussed more intelligently by a committee, it being a field that I think members should take a more active part in than they have in the past. I suggest that a report be made to the house on some of the activities in this regard. It would not necessarily need to be discussed but could be dealt with in a different manner from that to which we have been accustomed.
As I say, some of the changes which have been made have been successful. There have been wide investigations and many studies made. Members are familiar in a very abstract way with some of the decisions that have been made. I think there is an interest in this question which could probably be satisfied by making an annual report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of Legislation. The committee will now proceed to the discussion of the estimates of the Post Office Department.


[Stage Direction]
1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the International Bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $221,303,000.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister for one assurance. In the Yukon prior to 1957 the Post Office Department's contracts for the movement of mail to and from various communities went to friends of the party which at that time formed the government. After the government changed in 1957 that situation was altered. When contracts for the transportation of mail expired, public tenders were called and the policy adopted was that the lowest tender obtained the contract. This resulted in every case in a saving to the taxpayer of Canada. It was at my urging that this was done.
This situation was carried through so far as I know until 1963-64. The minister will find that his files are well documented with correspondence from myself in which in several cases I decried the practice of patronage in the allotment of these contracts and insisted in all cases that they go out to public tender regardless of whether or not a potential contractor for the carriage of mail belonged to the Liberal party, the Conservative party or to any other political persuasion.
February 24, 196G

I should like the minister's assurance now, because I have some reason to believe that this may not now be the case, that this practice will be continued in the Yukon. The people there desire it and it is the fair thing to do. It also results in every case in a saving to the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that if there was any patronage within the Post Office Department in the past, it seems to have stopped a few years ago, particularly since I was appointed to that department. I intend to stamp out any patronage I ever discover within the department.


Erik Nielsen: I am very reassured to hear that statement by the minister. However, so far as the Yukon is concerned, and I speak for my constituency now, in every instance of a contract for the carriage of mail to and from any community will he assure me that in all such cases the contract will go out to public tender on its expiration?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Even if I thought a renewal would be the best thing would the hon. member like the contract to go out to tender?


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I think I can assure the hon. member that for all contracts over $5,000, let us say, we have established the policy that they go out to tender. Perhaps instead of a four year term we may make it a five year term so that the contractor has a chance to recoup the money he has invested.
With regard to contracts below this amount, in many cases the contractors have earned their livelihood and have been in this business for 10 or 12 years and are not able to do anything else. If we put the contract out to tender in these cases, most of the time these people would have to underbid their previous price, which I do not think would be a big help to the department because the contracts might not be paying propositions. The tenders might be $200 or $300 below the previous bid and these people would have to struggle for a long time to try and make a living on the small amount earned. I am studying a policy to deal with this matter in a way not only for the good of the department but also for the good of the man who has the contract.
Supply-Post Office


Erik Nielsen: One final word in this regard, Mr. Chairman. I know it is difficult for the minister to conceive the situation in the Yukon 4,000 miles away. I know that his remarks just now were made in the light of this kind of contract on a national basis where transportation and economic difficulties may confront individuals with these contracts in other provinces and territories which do not confront the contractors in the Yukon. All I am directing my remarks to now is the situation in the Yukon where it is the opinion of the people generally that the only fair way to deal with the situation is to give the opportunity to every Canadian taxpayer to bid on these contracts. The minister will find on a review of the situation in the Yukon that in every case it saves money, the service is not impaired, and so far as I know the individuals never go bankrupt.


Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Chairman, I have a matter on which I want to speak very briefly. However, it is one which to my way of thinking is important. It is a purely local matter that concerns Hamilton. On three occasions now I have put a question on the order paper about mail delivery between Hamilton and Toronto, Hamilton being Canada's sixth largest city and Toronto being Canada's second largest city and being only 40 miles apart.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
A mail service from Hamilton to Toronto takes place approximately eight times a day starting about 6.30 p.m., going through the night and ending at approximately ten minutes to eight in the morning. In other words, in the daytime there is no mail delivery from Hamilton to Toronto during business hours. In the same manner there is one delivery of mail during the daytime from Toronto to Hamilton. Apparently mail is picked up at the Toronto-Hamilton International Airport and stops are made at every small town in between which means that it takes approximately three hours for the run from Toronto to Hamilton.
This situation has caused me to receive a lot of mail in my office complaining about the lack of service between Hamilton and Toronto. Special delivery mail sent out during business hours arrives the next day and is very likely delayed because of the red tape that it goes through. It seems to me it would be of service to the people of Hamilton and Toronto if important documents such as legal
1740	COMMONS
Supply-National Revenue documents and the like that normally go by special delivery were delivered during business hours in the daytime.
On inquiry I found that an autobus leaves Hamilton every hour on the half hour. It would seem convenient to have at least one or two deliveries a day of a bag of special delivery mail or even ordinary mail from Hamilton to Toronto. I am not as concerned about mail in the other direction. But I do think that there should be some service whereby special delivery mail from Toronto to Hamilton arrives during working hours.
This situation has been a constant cause for complaint for almost three years. I think the minister might take this into consideration to see if some change could be made in the present system.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I shall certainly do so, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one small matter on these estimates. It has bothered me for some time and I should like to draw it to the minister's attention. The matter I refer to relates to the low bid system for the carriage of rural mail.
In essence I have no objection to the system because I think it is the correct one and the best that can be devised. The difficulty that arises, arises after tenders are called for mail carriage on a rural route and one tender is so much lower than the others that it is quite obvious that something is wrong with the tender. When such a low tender is received either the person tendering does not know what he is doing and has no knowledge of estimating his costs or he is tendering purposely low in the hope of getting the contract and then applying to the department for an increase. These two situations cause difficulty.
With respect to the first situation where a man does not know what he is doing, I have had occasion in the past to point out several times to the Post Office Department that the low bidder could not do the job and that sooner or later he would either have to abandon his service or else operate such a poor service that the department would be forced to step in. The low bid system has resulted in the authorities saying, "Well, we are sorry but we have to accept the low bid tender. We do not see anything wrong with the man. Nobody knows of anything wrong with his character and therefore we shall have to assume that he knows what he is

DEBATES	February 24, 1966
doing". I think in cases like that the department ought not only to look at the matter twice but the department should in some cases refuse to accept that low tender. I know of several instances where the department has accepted such a tender, the job has been poorly done and eventually the contractor has had to get out, with resultant bad service for a period of weeks or even months. One reason for such low tenders is bad estimating by the tenderer.
Second, sometimes when a person wants to get a contract he hopes he can carry it at a loss for two years, after which time he will apply to the department for an increase. In such cases the department often grants an increase. I think that the position of the department with respect to any contractor who receives a contract through unfair competition by bidding too low should be that such a person should not be given an increase for at least the full term of four years of his contract. I know that in some cases where an increase has been awarded after two years the result has been to the detriment of those people who made a bona fide bid on a fair estimate of the job, because the initial contractor making the low bid took a loss for two years and then was awarded the normal scale again.
I wish to point this out because in both cases I think a contract ought to be refused. It ought to be refused if one bid is a great deal lower than other bids. If in accordance with calculations it is shown that the bid is far too low, the contract should not be given to the tenderer making that low bid.
I have come across this situation several times and I want to draw it to the minister's attention as a policy matter that ought to be considered. Similar problems arise in the Department of Public Works but that is not the concern of this department. The same thing arises where an unreasonably low bidder gets a job. The result is a terribly poor job. It is exactly that sort of thing that happens in the Post Office Department.
I would urge the department to be more careful and to reject these unusually low bids that are obviously not well considered or not bona fide.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not usually speak on these estimates and my remarks will be quite short.
First of all, may I congratulate the minister and wish him well in his portfolio. I wish to bring to his attention a situation which has
February 24, 1966	COMMONS
developed over the past two or three years. I refer to the tremendous discontent among postal employees, particularly in large areas across Canada. In many areas where the cost of living or standard of living is higher than in other areas the over-all adjustment of pay has not been sufficient to take care of the every-day needs of post office employees. I am particularly stressing those areas in large industrial centres where wages received by postal employees cannot compare with the wages of industrial employees in that city or area. Consequently there is a tremendous turnover in employment. No sooner has a man been trained as a postal clerk or letter carrier than he makes application to a neighbouring industry and he leaves for higher wages.
I think this matter should be looked into. I realize that His Honour Judge Montpetit is now looking into the various grievances and complaints which have been submitted to him but I do not know for certain whether this area of consideration has been submitted to His Honour for his consideration and recommendation.
I think that because of the tremendous turnover resulting from the dissatisfaction among postal employees something should be done in order to steady the level of employment in this department. If the minister did nothing else but put minds at ease and bring about a situation as close to complete satisfaction as possible for the employees, I think he would have achieved something worth while.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Mr. Flemming:: I rise to speak very briefly. First, I wish to congratulate the Postmaster General on having been elevated to his present position and to wish him the good luck which I am sure his good judgment will bring to him.
Next I wish to draw attention to a rural route in my own constituency about which I have written him-the hon. gentleman had the courtesy to give me a nice reply-and to emphasize the fact that in this day and age service three times a week is not good enough for any part of this great country of ours. I thank the minister for his courteous reply and express the hope that this reply will be followed by suitable action.


Mr. McCutcheon:: There is one small item which I wish to bring to the minister's attention. It has to do with the smaller post offices in rural areas-I think they are called revenue offices or something of that kind.
DEBATES	1741
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Since the new Labour (Standards) Code was brought in, the service at the wicket in many of these smaller places has been curtailed so that employees can enjoy the 40 hour week. In many cases this has meant the public being denied the service to which I believe they are entitled, even though they may be living in a small community. I hope the new Postmaster General, whom I congratulate, will take some steps to see that places such as I have mentioned will obtain an improved service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Post Office Department for the year ending March 31, 1966.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: May I take this opportunity to thank all hon. members for the great courtesy they have shown during the consideration of my estimates and for the good wishes expressed toward me and my department.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to consider the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, vote one, to be found on page 502 of the blue book.


[Stage Direction]
I. Departmental administration, $6,694,000.
Mr. Ormiston:: I am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs would like us to expedite consideration of his estimates, as has been done in the case of other departments, but we are dealing, here, with individuals -deserving individuals-and the estimates therefore deserve more than a cursory glance.
However, since the Committee on Veterans Affairs has been most careful in the scrutiny of estimates in the past-and I am sure they will carry out their duties in future in the same manner-I think my remarks can be brief. If the minister continues to adopt the attitude he took in the committee in 1964 when he stated that the Pension Act and the other acts affecting veterans would come up for review by that committee, I do not think he is likely to run into much trouble.
Having said this, I would remind him that the estimates of the department have, in fact, been subjected to very little examination, since no committee was formed in 1965. I would suggest therefore that the minister should reaffirm his earlier statement and assure us we shall have an opportunity to discuss these matters. Such an assurance would be greatly appreciated.
1742	COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs
It should be pointed out that we passed the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act very quickly only three days before the recess and that no groups or organizations were able to make representations concerning this measure. It would I am sure be appreciated if at the same time as they are making other pleas they could be allowed to make representations in connection with the War Veterans Allowance Act as well.
We appreciate some of the actions the minister has taken during the past year. I should like to pay tribute to the members of his staff. He has a wonderful staff not only here in Ottawa but across Canada. When one goes to them for assistance he finds them both competent and obliging. It is only right that these people who work so diligently should receive commendation.
We are sorry that the veterans pension was not raised by 20 per cent rather than 10 per cent, but we shall have another opportunity to discuss this at greater length. We appreciate the fact that a committee was set up to study the Canadian Pension Commission and its interpretation of the act. We realize this matter is more or less sub judice at the moment, but we will certainly welcome this report when it is published and we know the minister will treat its contents with that respect to which they are entitled.
As far as the investigation into the case of the Hong Kong veterans is concerned, I believe this was certainly a wise move. When this report is completed I am sure the minister will give it close scrutiny. This again is a subject which can be discussed in the committee when the minister has the time available.
I wish now to mention a few items which might be reconsidered when the Pension Act comes up for scrutiny. I enumerate them in order to give the minister an opportunity to examine them at his leisure. The first provision in the Pension Act which I would suggest revising is section 2(h). It is a definition of the phrase "dependent condition" and I think it should be reviewed as early as possible.
The next section which deserves scrutiny is section 13(2). We heard a great deal of comment during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Defence concerning pensions to those who have died in service, and the interpretation which has been placed on the surrounding circumstances. I believe that an analysis of this situation by the Minister of National Defence

DEBATES	February 24, 1966
and the Minister of Veterans Affairs in cooperation would prove worth while and would yield beneficial results.
Section 14(4) is a touchy section. It has something to do with social diseases. While it might be indelicate to discuss this section now it is certainly one deserving further scrutiny.
Section 26(a) deals with pensionable children suffering from physical or mental infirmities and I suggest this might also be examined. In respect of any of these pensioners, payments are cut off when they reach the age of 21. For pensioners in the first of the two categories I have mentioned, this presents a difficulty should they be attending a university. It might be a good move to raise the age to 25 years.
Section 35 is one which is capable of misinterpretation. It concerns the estate of a veteran. If it were not for the broadminded interpretation which the commission has placed on this section many widows would be in difficulties. I think this section too would bear scrutiny.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Then there is the section which precludes a pension to a widow or mother on account of personal employment. As the minister probably knows, we have had a case where a widow applied for a pension, but because she was earning a certain amount of money she was ruled ineligible. She promptly quit her job, reapplied for the pension, got it, and went back to work afterwards. While we are certainly in sympathy with the widows of veterans we also have to consider the taxpayers and it might be well that this section be reviewed.
Section 70 is one which is most controversial. Possibly when the report of the committee which is studying the Pension Commission comes out, something will be done in that respect.
Finally, with respect to section 71, I think it is rather unjust for municipalities and provincial governments, when a veteran sometimes finds himself in the unfortunate position of having to receive relief, to try to retrieve the relief payments out of his pension. That is a little ridiculous in this day and age.
I just mention these matters briefly to give the minister an idea of some of the changes we would like to see in the Pension Act. We shall have a chance to examine it in the
February 24, 1966

standing committee, and we shall await with anticipation to see what the minister is going to bring forth.


Mr, Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak briefly because we want to get the new estimates before the house and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. These are important estimates. Expenditures under them affect some four million Canadians composed of veterans, their dependents and relatives.
First I want to thank the minister for his courtesy and the consideration he gave to problems which I brought to his attention. As a Minister of Veterans Affairs we have got a real veteran. I also want to pay a tribute to the officials. In Ottawa, Vancouver, and in my district I have always found them willing to do what they can to assist veterans and their dependents, and advise them wherever possible. Our officials in this department have established a model which a good many welfare organizations would be wise to follow.
I want to make a special appeal to the director of the Veterans Land Act administration. I think I see him somewhere in the distance. I appeal to him to do all he can to protect the rights of veterans who are going to be flooded out owing to the dams being built as a result of the Columbia treaty. I also ask his assistance for veterans not directly his responsibility but who are willing to accept the advice of his officials.
I know of one case where the officials were very effective in assisting a veteran living at Renata. His property was not purchased under the V.L.A. but I got in touch with the minister's officials and they went out and advised this man. The B.C. Hydro Power Authority, which I always term the Hydraheaded monster of B.C., offered this man $14,000 for his property; but after V.L.A. officials visited him B.C. Hydro increased its offer by $4,500. This shows something can be done by advising veterans and discussing matters with other officials concerned.
I know the committee which is surveying the organization and work of the Canadian Pension Commission has not reported yet. I hope to be able to attend one of the committee meetings and make a few observations on the matters it is considering.
We have got the report of the Hong Kong veterans, and I know the government is considering it at present. We have also had the representations from the Royal Canadian 23033-111

Supply-Veterans Affairs Legion and other veterans organizations, representations which were submitted to the cabinet. I know the government is giving consideration to certain amendments to veterans legislation and I do not intend to say more at this time because we are anxious to pass these estimates so that the new ones can come before us and be referred to the standing committee. I hope that standing committee will get to work as soon as possible to hear representations from the veterans organizations, question the officials of the various branches of the department, and make recommendations to the government. I can say on the basis of my 20 years experience on that committee that it has always conducted its affairs in a strictly non-partisan manner.


Howard Earl Johnston: I wish to urge the minister to consider the whole matter of pensions carefully because we know that pensions awarded after both world war I and world war II are totally inadequate for today's standards. It is essential that some adjustment be made to all pensions. The report on the Hong Kong veterans has amply justified the claims repeatedly made by hon. members in this chamber that these people were worthy of special consideration because of the special nature of their wartime experiences.
Lastly, I would like to say something about those people who have been awarded what used to be called the "burnt out" pension. I realize the department has a euphemistic term for this subsistence pension. It has invariably been small. As these people grow older there builds up in their minds a feeling that once they reach the age of 70, or 69 as it now is, and begin to draw the old age pension, things will be a little easier for them.
It may be wishful thinking on their part but they feel one pension will augment the other. However, when they begin to draw the old age pension, the other pension which they have been receiving is regarded as overly generous and is removed, or reduced, and they find themselves no better off than they have been for many years.
We all realize the old age security pension is grossly inadequate for these people who, by the time they reach 69, are usually in extremely poor health, having existed for many years on the lowest of low incomes. Surely the amounts would not be that large that the two pensions could not be decked, at least until the time the government chooses
February 24, 1966

Supply-Veterans Affairs to raise the old age security pension to the point where it would be more adequate than it is at present. When these veterans hear all the talk about decking other pensions it must be frustrating to them that theirs are not considered in that way. I urge the minister to give this matter serious consideration.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a grievance on behalf of one of my constituents, Jack D. Fraser. He was an air force man who was shot down over Germany, was taken prisoner in 1943 and remained so until 1945. After he returned to Canada there were some awards given for maltreatment of prisoners of war. However, he was one of the unfortunate ones and was out of the country at that time. When he returned he was informed that the time had expired in which application could be made. Therefore he did not receive this award. However, he applied to the Royal Canadian Legion and this is what they had to say:
It is entirely possible that if you had applied to the War Claims Commission when the legislation was still active and the commission still in existence, that you might have had a valid claim to be considered for a prisoner of war compensation,-
I feel it is very unfortunate, as does Mr. Fraser, that circumstances at that time were such that he could not be here. However, not long ago the case of the war prisoners of Hong Kong was reviewed and they received additional benefits. This person was a prisoner of war who had been maltreated in Germany and who was one of the 400 on a forced march, about half of whom were shot down by our own air force.
I find it very difficult to understand why this case could not be reviewed and the circumstances under which he was refused adjusted so that he also would receive these awards which other prisoners of war have received.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few observations I would like to make following the comments of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke concerning pensions of veterans. We have had different discussions on this matter, we have made requests of the government at different times, and have heard the government talk about raising the old age pension and so on. One of the arguments which has always been brought forward is that it would be pretty expensive, that the government does not have the money to pay $100, and so on, in the form

of an old age pension to everyone in this country. I would like the Minister of Veterans Affairs to pay particular attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I would like to add that today we have veterans who have served in the last two world wars, and I think if anybody needs consideration and special attention, they are the ones who need it at the moment.
I know that those who have pensions possibly have pensions which do not permit them to have an easy existence or at least they find themselves in the position where they have difficulty living with the pensions which they do obtain. But whether or not they have pensions, these people have served the country. Some of them were overseas for four or five years; they were the ones at that time who actually went over there and risked their skins for us. At that time we called them heroes and today we have a tendency to forget this. While they were overseas working for $1.40 or $2.00 a day, at that time we were here and perhaps had the privilege of taking the best war positions available at that time which paid very good salaries and had the opportunity to establish a future for ourselves-those who were here at that time.
While some of our colleagues, or brothers, and even sisters-but I am speaking particularly about the men-were out at the front, they were there defending their country. I think they have given us the service we had asked of them. We appreciated it at that time. It would be a mark of recognition if we return that service. I believe that one way of doing this would be what I would suggest to the minister today, and that is that, whether or not these people have a pension, they be eligible to obtain the old age pension at age 60 without a means test.
If they lost five years or so from their lives risking their own skins to defend our nation, I think we should do this for them; they are not a majority in the country. I think this would be well regarded by all citizens and that the nation might accept the idea of giving these people at least the benefit of the five years which they gave their country, in the best years of their lives. I would like the minister to take this suggestion under consideration.
I will not speak any longer on this subject during these estimates, but will wait for the new estimates. However, I would certainly appreciate it if the minister would give serious consideration to the suggestion that the government should not invoke the argument
February 24, 196G

that we do not have the means to give everybody $100, and so on. Let us start at the moment by giving all the veterans who have reached age 60 their old age pension without a means test. You might say this is an exception to the rule. Yes, but they were the exception when they had to go over there in 1914-18 and 1939-45 to defend their country. They have done their share and it is up to us to defend them when they need it so much.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I brought up this matter last year in the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs and I rise again to remind the minister and the government regarding the same problem. This is on behalf of the widows of veterans who were less than 50 per cent disabled. Such a widow and her family, upon the death of that veteran husband and father, are immediately cut-off after his death. At the same time widows of veterans drawing more than a 50 per cent disability pension continue to draw this pension after the death of their husbands. Now, there is nothing fair about this. This has been going on too long here in Canada under all governments both Liberal and Conservative.
There is no reason that the widow of a veteran drawing less than 50 per cent disability pension should not continue to draw that small pension-and it is small, Mr. Chairman; I have known some to be as low as $20, $25 or $40 a month. It would be a great thing for those widows to continue to draw the pension, that small stipend, after the death of their husbands.
With the present day high cost of living and the rapid escalation of costs at this time there is a very heavy burden and financial handicap on these mothers and their families. The present policy of the immediate cessation of these veterans pensions upon their death is nothing less than an insult to these deceased men who so nobly served Canada. On behalf of these people I ask the minister of this department to please give early consideration to action in this matter so that the widows and families of men in this category can at least receive this small benefit which they deserve.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
15. Other benefits including treatment and related allowances, burials and memorials, the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the Governor in Council and repayments under subsection (3) of section 12 of the Veterans' Rehabilitation Act in such amounts as the Minister 23033-1111
Supply-Veterans Affairs of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of amounts equivalent to the compensating adjustments or payments made under that act, where the persons who made the compensating adjustments or payments received no benefits under the Veterans' Land Act, or where, having had financial assistance under the Veterans' Land Act, are deemed by the minister on termination of their Veterans' Land Act contracts or agreements to have derived thereunder either no benefits or benefits that are less than the amounts of the compensating adjustments or payments, $5,678,000.
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word or two about this item in the way of a suggestion to the minister. In my experience I have found there are many veterans of world war II who enlisted in the service at about age 18 and served four or five years overseas, or practically the whole period of the war. Many of them were discharged as being fit at age 25 or 26. As a result of there being no medical disability recorded in their documents they are not eligible for pension or war veterans allowances.
In many cases these men are not and have not been able to cope with civilian life in that they are not properly trained to obtain jobs which would allow them to provide themselves and their families with a reasonable living. Much of this difficulty stems from the stress and strain they experienced during their service and, of course, from the fact that they were trained from a young age as soldiers and are not now properly trained to fit into the economy and re-establish themselves in our civilian way of life. I do not refer to people who have been assisted under the Veterans Land Act or who benefited from special considerations which allowed them to attend university or vocational schools. I refer to the group that did not benefit from any of these excellent schemes who now have difficulty obtaining suitable employment.
I suggest that some assistance should be given to this type of individual in the way of job procurement and guidance in obtaining suitable jobs. I do not suggest that they be given special financial assistance, but that they be helped in obtaining suitable employment through the Department of Veterans Affairs, as such, or in co-ordination with the efforts of the National Employment Service. While it is true that veterans have a preference in civil service competitions, many of these veterans do not wish to become civil servants or perhaps cannot qualify for the positions. They are anxious to obtain assistance in gaining employment in areas in which they live, and I think an effort along

February 24, 1966
Supply-Forestry
these lines would represent time and money well spent by the welfare branch of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Some of these individuals who are unable to cope with the economic problems of civilian life have applied for pensions and have been turned down. They have applied for war veterans allowances and have been turned down. This whole thing involves a long and slow process of appeal and re-appeal and these people become more and more frustrated. I suggest if they had been guided in obtaining suitable employment at an earlier stage, or trained or counselled for suitable employment, this problem might have been solved before it became a major problem from the point of view of these veterans.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
30. Operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for hospital, prosthetic and related services, $47,228,000.
Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, will the minister indicate when he expects the new hospital in Edmonton for chronically disabled patients, who are presently being taken care of at Government House, to be completed?


Mr. Teillet:: Mr. Chairman, the most recent information I have in that regard is that it should be ready some time this fall. That seems to be a little early to me but the minister from Alberta indicates that this is quite possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: That concludes our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to this committee, and particularly to those members who congratulated the staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I assure them that I will convey those well deserved remarks to my staff. Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $1,027,500.
Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister intends to make a short statement in connection with this department before we consider his estimates. If he does intend to do that I will be glad to give way to him.


Mr. Sauve:: That was not my intention, Mr. Chairman.


Hugh John Flemming: In that event, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks in connection with the estimates of this department. I am fully conscious of the fact that before too long we will have an opportunity to consider the estimates for the 1966-67 fiscal year. I am sure we will also have the opportunity of considering some items of legislation in connection with the ARDA program, during which time we will be allowed to express our opinions.
Let me emphasize the fact that this whole field of forestry receives a limited amount of attention in connection with the affairs of this country, considering its importance to our general economy. At the time of the formation of this department I am sure recognition was given to the fact that much of the activity of the department would be devoted to research and practical needs. I am sure that the federal authorities considered that much of the work of this department would be carried out in conjunction with efforts of the provincial governments, inasmuch as the provinces have control over much of the timberlands, by virtue of provincial control of natural resources. I am sure that the provincial governments have a great deal of indirect influence also, in respect of privately owned timberlands situated in the provinces. It was with that sort of conception that the department came into being, and with the additional knowledge that forestry land contributes raw material to a very large industry in this country, which in turn contributes to a very important extent to the general revenue of the nation.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I have always been amazed by the fact that the export of newsprint in dollars and cents represents one of our greatest single exports. So from the standpoint of preservation and conservation the federal government has naturally a very great interest in forestry. In consequence, Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister deserves and should receive a great deal of co-operation in connection with his most important duties. So far as I am concerned, to the extent of my capability I shall be glad to give him that co-operation at all times.
The ARDA program is also under the minister's control, as is forestry. There is a similarity perhaps in these two programs because in many instances the development
February 24, 196G

of a good deal of the land in Canada is achieved by a crop of trees. Speaking generally about the forestry industry from one end of the country to the other, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it makes a great contribution to direct employment, indirect employment and helping to solve our balance of payments problem by reason of the fact that we to a great extent export the products of the forest. All in all, Mr. Chairman, I believe these factors make this a most important department. For this reason I believe the minister is entitled to receive from everyone the greatest possible co-operation and assistance.
Looking at the items included in these estimates I find there is the question of forest research and forest products research. It is not my intention to try to elaborate on those subjects; I believe they are understood. I do wish to say, however-and I speak with a great deal of knowledge of this particular point-that I consider the officials of the forestry department at the federal level to be second to none. They are capable and dedicated and I found it a very pleasant duty to work with them. I know the minister is conscious of this fact but I should like to say that I have a great deal of respect for the deputy minister and all the officials of the forestry department.
I might mention at this time, Mr. Chairman, in a general way the programs which the federal government shares with the provinces. I believe they come under about five different headings. One of these programs is that concerned with securing and maintaining a forest inventory. I am quite sure all hon. members will agree with the proposition that to know what we have by way of acreage in forest lands is a very important thing, but I am sure we also need to know what is growing in these areas. In conjunction with the provinces the federal government is concerned with securing inventories and in this way the Department of Forestry is able to maintain up to date figures.
Another matter of concern to this department is that of reforestation, which is perhaps not so important in the province from which I come. It does not seem that reforestation there is necessary because natural reforestation will take care of the situation very well. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the question of forest fire protection because I believe we should protect to the greatest extent possible this most important asset which is essential to our economy. We must protect our forests
Supply-Forestry
from fires and, of course, from pests. The more effective control of pests is achieved through research. With regard to forest fire protection, we find that each year we make progress in this direction. We become more efficient in fighting and combatting forest fires for the simple reason that I believe people are becoming more and more conscious of the value of our forests.
The products of our forests are not only valuable to the lumberman but to people interested in wildlife, fishing and recreation. I cannot speak with stronger feelings about the need to preserve this great natural asset which is now under the control of the minister.
Another point I should like to bring to his attention concerns the question of access roads construction in the provinces. This program is carried on by the federal government in conjunction with the provincial governments. It is my opinion that greater publicity should be given to the access roads program and the fact that it is contributed to by the federal government. The purpose of this program is to make hitherto inaccessible areas accessible. When access roads are constructed it is possible to bring timber out to the pulp or lumber mills. However, Mr. Chairman, I believe that in a good many instances in a good many provinces it is not known to the industry in general that this program for the construction of access roads is available.
I would suggest to the minister that at the appropriate season of the year he urge the provincial governments to publicize to the industry in general the fact that a program of this nature is available, and people concerned in the forest industry should be asked to submit applications pointing out where roads might be constructed in order that timber might be made more accessible than heretofore. There are areas in which it is not economical to harvest the timber but if an access road were built, to which the federal government contributes 50 per cent of the cost, the operation might become economically feasible. I suggest that the minister consider this point.
Next I should like to deal briefly with the question of stand improvement. I believe stand improvement is most important because in so many instances-and I know something about this matter from personal knowledge- we need to weed out trees in much the same way as we need to weed out carrots in the garden in order to grow a large, full crop. This has to be done in connection with stand

February 24, 1966
Supply-Forestry
improvement and trees, just as it must be done in the garden but on a different scale. In my opinion programs of this type in regard to an industry which contributes and will continue to contribute to the economic life of this country are acknowledged by all of us to be very important.
As I said at the outset of these remarks, Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention t.o speak at length at this time. When the minister's estimates for the next fiscal year come before us I shall then have the privilege of making some suggestions to him, which I hope he will consider.
So far as I am concerned, the minister has always been extremely kind, courteous and anxious to help. I appreciate the co-operation I have received from him. The minister has always been anxious to make a definite contribution in his official capacity and in his personal capacity. I believe other hon. members will deal with the ARDA program in a little more detail. I would point out to the minister that I have not dealt with the ARDA program at length not because I do not think it is important but simply because the question of ARDA will be brought to the minister's attention very forcibly by other hon. members before the evening is over. For this reason I decided to confine my remarks largely to the question of forestry.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gauihier:: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to answer the speech delivered on February 2 by the minister, when he replied to the one I had delivered the day before.
I always found it regrettable that the minister chose to speak during the last hour of the day, during the last part of the sitting, because I did not have the opportunity to answer immediately.
Since the hon. member who spoke before me referred to forestry, I shall deal with ARDA. I am sure that all those concerned consider that, ARDA although it is said to be a very small thing, should be a great project for the province of Quebec, a project which is considered by us as the department of eastern agriculture. That is what ARDA means to us, in Quebec. And that is the reason why we want to fight for this legislation introduced by the Conservative party and which we do not want defiled by the the Liberal party.
Mr. Chairman, on February 2, the minister proved that he had not understood my speech

one bit. Of course, I have neither the sources of information nor the staff that are available to him to scrutinize speeches, nor the newspapers that have sold themselves to his party, nor television commentators to criticize. Therefore, I only want to take a few moments to tell the minister how sorry I am he has failed to understand me.
I merely want to draw the attention of the minister on a group of "provincialists" using ARDA for cheap politics. The Liberal party is allegedly promoting patronage, but it is a kind of shameless patronage the likes of which has never been seen in the province of Quebec. That is why I did not beat around the bush in my speech. I finally wanted the minister to see through that group which is trying to pull the wool over his eyes about what is going on in the province of Quebec. Unfortunately, the minister did not see my point. He accused me of being unfair to him, but I was not attacking him personally, I only wanted to protect him.
As he stated, the ARDA program comes in the first place under the provincial authorities. That I can understand, and I would not hold the minister responsible for this "pro-vincialist" group. That is what I want to prevent.
I wish to tell him also that he did not disprove my statements. I do not know whether it is all by himself or with his whole group that he plays around to such an extent with the words and figures in my speech in order to criticize it. I accuse him of having made an unfair criticism of my speech. If it had been my first speech on ARDA, it would not be so bad, but I have made more than five, six, seven speeches on the subject, as he said himself.
I have always said, in my riding, that ARDA was first the responsibility of the provincial government. The federal legislation only gives a statutory grant as its contribution to the ARDA program.
As the Minister himself said in his speech, this is the first time I interfere, and my reason is that I did not want ARDA to take on just any project, but to begin with the first work to be done, that of draining and developing the land.
I have always felt that ARDA had been created to develop the farmlands. Is this true or not? Land is developed in order to improve farmlands, not Crown lands. For 40 years money has been spent on Crown lands while farmlands have been neglected. The
February 24, 1966

grants are meant tor farmlands. However, the farmers leave their land because the grants meant for them are used elsewhere.
I have been sincere, I have spoken frankly.
I have not done any juggling. I simply wanted to draw the situation to the minister's attention. For instance, when I said to him that a sum of $50,000 had been voted, the minister accused me of exploiting the economic and social survey. What I said is this economic and social survey was exploited for political purposes. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is what I said and I add that the minister and his group have not disproved anything contained in my speech. This $50,000 was given to the "C.E.R." I did not say that it was in my region, that it was his men or himself. I used the words: $50,000 was spent.
Under ARDA, political committees were formed such as that of the Mistassini valley, in which a sum of $50,000 was sunk-
Consequently, this $50,000 was not spent in Mistassini, but it was given to the "C.E.R." This $50,000 was used, as I say, for politicking. I am right once again and, in addition to being right, I have the proof here. This $50,000 is used for politicking purposes. I do not blame the minister for this but, once again, I want to make him aware of what is happening in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
The "C.E.R." includes the four counties in our area. Back home, we paid-not that I am against it, mind you, Mr. Minister-$15 per day per person to make the survey. But let that be known. The investigators went from house to house saying: "I am doing this free of charge."
But I am going to prove to you there were quarrels, that some people were fired because of those investigations, because they made the investigations 10, 12 and 15 days before election day. That is the danger. And more than that, Mr. Minister, I am going to tell you that the one who was in charge of the survey was my political opponent. Did you know that?
He was my political opponent. I spoke about that with the secretaries and the presidents, especially with the secretary to the "C.E.R." Petitions were addressed twice to my opponent in order to get him to resign from the "C.E.R." because I did not want petty politics to be mingled with the "C.E.R." In fact, it is a too well organized board to be used against progress. I do not want any petty politics in the "C.E.R." Petitions were
Supply-Forestry
addressed to my Liberal political opponent in order to make him leave the "C.E.R.", to have him resign as director of the "C.E.R." and that was done as soon as he entered politics. That was normal, absolutely normal. As for me, when I entered the political field, I was asked to resign as chairman of the school board. I resigned willingly, as I did not want any conflict between the two.
He was asked to but did not resign. I knew he would never agree to resign, because I know him; he likes playing politics too much to get out of there.
Two petitions for his resignation failed to get him out of the "C.E.R.". The whole network of investigators was set up by him and it is nothing but a political outfit. And I can prove it. I went to my office to pick up letters. I will bring them to you if you wish; they contain bitter complaints about you. I told them the minister was not responsible for that; cheap and dirty local politicians were behind this.
This is what I wanted to bring to the minister's attention. Unfortunatley, you did not understand what I meant.
Then, after I referred to this door to door canvassing-as you know, they did not forget to canvass from door to door-you said I had mentioned 1,000 workers. They were political workers highly paid out of Liberal election funds. You are playing upon figures when you suggest that a thousand men could not be paid $15 per day with $50,000. There may be an omission in the reporting. Besides, I found two or three mistakes in that official report. To be tactful, I did not dare ask in the house to have a correction made. Anyway, the thousand workers were paid from Liberal party election funds. And you know that they do have an election fund. And do you know where it comes from? I hardly need to say more. The thousand people were paid after that survey. That is why I said it was simply unfair. The fact is that it is unfair and dishonest to proceed in this fashion whatever party is involved. That is why I say putting to such use a sum of $50,000 intended for a worthy purpose was a misuse of money.
So it is also in the blueberry fields. When I speak of the blueberry fields, do you think I am against them? However, I am against political patronage in the blueberry field business. They are all liberal contractors.
If you do not have "the grit label" you do not get in. This is what I am against. And the proof is that there is no more money to be

February 24, 1966
Supply-Forestry
made. Look at Mr. Belzile, he is no longer there, he is gone. All the others will go too. I shall give the names of all those "patronage boys"; I have them all.
That is why I tell you that the blueberry patches are doomed as long as they remain mixed up with politicking. That is all. This situation should be blown open. The farmers should be consulted. Do you think that this is how a blueberry patch is run, with so-called farmers? Ten farmers and 110 city folks are taken from a community and that is supposed to be a blueberry union. Those are blueberry growers' syndicates. Look at the lists. You have to pay $5, so that all the boys from the cities are in those syndicates. When there are ten Liberals in a parish, they take all ten of them and have them join the blueberry growers' syndicate.
I want to be frank. If you are honest, have an inquiry made into those famous blueberry bogs.
I wanted you to pay attention, because you seemed to be asleep. I made a seventh speech since, but no action was taken. You should have seen the crop last year: there were no blueberries last year. In addition to that, the "patronage boys", as we call them back home, were there, in the camps, waiting to see if there would be any customers so that they could ask 50c per basket from them. It was absolutely scandalous. We must put an end to that. ARDA has programs which would enable the farmers to raise their standard of living. But no, everything is taken away from them, they are poorer than ever. In fact, they are being deprived of their livelihood. City dwellers are moving in in droves. Imagine: doctors, notaries, at the head of blueberry pickers unions. Well, that is what we have back home. Come and see. And then people say: "Here now are the farmers". I say they are "would-be farmers".


Gilles Grégoire: It is the rural upheaval.


Mr. Gauthier:: The rural upheaval. I wanted to call the minister's attention to the matter of the $50,000 and the 1,000 political workers.
Then, further on, you say in a somewhat angry tone that the hon. member for Rob-erval does not seem to know his own riding.
If there is anyone who knows something about the land, about farming, blueberries and our land resources it is your humble servant, as I have been head of an experimental farm for nine years. When you visit my riding, do not go and see the notaries or

the doctors, but come and see me. I shall take you to see farm lots and farm lands. You shall see them; you shall see some. I will help you to work for the farmer, not petty politicians.
You make a mistake when you say that the member for Roberval does not know his own riding. You were not being very nice to me. I received several letters from people in my riding. They wanted me to give them to you but I threw them in the waste basket. You must not tell the people in my riding that I do not know my riding. You make a mistake when talking about blueberry farms you say:
The crown land used for blueberry farms are, in most cases, low yield forests which offer very little farming possibilities. Let us take for instance the blueberry farm at St. Augustin in the riding of Roberval."
Well, Mr. Minister, I am sorry but St. Augustin is not in the riding of Roberval. That blueberry farm is not in the riding of Roberval. When I give figures, when I mention localities, they are in the riding of Roberval, because I know them. Now, when your so-called experts tell you:
"Those tracts of land have little value," you say here about them:
A yield of only $8 to $10 per acre may be expected from those forests in their present condition, whereas turned into blueberry bogs, they could yield about $130 an acre.
You have certainly been misled because I visited those lots and some farmers there were aghast. They wondered how the government could allow such a waste of land.
When they talk about the yield per acre, they are laying waste forests 15, 16, 18 years old and in a forest of that age, cordwood of good quality can still be found. Up to 22 cords per acre have been obtained. And they are said to be lands worth $8 and $10 an acre. But now their value will come down to $8 an acre. As it is they will produce nothing; indeed, nothing will ever grow there, and you can be sure of that.
I just wanted to say this: when you talk to them, to those city people as they are called, you will simply tell them that the sort of fires which they have set in the woods make it impossible for blueberries to grow. Blueberries grow in the woods, there must be woods if there are to be blueberries, there must be trees if there are to be insects.
Further, there is a three-mile desert. The trees are burnt; nothing will grow there anymore. Not a single fly will be there and it is especially the fly, the insect, which helps to
February 24, 1966

pollinate the blueberry flower. Not a single fly will be able to survive.
There will be blueberries for another two or three years, because things grow right after a fire. But come and see me in four or five years; there will be no blueberries at all then.
I was raised there and I know under which conditions blueberries will grow.


An hon. Member:: Are they good blueberries?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes, they are, and if you want some you will have some, but you have to know how to make them grow.
Now, I shall not take up any more of your time. I have other things to say, but I shall wait until the next estimates. I merely wish to say I regret that you interpreted my remarks that way. I hope you will not bear me any grudge. As for me, I am not the grudge-bearing type at all. I think we shall get along fine together on this and continue to work for the future of our province.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Chairman, I almost did not remain long enough to speak, because I got hungry for a good dish of blueberries. However, there is one matter that I feel I should raise at this time when these estimates are called, and that is the matter of ARDA.
ARDA is getting to be such a frequently used term, or word, that it is almost dangerous to bring it up, for fear that people will start yawning in your face. If there ever was a program that in the last few years has been oversold it is the ARDA program, not in the area so much of land reclamation or alternate land use but in an area that has received a great deal of publicity, and one that is extremely important in Canada today, that of community development.
I think for any members in the house who represent ridings that can be described as encompassing areas of rural poverty, ARDA must hold some singular and important hope because embodied in the ARDA concept, at least as it was originally envisaged by the Conservative government, is the belief that there are things that can be done of a constructive and progressive nature in rural areas to revive people in these depressed rural areas so that they may have reasonable hope.
I live in a constituency which, very soon after the introduction of ARDA, became concerned with this problem. As far back as two
Supply-Forestry
years ago, Prince county was declared a designated area for rural development. I think the minister knows this county. We have felt, particularly since that time, that we have good reason to hope that in the program of community development certain important things would happen.
I think, to be very honest, one of the things that has made it difficult for constructive things to happen in this area has been the great deal of fuzziness in negotiations between the federal and provincial governments; sometimes there has been some downright "buck passing." However, what concerns me most of all is twofold: First of all, I think we have waited far too long to define a clearcut policy of how community development is actually going to proceed at the very local level, with the people themselves. It seems that the whole concept of community development will never achieve very much unless communities that began to participate in this program have some idea of what kind of policy is in fact laid down by the federal authority.
Second, and equally important, and possibly even more unclear, is the problem of training competent people to carry out leadership in local areas. For quite a while now there has been talk about people designated as community development officers. It was only when we began to look around for people suitable for this job, that it was found they were an extremely rare animal. There are not many people in Canada today whom one could designate as being community development officers. In fact, I do not think that there are people being trained who would be suitable for that position.
In Prince Edward Island we have been very fortunate to have a man who could be called a pioneer, in the person of Mr. Rudy Dallenbach. He has had considerable experience, and I am happy to call him a personal friend. He has in his own very practical way begun to instil among the people of Prince Edward Island a certain confidence. That is the important thing, and the basic concept of community development. He had not any government policy to bring about this desired result.
One of the things that I feel is exceedingly dangerous, and which is increasing in the whole ARDA program, is that we are talking about bigger and bigger amounts of money. Almost one year ago now a new fund was envisaged euphemistically entitled FRED.

February 24. 1966
Supply-Forestry
I hold no quarrel with $50 million, and certainly not when it is related to a province annually looking to the federal government for assistance. What I really mean to lead up to is this that we could so emphasize this large amount of money, and others like it, that we do not take the time and trouble to think seriously about how we are going to get the tens and hundreds of people in the field who will be community development officers.
We must assume that we have no institution in Canada at the moment that can reliably prepare anyone to be a Community Development officer. In all likelihood I do not think that there is a suitable institution in North America that can provide us with this kind of trained person. Therefore I think it is necessary at the earliest possible date that the Department of Forestry and the new department of forestry and rural development envision a program for the training of community development officers. Very little will happen in Prince Edward Island or anywhere across the country unless we are going to put trained and competent people in this field.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, my remarks to the minister will be focused on two major points. The first one is to deal with this question of rejection of projects. The minister has declared in the house on several occasions that all projects under ARDA have to be submitted by the provinces.
The inference is, of course, that the federal authorities have no initiative to make suggestions or to propose projects in any province. I believe that the minister has done this from a previous commitment to himself that he is a provincial righter. In fact, from the way the operations are going on today, unwittingly, the minister has made himself into, one of the most effective anti-provincial righters that we have seen. I put this criticism to him in a particularly constructive fashion, because I am sure that he would not willingly try to destroy the initiative of a province.
Yet what actually happens? When the provinces submit proposals to the minister at Ottawa they are then met with the suggestion that the federal government officials will examine the project under consideration to see if it fits into their criteria of what the federal government has already done, and how things should be done.
You have the situation where the government of one province, under its philosophy, comes in and is ready to do things. I do not
i Mr. MacDonald (Prince).]
want to talk about socialistic philosophy because that is the province's privilege if it wishes to do it that way.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Another province believes in doing things by enlisting the tremendous enterprise of the private individual, either in reform of an individual farmer or that of a businessman or groups of businessmen. The particular cases in point to which I refer are the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. The province of Quebec at the present time, although this is a generalization and not true in all cases, tends to look on the government as the source of inspiration. That is their right. I would support the minister and defend his right to say that the province of Quebec should carry out these projects in the way it thinks best. Yet in Manitoba which is in a similar position to Quebec as far as wealth is concerned-slightly below the national average-when we try to express a philosophy in the interests of the business world as well as of the farmers on the basis of plans put forward by competent and aggressive civil servants, we find our proposals clamped into procedures established by olficials here.
This criticism is not aimed just at this minister or this government. It has been applicable to all governments for many years. Over the years, as this country has grown and as government at both provincial and federal levels have moved increasingly into the affairs of the community, the federal government still acts as though all things had to be settled by officials here as if all wisdom was centred here in Ottawa. This attitude extends right from Treasury Board to the officials responsible for the ARDA program who are stultifying and limiting the rights of individual provinces to produce projects which will accomplish redevelopment in their own way.
By his continual statements that all projects must be proposed by the provinces the minister has unwittingly allowed a system to develop where all these proposals are put into a stereotyped form and under which the provinces are given no real freedom.
Let me go back to the original thinking which was demonstrated when I introduced the ARDA legislation. I emphasized on three occasions that the provinces were to be considered as the main proposers of projects, but that the federal government must always reserve its right to initiate projects. The reasoning is simple. We have a number of
February 24, 1966

provinces which as far as I can see will not be generating many proposals of their own. The reason is twofold. First there is the lack of finance and, second, it is the custom of their civil services to wait until someone else has come along with proposals. For these reasons I believe that when it sees an opportunity to improve certain of these areas the federal government would be well within its rights to propose projects to this end as part of the federal-provincial co-operation which is envisaged.
I would ask the minister to think this matter over. If he is trying to strengthen the provinces, as I wish to do, he should allow them the privilege of putting their proposals forward and carrying them out in their own way. The limit of the federal government's control over the provinces should be on the financial side, which is set up according to a formula. The only other question is whether or not a project comes under the broad umbrella of ARDA development or rehabilitation in any sense. I think we can trust the provinces to act within such a framework. If they do not act within this framework then it could be said by the federal government at the end of the year: You have infringed the understanding you gave. Then the chalk should be put to any future developments of that kind.
We must seek to develop real provincial autonomy. Inadvertently, I think, this has been hindered by the insistence that the schemes should come from the provinces and then meet criteria set up by officials here. In cases where provinces are strong and aggressive they can fight back. But even when they are strong and aggressive, as Manitoba and Quebec are, the criterion should be whether their projects, however they may differ in direction, are designed to result in the development of their areas.
The second matter on which I intend to speak involves the question of funds. The minister announced about a year ago that he had available $100 million, I think it was, which was to be distributed in accordance with a certain formula and that he had $50 million in respect of which no formula would be applied. I would like to urge again that as far as this $50 million is concerned the federal government take the initiative and say to some of our provinces-I am thinking now of the four Atlantic provinces: In your case we are willing to pay 75 per cent, 80 per cent or even 90 per cent of the cost of projects of this type in your area. I am sure
Supp ly-Forestry
the provinces which are reasonably near the national level of prosperity, or above it- British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, for instance-would understand if the minister were to say to them: I should like tc give to these other areas a disproportionate share of this money because they are the areas most in need of help from the ARDA program. I am bearing in mind that even though Quebec and Manitoba are below the national average as far as wealth is concerned they have aggressive governments and aggressive civil servants wno are fighting on behalf of their people.
This type of approach would, I believe, be in the spirit of ARDA and would greatly help in developing programs in the areas to which I have referred. I say this to the four Atlantic provinces with respect. But I believe the federal initiative should be used there more widely than in any other region.


Mr. Loney:: Unlike my colleague from Prince who spoke of larger and larger amounts expended in connection with the ARDA program I wish to speak briefly about what in my area appear to be smaller and smaller expenditures.
I do have a few words of appreciation to express to the minister on behalf of my constituency. I refer specifically to the ARDA program now being developed in Johnson's Harbour in St. Edmunds township. This envelops an area of approximately 13,000 acres and involves an expenditure of some $130,-
000.	I must be somewhat cautious in my words of appreciation. I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that this development is in an area where the previous administration had planned to establish a national park involving an expenditure of approximately $5 million.
On behalf of the people living in the immediate area of St. Edmunds township there are one or two points I wish to draw to the attention of the minister. Where there are pockets of arable land which could be component parts of a viable unit I would urge that people now residing on these parcels of land be given every opportunity to remain. If they decide in the course of several years to remove themselves from the property and yield it to the program, the necessary arrangements should be phased over a period of years.
In the announcement from Ottawa concerning this project it was mentioned that some five area development officers would be employed. I would point out that there are

February 24, 1966
Supply-Forestry
people living in this immediate area who are very familiar with the geography and the physical components of the township and I would ask the minister to give every consideration to the employment of these people. I would also ask that where there are existing facilities and public transport these should be maintained over as long a period as possible and that some kind of reimbursement be given to the municipality in lieu of assessment.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
We are well aware of the fact that over a period of years, as this program expands and the economy of the immediate area improves, this could be phased out, and I think the provincial authorities should take this under consideration.
Also when dealing with ARDA, on behalf of the ARDA group within the county, I would like to present the minister with these two petitions which I will read. The first states:
Since the development of water reservoirs through valley conservation authorities require 25 per cent of the funds to come from the municipalities where the reservoirs are located, the ratepayers in most cases do not have this extra money and the return in this investment is too far distant in the future to expect the ratepayers to make the initial investment. Therefore we, the ARDA Committee of Bruce County, request that funds be made available through ARDA to bear the cost of establishing water reservoirs in municipalities for recreation, conservation, ground water level improvement and general rural improvement.
This petition has been signed on behalf of the committee by John Black, Chairman, and G. R. Gear, Secretary.
The second petition is brief and I would also like to put it on the record. It reads:
We, the ARDA committee of Bruce County, request that some clearance be made re: designated area in Bruce County "tax concession to industry located within the area" and that it include all of Bruce County instead of just a portion.
That concludes my brief remarks, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear remarks being made about agriculture on the estimates of the Department of Forestry. The changes which have taken place in the responsibilities of this department indicate the lack of need for the development of the department in the first place. It has a number of buildings and has hired quite a large staff, but we hear very little from the forest industry about the federal

department. That is probably only to be expected.
In my opinion ARDA should be returned to the Department of Agriculture. Its very name, Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development, gives an indication of its purpose. If it were forestry rehabilitation and development it might well come under the forestry department, but it is not.
I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in his assessment of the scope and role of ARDA. Though expenditure under the program jumps from $12 million to $16 this year, I believe the program really has not started yet, and under no circumstances has it really been made a national program. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle had something to do with the vision of ARDA, and many people believed it would be a long-range program that would solve some of the problems of rural development.
Many people believed that a survey would be made of agricultural lands across the nation, that a survey would indicate the type of land that should be reforested, the type that should be added to agricultural areas, and the type that should be put into other uses. The provinces are using ARDA for the development of parks, reclaiming marshland and improving marginal land, but no real national survey has been made.
The minister and his predecessor have considered ARDA as a give-away program, for providing money for the provinces, instead of a program for agriculture, for the proper use of agricultural land, and for the rural use of land. If the minister does not believe this, then he should return to the idea of a survey, cataloguing the land in various areas, and making suggestions to the provinces for its use. It is not good enough to say, "We will approve this project in Ontario, that one in Quebec, and another one in B.C." It is of vital importance to the agricultural industry that proper use be made of all agricultural land.
The federal department has a staff capable of assessing the potentialities of various areas and deciding on programs for their development. Far-ranging progress could be made that way, instead of through municipalities and small groups of people forwarding projects for approval by the department.
When the minister of the day was first outlining ARDA he said there were many areas near Ottawa where submarginal land could be catalogued and returned to forest
February 24, 1966

production. He said this should be done on a large scale, that there would be mass displacement of people, that one man could look after several thousand acres of reforestation, that it would be a long-term project, and the outlay would be considerable. This was accepted as a good idea by the majority of people across Canada.
It was suggested that in other parts of Canada marginal land could be turned into wildlife parks. In western Canada large areas were to be amalgamated in blocks of land to provide grazing for cattle.
What happened to this project? I think the minister can be given a great deal of credit for the operations of his department, that they have stayed parochial and provincial, but even at that level it is difficult to find leaders for ARDA in rural areas, to find out the best use of a particular piece of land that is not producing suitable income for the families living on it, and how to return lands to production.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, if this is not the proposition, if ARDA really is not the long range solution for agriculture, then let us all sit down and design a new program that will provide the solution. I believe in the idea of ARDA; I believe in the concept that originated it, but I have heard some pretty crack-pot ideas come from some of the provinces. Once a project is approved in the province, automatically it is approved by Ottawa because Ottawa has no standard to put against it; either they agree with it or not, because Ottawa has not developed any projects of its own. They have depended on the provinces and even on the municipalities to do the deciding.
Agriculture, as we were told the other day by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is in a time of crisis. I think this is true. I am not going to point out how many of the farmers are getting less than substandard wages. I think earlier the question was asked by the Minister of Finance whether he intended to go into the problem of the deficit income tax proposals. I do not know whether or not he thought about it, but certainly the Minister of Forestry, if he is going to administer ARDA, is going to have to think about it, because we have to do something for the farmers who are not able to move off the farm.
The average farmer in Canada is over 50 years of age and is not capable of being retrained, despite the fact that he violently
Supply-Forestry
opposes being retrained or moved out of his environment. For this reason, if the ARDA program is to be successful, it will have to provide a blueprint or a long range program which will give hope for the future of the agricultural industry and make possible the development of economic units in the agricultural areas so that it can re-use or redevelop all lands that are not capable of producing enough revenue to keep the farmer on the land. These lands will have to be handled in another way.
I do not know what the minister has in mind about this program; I do not know whether or not he has been interested in it. I hear that the minister is very progressive, but I have yet to see this. This is certainly the best field in which he could show that he is progressive, because I believe this is a field where there should be some development to help solve much of the problem we have in rural Canada. I think the machinery is here. There is no limit to the amount of money which can be paid under this type of scheme.
I believe if the minister really looks at the number of farmers he has helped by the rehabilitation program we already have undertaken, he will see that the price is exceptionally high for the amount of rehabilitation he has been able to provide.
I think the minister also will see that we have been able to accomplish very little in terms of redevelopment of agricultural land by use of the projects which have been paid for under ARDA to date. If the minister wishes to be progressive, if he wants to show that he is one of those three leaders from the province of Quebec who wanted to join the N.D.P. because they did not think that party could be elected and therefore joined the Liberal party instead, if he wants to get into this class, then I would like to see him start showing it. I think this is an excellent place to do it and I say this sincerely. If he really believes agriculture can be helped, that agriculture can be changed, that the redevel-lopment of marginal farms can be accomplished without major dispersement of the agricultural communities, and if he wishes to find a way to help the farmer, I think he will have to think about what a farmer is, what the family farm is, and what the relationship is between those people who live in a rural and urban economy. He will have to understand why those who are in the rural area choose that environment.
Let us not kid ourselves. Many of us choose a rural environment although we are not

February 24, 1966
Supply-Forestry
farming. Most of the developments in the suburban areas are in areas which were rural a few years ago. The fact is that people moved into the suburbs because of a desire to be in that environment and the desire not to live in somebody's backyard; but it is not the desire to live like a farmer who gets up at six o'clock in the morning, milks the cows, cleans out the henhouse, gathers the eggs, and does the other menial tasks, and then finds he has not enough money to buy the kids' shoes. It is not the lack of income which the farmer likes and it is not the work the farmer likes, but rather the environment; and in my opinion this environment will have to be improved to provide people in Canada with the choice to live in a rural environment with an opportunity to have a decent standard of living.
The minister might consider this proposition in ARDA, because we have an opportunity there where we could take some of the people in the sub-marginal areas and apply a standard of living of $3,000 net for the farmer. If he does not earn that amount, when he files his income tax we pay him; if he makes more than that, we collect from him.
This would be much better than putting the farmer off the farm. You are putting him off the farm now, not through ARDA but because of the agricultural policies of the government; and you are putting him in the city and providing him with welfare. Every person connected with municipal councils will know that in the major cities, in Ontario at least, people who are living in the city have their welfare expenses charged back to the community from where they came. The solution is not simple; it is very complicated, but I do think the federal Department of Forestry, if it wants to administer ARDA, is going to have to work nationally toward a way to deal with this problem.
We have, in agriculture, to resolve the problem of the rehabilitation and redevelopment of agricultural lands into economic units. There may be projects of the federal government of this nature which might indicate that some progress has been made to develop programs; but I have had discussions with officials under a previous minister and I am of the opinion that there was no federal plan at all in any way, shape or form, except these projects which are originated in the provinces, if they look like they are doing anything in the agricultural field or in the field of rural environment, because you certainly could not call a swamp an agricultural potential. ARDA will go in and make a wildlife park out of the proposition.
fMr. Peters.]
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It is difficult for me to relate these things. This did not seem to bother anybody administering ARDA. I have not really been aware of any national projects they have engaged in to even set a pattern of how it was going to work. I listened with a great deal of interest years ago to the minister of agriculture who introduced this particular act. I felt at that time that his ideas were visionary and that some consideration should be given to them. I am sure the present minister will reply to the many statements of criticism that have been made in respect of the application of ARDA either during this debate or at some other appropriate time. I hope he will give us the assurance that if ARDA is to be continued it will not consist of handouts to the provinces, with handouts by the provinces in turn to the municipalities. I hope the program will be designed to fit into the redevelopment of the agricultural industry across Canada and provide some assistance to and solution for the problems of those provinces that have not yet considered the ARDA program in all its ramifications.
It is my hope that the minister will provide great leadership in this program of great potential to the agricultural communities across Canada. Surely we are aware of the problem this industry faces relating to the lack of money and the inability to establish economic units in this nation. I am sure some hon. members will disagree with me in this regard, but it seems to me that the inability of this nation to provide subsidies to agricultural producers in this country has left the majority of this portion of our population in an unattractive economic position. Surely this country should be able to provide the farmers of the nation with a reasonable standard of living equal to that enjoyed by their brothers living in urban society. This has not as yet been accomplished and can only be accomplished by a federally developed agricultural program that will make it possible for farmers to receive the greatest return possible for their efforts.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the agricultural field is one which requires economic planning. Reforestation must be taken into consideration in the over-all agricultural picture, because this really could make a difference to the farmers. They do not really care much whether they are milking cows or cutting Christmas trees, as long as they are making a decent living. I hope the minister has given this whole subject sufficient consideration and
February 24, 1966

will be able to come to the committee with plans for the future. Perhaps he will give us an added bonus by telling us whether he expects to remain with this Department of Forestry, or whether we should point our guns at another minister of another department who will in the end become responsible.


Mr. Webb:: I wonder whether the hon. member who has just resumed his seat would permit a question?


Maurice Rinfret: Does the hon. member wish to rise on a point of order?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I should like to ask the hon. member who has just resumed his seat whether he would admit that the province of Saskatchewan, of which the leader of his party was premier for a number of years, is afflicted with the most serious agricultural problem existing in any province of Canada, and that the plight of the farmers there is worse than in any other province? Would the hon. member give us his reasons for this situation?


William Arnold Peters: I appreciate the question and the preamble, Mr. Chairman, but I must disagree entirely with the conclusions drawn. I am sure the hon. member has many opportunities to speak with representatives from the province of Saskatchewan and should know that the agricultural commodity produced in Saskatchewan is not really related to the ARDA program. The product of Saskatchewan farms is largely related to grain and beef. I would suggest that the farmers of that province have benefited not only from farm assistance legislation introduced by the leader of my party when he was premier, but from favourable weather conditions in that province. However, if the farmers in Saskatchewan are in difficulties in respect of their beef and grain production the ARDA program is not in my opinion going to help.
In view of what the hon. member has suggested, I hope that he will carry on further discussions with some of the other members from his province in order to gain an appreciation of the large amount of revenue that has been received in that province from the agricultural field. I think he will agree then that we in the province of Ontario have a different problem from that mentioned by the hon. member. It was not my intention to present that problem to the Minister of Forestry.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall item 1 carry?
Supply-Forestry


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member if he will answer my question.


Maurice Rinfret: I recognize the hon. member for Megantic.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the question by indicating that the province of Saskatchewan-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for Megantic.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, after hearing all these questions and answers, I must say I feel this matter is almost as complicated as trying to find out who is in charge of the feed grain agency.
When you look into the matter, you almost have to look in a crystal ball in order to find out which department is responsible for it. I see here that it comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry, under Item No. 10.
So, it is quite puzzling. When you want to discuss the Canadian Wheat Board, you must refer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). For the feed grain agency, one must speak to the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), and when cultivation and agriculture are to be discussed, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is the one to be consulted; although the two other matters concern agriculture.
It is somewhat confusing, but I hope that there will be no drastic or sudden change in the future, so that we may get used to that procedure.
I would like to make a few representations and put some questions to the minister, especially since there is nothing new about the matter. I have spoken several times about it and I think that the minister himself had the opportunity to give some explanations and even make a few corrections in the house.
We had the opportunity this week to meet the delegates of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I asked them if they had heard about the feed grain board. They had not. When the hon. member for Compton-Fron-tenac (Mr. Latulippe) put a question to the minister, the Chair ruled it out of order, stating that it was an important but not very urgent matter.
I should like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks to the minister regarding the livestock feed agency.

February 24, 19G6
Supply-Forestry
I have already expressed my views with regard to this livestock feed agency as well as about the way it could be constituted to best serve the farmers of eastern Canada and those of British Columbia if the latter are included.
Mr. Chairman, I asked the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I am also asking the hon. minister, if such a board or agency could secure feed directly from the Canadian Wheat Board or if it would have to go through the usual channels and buy them through wholesalers or brokers who belong to the grain exchange.
I do not see any use in creating such an agency to buy feed grain for the farmers, if it means going through the same channels that exist at the present time, and for the simple reason that it becomes an agency within an agency, which will solve nothing. Somebody else will reap the profits, but that is no solution.
It should be remembered that the Canadian Wheat Board was created in Western Canada, because of the corrupt practices of some brokers who made terrific profits, who wielded tremendous power, whether the crop was good or not. They had absolute control, wheat was bought at prices they indicated, until the farmers put such pressure on the government that it had to establish, in the general interest, the Canadian Wheat Board.
So those brokers were simply pushed back to the boundary or to the lakehead. On the other hand, the Board is now buying wheat from the farmers; its responsibility consists in finding outlets on the foreign market. One thing that intrigues me though is that the board does not resell directly on foreign markets.
I should like to say something about the feed grain agency. We may have to enact special legislation, enabling the agency to negotiate directly with the Canadian Wheat Board as regards direct purchasing, so as to prevent possible intermediates.
Mr. Chairman, at this stage, I am opening a parenthesis to say that we know how much western farmers received when they sold their wheat or when the board sold wheat to Russia, but we do not know how much the Russians paid for it per bushel, which is a different story. We know nothing about the price paid by Russia.
Why? Because brokers acted as go-betweens. As agents, it is necessarily their duty

to negotiate those contracts on foreign markets and to look after the export of the grain.
In any event, we want the feed grain agency to negotiate directly with the Canadian Wheat Board so that the grain many be bought at the best possible price. Besides, the purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board is to see that western farmers do get a fair price for their grain.
However, it is also the responsibility of that agency to negotiate so that eastern farmers get full value in grain supplies and to see that they do not pay exorbitant prices, in brief that the transaction does not result in some speculation between western producers and eastern buyers.
I am therefore asking the minister what will be the exact duties and powers of this feed grain agency or board.
I see an amount of $19.5 million under item 10, so something must have been done in that connection; $705,000 have been paid out in salaries, so someone must have been paid. There has also been publicity; $66,000 were paid out for professional and special services, so something must have been done there too.
I would like more details from the minister before going on to another vote, before going any further. As a matter of fact, I wonder if he could not inform us of his views on grain storage in eastern Canada, for instance, in Halifax or Quebec city, where Americans now have reserved space for their domestic and foreign markets, due to the St. Lawrence seaway.
And in these warehouses, they have space reserved in advance. It is sometimes embarrassing for Canadians who do not have enough space and who are limited to a certain area, due to that situation.
All I can do in that connection is to remember what I heard in the committee on agriculture, when the Canadian wheat board representatives came to Ottawa quite some time ago. I should like the minister to give us some explanations in this regard, and if I am wrong I apologize. I think that he is more familiar than I am with this situation. Anyhow, I should like to know whether the United States still has reserved space in warehouses in Quebec or Halifax, for example. If I am right, they had almost 60 per cent of the space reserved for them, which caused difficulties in eastern Canada as regards storage facilities for eastern Canada grain requirements.
February 24, 1968

Those are about all the representations I had in mind and the questions I wanted to put to the Minister. In fact, I would like to know where we are concerning the feed grain agency, what will be exactly its duties and how it will negotiate the purchase and the sale of feed grain. Will it be its function to buy and sell? Will it be able to negotiate directly with the Canadian Wheat Board and thus prevent all possible speculations between the two? Will this agency be under joint federal-provincial control? Will it be under federal jurisdiction only? In short, how will it be administered? Will it carry out its duties for the benefit and the common good of all?
I would like to have explanations concerning this agency. I would also like the minister to give us a few details on the space now allocated for feed grain in the warehouses of eastern Canada.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman. We have asked the minister to make a statement, and I presume that he will, because I and many members have not for some time had the opportunity of discussing the matter of ARDA. This is the first opportunity for the minister to give his impression of his department. I hope he avails himself of the opportunity before I feel compelled to make another 20-minute speech on the subject.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That would be a calamity.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I think we will have the opportunity, during consideration in committee of the 1966-67 estimates, to consider in detail every point raised tonight.
However, I should not want to miss this opportunity of making a few comments on the remarks of the hon. members.
I want first of all to thank them for their interest in the activities of the department, in ARDA and in feed grain, and to point out also that most of their remarks were relevant, in that they referred to ARDA or to the ARDA agreements according to how they stood before their renewal in March last.
I shall deal with this matter, but allow me first of all to say how much I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), who was the first incumbent of the Department of Forestry,
Supply-Forestry
which was set up by the previous administration. He left an excellent reputation within the department, he has also praised the deputy minister, Dr. Rousseau, and the departmental staff. I am in agreement with him. I think we have an unexcelled team of researchers and administrators.
The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) explained his speech of February 1, and I would be loath to come back to it. I think I can understand the meaning of his utterances. He has defined his thought and I will seek the information on the questions he raised tonight for it seems to me that attention should be paid to what he says, although, as he knows and stated himself tonight, the implementation of the ARDA projects are under sole provincial authority.
I would like to talk about the philosophy of ARDA and the way the department and I feel ARDA should be administered.
But before getting into this subject, allow me to say one thing about the remarks made by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) concerning the livestock feed agency.
The Speech from the Throne mentioned that a bill would be introduced this session. Its drafting is almost completed and I hope to be able to put on the order paper, within a few weeks, the resolution that will allow the debate on that long-awaited bill.
I do not think that I can answer tonight the specific questions asked because it would be revealing the contents of the bill. I think that we will have to wait until we discuss it in committee section by section.
I can only say to the hon. member that he will be very happy with that bill.
With regard to the philosophy of ARDA, when that program was unanimously approved in this house in 1961, after the bill was introduced by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), who was then minister of agriculture, it was thought that ARDA would have repercussions mostly on farming and a lot was made, with good reason, I think, of the extraordinary possibilities offered by this legislation to solve a great number of problems in rural communities, especially those of marginal farmers.
That act is probably the only one, or one of the few which, over these last few years, has been unanimously approved by the house. I think that when the Prime Minister


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Sauvé: Then, Mr. Chairman, when we renewed the ARDA agreements, under section 5 we provided that at the beginning of each year, the provinces could agree with the federal government to propose for the whole year, an operation and activities program, without any need for the federal authority to control each and every one of those moves and projects.
I think that we are respecting both the spirit of the ARDA agreement, namely the responsibility of the provinces to propose projects and that spirit of initiative which is characteristic of the new concept of ARDA, at the federal level.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely regret the lack of courtesy shown by the Conservatives over in that corner who did not miss any opportunity to talk about useless things for several days. I realize it must be infuriating, after being glaringly impolite while the Minister of Forestry was making such interesting comments, to be told right to one's face about this lack of courtesy. Even if I heard them talking about filibuster or things like that, since they themselves spent days discussing useless matters, I think they should look at themselves first.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: While you were absent.


Gilles Grégoire: I think I am here more often than the hon. member.
Mr. Chairman, I am quite willing to go back to item No. 1, but I should have liked the Minister of Forestry to deal with this item at greater length, for what he was saying was interesting. I am sorry he was unable to continue and I apologize for those members who were rude to him. Fortunately, they do not belong to our group and the minister knows very well to whom I refer.
I thought that the minister dealt rather quickly and superficially with the remarks made in this corner of the house about his Department. I think it would have been worthwhile to examine the remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). He raised some important points.
There has been talk of patronage with regard to funds provided by the federal gov-
Supply-Forestry
ernment. Even if the Minister himself, or the officials of his department were not directly involved, I feel that the Minister could have at least told the house that he would take steps to end this situation and see to it that this should not happen again. I think that the minister should reassure the house in that connection, because it should not be done at the farmers' expense.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The minister has pointed out quite often that his department did not necessarily initiate the plans, but left the task to the provincial governments and that the objective of the federal department was to pay half, or after having approved the projects pay 50 per cent of the cost. Then the Minister becomes more or less a rubber stamp, since all the work must be done by the provincial governments.
I am wondering if the minister is pleased to be in such a position.
Here is a minister full of imagination, resourcefulness and ambition who has original ideas, one must admit, and he would be delighted to have the opportunity to put such energy, ambition and imagination at the farmers' service. But his hands are tied. It is not up to him to express new ideas, to make the first move and to accomplish something in that field.
No. He has to sit at his desk and wait for the provinces to come along with projects. He then uses the rubber stamp, signs the cheques and that is the end of it. The Minister of Forestry said that French Canadians could take over important positions, but on the other hand those who already hold such positions are merely rubber stamp wielders. Indeed, that is the situation.
I wonder why. Are there two authorities in charge of ARDA? I should like the Minister of Forestry to tell us what he thinks about that. Does he not feel that when there are two authorities in a department such as that one, both are fettered, both have their hands tied? Neither can give ARDA the impetus they feel it should be given. The provincial government may set up programs, but it always needs the stamp of approval of the federal minister and it must get cheques for 50 per cent of the cost involved. The federal minister only has to wait. And so, the whole undertaking is at the mercy of two authorities, before the program can be implemented.

February 24, 1966
Supply-Forestry
I would like the Minister to tell us what he thinks about that. Does this not slow down the work? Does it not allow the programs to be toned down in the process? Does it not reduce in some way the development that we would want for ARDA? Would it not be the cause of what seems to be the failure of ARDA, because if we are asked what it does, what it has done-at least in the province of Quebec-we do not know what to answer. Well, there have been studies made, boards of inquiry have been created and, as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said, there have been such appointments as notaries, and doctors in charge of the ARDA program. Some students in social sciences have gone to the Gaspe peninsula to make inquiries in the farming areas. It does not cost much. But what about real achievements? And would not all those difficulties stem from the fact that there are two authorities within ARDA and that, often, they are at cross-purpose?
Would it not be better to put the whole matter under a single authority? Would not decisions be arrived at more rapidly, if there was only one individual, either at the federal or provincial level, concerned with the matter and who could say: I am the one responsible for that. If things are not running smoothly, I will not blame the provincial government or the federal government, but if everything goes well, I will take the credit for it.
Which one of the two ministers could say that today?
The federal Minister is always telling us- and that is all he can say-that ARDA comes under the provincial jurisdiction. Could the Minister say anything else? If that is what is understood by federalism, it is a fetter that prevents both from making headway.
The Minister surely shows good will. I know he is a competent man and I know what he can do. But was he able to initiate such a plan? He has to wait for the advice of the provinces. So where goes his overflowing energy? He is waiting. It is a fact, the Minister cannot but agree with what I am now saying. The hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is advocating federalism. If that is what he understands, by federalism, then it is that which prevents government from resorting to action and which is keeping the farming in a state of stagnation.
[Mr. Gregoire.l
What accomplishments are there at present besides seminars? I believe that the minister should some day make a statement such as this: "This cannot go on; I administer, I approve, I control, but I cannot set something going." Then, it might be possible to induce the authorities to hand over the necessary funds to the provincial governments.
Today, as one considers supplies, it is easy to determine which grants go to the provinces. Before implementing their plans, the provinces have to submit them to Ottawa, but since changes are often made afterwards, the provinces are hampered and delayed in the implementation of the projects they want to get going.
Were it not for this procedural duplication, things would be done differently.
I think it would help ARDA and the farmers if all the members of the house were shown the situation in which the minister is. The minister cannot take any action, he can only wait; I feel sorry for him. I see him laughing. I am sorry for the new Minister of Forestry because he is young, full of energy and ambition. It is most unfortunate to see a man like him remain inactive for years because of the situation he is put into. How can he ever become a real man of action, if he does not acquire any experience at all?
I hope that the other ministers will see to it, at the next cabinet meeting, that responsibilities are entrusted to this minister. I can assure his colleagues that he will be able to assume the responsibilities entrusted to him. He has been asking for further duties for a long time and I think he is worthy of them.
Mr. Chairman, those were the few remarks I wanted to make. I know they were perhaps made in a humorous vein. The ministers and hon. members realize that my statements are actually accurate, at least as far as the present implementation of ARDA is concerned, in view of this dual authority which hampers the progress and the success of ARDA.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
[English1


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the laudatory remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe I was wondering if he was taking a short cut to an appointment in
February 24, 1966

the other place. However, he kept flitting back and forth, so that it is debatable. It may not work a second time.
I was unhappy, Mr. Chairman, that the minister did not have an opportunity to outline his proposals in detail. I do appreciate the explanation that he has given, also his indication that he intends to maintain the responsibility for this particular aspect of agriculture in the forestry branch. The remarks that the minister made in my opinion indicate that he has not really considered-and that is the gist as I gather it of that particular representation-measures to provide for the types 'of problems that will be in the interests of rehabilitation of agricultural land on a national basis.
He has not indicated how he intends to negotiate with the provinces over various schemes that can be more in their interest than in the national interest. Unless my understanding is incorrect, it would seem that the amount of money being donated to the provinces, in relation to the amount of money being spent in other ways, has increased, but not to any degree that would indicate that the type of over-all project we are interested in is going to be developed.
I would not pursue this matter, except to say that if the federal government does not have the type of program we are discussing here, one in which it sincerely believes and is vitally interested in developing, then really there is no long range future for agricultural communities in many parts of Canada, no matter whether they are in the east, west, or in the central part of Canada.
If the government intends to pursue another program mentioned during the election, where it was intended to put the farmer off his farm, redevelop the farm and then return it to him, that I would suggest is the type of ARDA program that has to be carefully thought out because the treatment of the farmer would have to be envisaged on a generous scale.
I do not know at what point the minister is going to be able to bring the attention of the House of Commons to the over-all intention that the government now has with respect to ARDA. The house really has not had a review of ARDA since it was initially presented. As the minister stated at that time, it had the complete support of all members of parliament, for the simple reason that the program was visionary. Everyone realized that considerable problems had to be faced, that
Supp ly-Forestry
in the various aspects of the agricultural redevelopment program there would be something of benefit for each part of Canada, and that this would be a long-range program.
If what I have described is not the program that was envisioned, then I think we have to develop one that is. I think that there is an obligation on the part of the government to tell the country what it is doing.
As the hon. member for Lapointe mentioned, we are again faced with a situation where discussions are no longer conducted in parliament. Discussions take place in provincial and federal conferences where decisions are often made by officials of the provincial governments and then given to the federal officials as a ready-cut proposition to be either accepted or rejected. The hon. member for Lapointe indicated that all the minister did was to make out the cheques.
Irrespective of that, I think that provincial governments that have area development programs of their own, which are faced in different ways in different provinces, ought to refer them back to a central point. For instance, recently there has been talk of developing blueberry land. Everybody knows that blueberries can grow wild. They may appear in a field one year, be picked, but not appear the next year. In other words they are not farmed. Yet during the ARDA program there has been considerable development in this field in the maritimes, resulting in the production of a crop and resulting in a fairly substantial income per acre for the farmers in the growing communities. This type of industry which has obviously been newly developed could be related, by the national agency dealing with ARDA, to other parts of Canada which have similar growing potential as the area I referred to in the maritimes.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I do not intend to pursue this matter further. I know the committee is in a mood to get these estimates passed. Sometimes we are disgustingly fast in passing these things and at other times disgustingly slow. The public would agree that we were mostly disgusting at all times in our manner of handling them. If members do not believe that, they should read the newspapers. The newspapers agree that this is so.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, then.


William Arnold Peters: I had intended to sit down but a republican across the way said "Be reasonable and sit down". And I do not think that

February 24, 1966
Supply-Forestry
would be reasonable. If this question is not one of those referred for further discussion in committee, then it seems to me the minister will not be getting the benefit of a discussion which I believe should take place in some depth on this subject. I sincerely believe that ARDA is the only hope for a long range solution of many of the problems of our marginal areas. This view is shared by many of the farm organizations across Canada. If the program is not working-and I suggest it is not working now, in the main-we must take steps to correct the situation.
So far, I submit, the program has not taken any appreciable number of people off the farms and redeveloped the land in such a way that those remaining are able to make a reasonable living. This is one of the matters which should be discussed by the committee, since it is at the heart of the department's work-though I must say when you have feed grain assistance thrown into the responsibilities of a Department of Forestry, that really is for the birds.
I am pleased that the minister should seem more interested in explaining this subject than the committee is in listening to him. This will not always be the case, I am sure. But should there be a choice between the subjects to be sent to the committee I trust this one will be considered seriously as the theme of one of the major discussions of the present session.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I should like to ask the minister how many applications for ARDA assistance have been approved, and I should like to get this information by provinces.


Maurice Sauvé: 1 cannot give the hon. member this information offhand but I will provide it for him.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put just one question to the minister. Can he tell us whether he would confirm that what delays ARDA, what really prevents ARDA development, is the dual authority, one provincial and the other federal?
Will the minister comment on this?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that dual jurisdiction is delaying the projects. This act has been voted by Parliament five years ago; the implementation was rather slow at first, because the federal and the provincial administrations had to familiarize themselves with an operating system.
[Mr. Peters.J
On the whole, I am satisfied with the implementation. Naturally, there is always room for improvement. We could talk at length on this point.
When the bill to amend the ARDA Act is presented to the house-it is already on the order paper-we will have the opportunity to discuss again the whole concept behind ARDA. We shall be able to make changes then.


Gilles Grégoire: I should also like to ask whether ARDA, being a joint program, the provincial government could withdraw from it claiming fiscal compensation, as may be done in the case of other joint programs?


Maurice Sauvé: No, this program is not included among those from which the provincial governments have indicated that they would like to withdraw in some way.


Gilles Grégoire: None of them?


Maurice Sauvé: None.


Henry P. Latulippe: I want to ask the minister a question.
Could he tell us whether, with the cooperation of the provincial governments, he intends to undertake development projects in each county of the province of Quebec and of all the other provinces, so that all counties may benefit somewhat from ARDA?
The people I represent often ask me what ARDA does and what is ARDA. I answer them as best I can, but they feel that ARDA is not doing much in a riding such as mine where many of them are having a hard time and farmers are leaving their farms.
If ARDa were to come and help them or give them some information, I suppose they might be able to keep their farms. But they leave them because they feel it takes too long. They cannot afford to wait any longer. The present system has put them to deeply into debt. So, people can no longer wait. They leave their farms at an alarming rate in my constituency. I would go as far as to say that approximately 60% of the farms have been left over the last two years. In a single parish, within a week, 13 farmers left. ARDA has certainly not been beneficial yet in that corner of the land and we do not know when ARDA will come our way.
I wish the minister would give some reply to that question.
February 24, 1966


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3. Construction of extension to research laboratory in Pointe Claire, Quebec, for use by the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada, $1,700,000.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: There are some questions I should like to put to the minister. My colleague from Timiskaming suggested some time ago that the hon. gentleman was a progressive minister. I am not sure whether there was a certain question mark at the end of that remark or not.
This vote, as the committee will see, provides for the construction of an extension to a research laboratory in Pointe Claire for use by the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada. We are referred to page 160 for the details. I find on looking at page 160 that the item referred to says: "Construction of extension to research laboratory in Pointe Claire, Quebec, for use by the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada". The amount given is $1,700,000.
I am not blaming the minister for the fact that the details contain exactly the same words as the general item of the vote. I know this is the case with respect to a large number of the items before us. But I should like clarification on this point: Am I correct in my understanding that the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada is a private organization established by the producing firms in this industry and that this is a capital grant to provide facilities to enable this body to carry on certain research work? I should like to know whether this is the case and whether the contribution by the federal government is limited to the provision of the plant.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: In 1956 the federal government provided funds for the construction and equipment of a new laboratory at Pointe Claire, and the Pulp and Paper Institute pays for the research and personnel. We only provide the facilities, the buildings.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Can the minister tell us something about the nature of the research program conducted in this institute?


Maurice Sauvé: The research is done by McGill University, in conjunction with the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, for the development of the pulp and paper industry. It is related exclusively to pulp and paper, nothing
Supply-Forestry
else. It is a venture which we find very profitable because we in the department do not have the means to do that research. It is done by the institute in conjunction with McGill University. The research has been going on since 1926, and the federal government only intervened in 1956 by providing funds for building purposes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Then I take it the research is basically on techniques and methods for improving the production of pulp and paper products. I am glad the minister refreshed my mind with the fact that it was in 1956 parliament first voted money for this purpose. At that time I raised the question of research into pollution of water and air by the pulp and paper industry, and I take it from what the minister has said that this project does not cover that area of activity.
Not too long ago I asked the minister about the activity of his department in this field, relating my question to the holding of a forestry conference in Montebello. He told me the responsibility lay within the jurisdiction of another department. In passing, Mr. Chairman, I may say I had an opportunity to meet some of the delegates to the Montebello conference, who were on parliament hill this afternoon, in company with a minister who comes from B.C., and I gather their conference was a most interesting and successful one.
I feel it is proper to ask on this item whether any portion of the funds we are voting is being directed toward research into the control of pollution. Much of our economic prosperity will derive from the better utilization of our forest products, but this industry is one of the greatest creators of pollution of our waters and air.
I am aware of the conference that is being arranged this fall under the auspices of the Council of Resource Ministers, which we all hope will produce fruitful results, but if we are providing this assistance for research it justifies the minister's directing, urging or demanding that the industry devote more time, energy and interest to the field of research in the control of pollution.
I represent a constituency where there have been great developments in the pulp and paper industry, where small-scale plants have become increasingly larger and where the level of pollution, as the industry expanded, has changed so much in degree that it has become something different in kind

February 24, 1966
Supply-Forestry
In this connection, I am thinking of the community of Port Alice on the north end of Vancouver Island where one of the earliest pulp and paper plants in the province of B.C. was established, where at one time the little company town community had green grass, flowers and trees planted in the townsite, but where now the level of pollution has reached the point that the grass has turned white, flowers will no longer grow, and water in the inlet on which the plant is located has become so polluted that people can no longer catch fresh salmon in it.
In the area where I make my home, which has a population of 20,000 to 25,000, it is not untrue to say that at present the whole community is up in arms on this pollution question. Over 6,300 people have signed a petition which they have taken to the provincial government in Victoria, asking for some legislation. They have held parades in the modern tradition of silent vigils in front of the industry plant.
I have some pictures here which give an idea of the conditions in which people are being asked to live and work, pictures which show the occasional snowfall on Vancouver Island, with the snow on the ground turned black with fall-out from the plant, pictures showing motor cars covered white, as if by snow, but it is not snow, just salt cake. I would be quite happy to send these pictures across to the minister and let him have a look at them. I also have a picture of a parade which took place recently in Alberni Valley.
I am only sorry I cannot ask leave of the house to have them reproduced as an appendix to Hansard because I am afraid the facilities of the Queen's Printer would not do adequate justice to them. However, the minister can pass them around and let other interested members see them.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I realize this matter is a very complex one and that all the answers cannot be found overnight. However, I would suggest to the minister, particularly in view of this vote, that as Minister of Forestry he has an important role to play in focusing the attention of industry on this problem and in focusing the attention of the rest of the Government of Canada on this problem. It is not something he should leave entirely in the hands of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Because of the fact that this forestry industry is so important to the economy of Canada, we

as the people's representatives should be demanding now, and the minister should be giving a lead in demanding, that this industry develop itself and conduct itself in such a way that it is not going to become a hazard to the life, welfare and health of the people of the country, not only those immediately concerned with the industry, but also many others in adjacent regions.
Mr. Chairman, I hope one of the things the minister will agree to look into is the extent to which the Pulp and Paper Institute, which is receiving in this vote a fairly generous sum from the tax revenues of Canada, should be willing to undertake a research program in their particular aspect of the whole field of pollution control.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a short question. Is it possible to use the facilities of this research area to do research for the Department of Industry in the forest products field? I have in mind particularly the research that should be undertaken in the E. B. Eddy limits in the Elk Lake area in my riding where the Ontario government has given an ultimatum that a pulp and paper mill be constructed in the near future, or the limits will have to change hands. There is considerable research work which will have to be done before it is possible to tell what the size of the plant should be or whether there should be a kraft or sulphite plant in the area.


Maurice Sauvé: I shall find out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5. Contributions to the provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the details of estimates, $7,910,000.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a parochial question. In northern Ontario where and on how many roads is this construction work to be done under this item of $8 million?


Maurice Sauvé: I could not tell you offhand, but I will provide the answer.
10. Freight assistance on western feed grains including assistance in respect of grain storage costs in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, $19,500,000.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Megantic was quite insistent about this item. Did the minister suggest in his answer that this will also be referred to the committee when the feed grain legislation he spoke of is proposed? Will both of these be put together?
February 24. 1966	COMMONS


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I said that the bill would be introduced in the house at which time we will have an opportunity in committee to review this whole bill clause by clause.


William Arnold Peters: The question I asked related to a discussion which took place in this committee during consideration of the matter of feed grain assistance under the control of a feed grain agency, if such an agency is established. Is that the intention of the government?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: This concludes our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Forestry. Shall we now proceed to a consideration of the estimates of the Department of Public Works?


Gilles Grégoire: It is ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, am I correct in understanding that members of the N.D.P. wish to call it ten o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we had a certain understanding at six o'clock that we would try to get six departments through in four hours. We have done that. I think that is a good night's work.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the special committee on drug costs and prices appointed February 15. 1966, be composed of Messrs. Brand, Chatterton, Cote (Dorchester), Enns, Hadaisz, Harley, Howe (Hamilton South), Howe (Wellington-Huron), Hymmen, Isabelle, Langlois (Chicoutimi), MacDonald (Prince). Mackasey, Mac-quarrie, Mitchell, O'Keefe, Orlikow, Pascoe, Patterson, Prud'homme, Roxburgh, Rynard, Tardif and Yanakis.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, February 17, during
DEBATES	1767
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the question period, I put the following question to the hon. Minister of Finance:
In view of the fact that no provision was made for this in the estimates, could the Minister tell the house whether he is considering the necessity of increasing family allowances, and will he inform us of his decision in his next budget?
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate receiving tonight an answer from the Minister, after I have made the following comments for his information.
The estimates for the 1966-67 fiscal year were tabled recently by the Minister, and they do not indicate an early change in the family allowances pattern.
I understand that the minister has more than one string to his bow. He might very well, if he so decides with his other cabinet colleagues, take action in this field and reveal it to us in his forthcoming budget.
I hope this is one of the important and pleasant surprises he is keeping in store for all Canadians. I know that the minister practises the art of secrecy. But he could give us a ray of hope by recognizing the urgency of increasing family alowances.
Here is a social field that should be substantially reviewed. I do not intend to discuss tonight the question of which government has such a responsibility. I shall deal with this matter when the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare are considered.
I want briefly to demonstrate the necessity of an immediate increase in such allowances.
First, let us say that many provinces and citizens demand that allowances be geared to present needs. At the last meeting of Health and Welfare ministers in Ottawa, in January last, at least five provinces recognized that the family allowances program had to be changed. They are Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
The representative of Quebec, at this conference Mr. Rene Levesque, went so far as to say that if Ottawa failed to act, in view of the urgency of the problem, Quebec would shortly proceed to correct the current inadequacy of the family allowances.
No grudge should be held against provinces that take initiatives because of the inertia and apathy of the federal government.
Several members in this house as well as other Canadians say that the central government should be strong and powerful. Let the central government wake up. Let it take
February 24, 1966
1768	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion action. Otherwise dynamic provinces are justified in intervening and in going ahead with their projects.
Indeed, I doubt that the responsibility for family allowances constitutionally falls to Ottawa. The fact that Ottawa intervened in that field in 1944 does not mean that it had the right to do so. But let us set aside the legal aspect today. I shall return to it on another occasion.
I maintain that unless the government takes immediate action, unless it assumes all the responsibility and power which it claims, it will have to allow those provinces that wish to do so to deal with the urgent needs of Canadian families.
Within a few weeks, through his actions or inaction, the minister will be able to give a certain orientation to the improvement of family allowances.
I would surely like to have the minister's views on such a matter which has become urgent mainly because of increased family needs, the rise in the cost of living and the loss in value of our dollar since 1945.
In closing, I should like to remind the minister that between 1945 and 1965 the cost of living increased by 87.7 per cent, while family allowances have only been raised 9.4 per cent. Now is the time, more than ever, to fill the gap.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, for 22 years now Canada has operated a family allowance program for mothers and for all children up to the age of 16, provided the children are attending school. More recently, a special youth allowance was introduced for school children aged 16 and 17. The rates are $6, $8 and $10 per month, according to the age of the children. This program has undergone only minor changes in its period of existence of 22 years.
At the last meeting of provincial ministers of welfare with myself in Ottawa, considerable attention was directed to this program of family allowances. It was suggested, especially by the minister from the province of Quebec, that there existed a need for a very careful consideration of the rates of allowance and the children to whom the allowance ought to be paid. In making that suggestion, the minister was re-echoing comments which emanated from other responsible persons,

especially students who have written extensively on this particular subject.
I was able to tell the conference something which I repeated later in the house, namely that the Department of National Health and Welfare is giving very careful study to this question of family allowances. It is a major program affecting the pattern of income of many hundreds of thousands of families and affecting their family budget, as well as assisting millions of children in the country. Any changes ought to be taken only after very careful consideration. Perhaps it is a fact that the amounts paid to each child need revision; perhaps the weighting by age or number of children needs altering and needs up-dating.
It should be borne in mind that these questions, and the determination of any changes in the family allowance program, must be considered in relation to the total social and economic policies of the government, the requirements for assistance of other groups in the community, including the older people and including the requirements of education.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And medicare.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And medicare. It will be in this context that this particular program will be considered and decisions reached.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And nothing done.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a very depressing postscript.


[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, the reason I brought this particular question before the minister was the great interest shown in the publicity given a National Capital Commission representative when he was in our area as well as in other areas of southern Ontario. There was publicity over television, radio and in the newspaper columns. I have a clipping from the St. Catharines Standard for Friday, December 10, 1965. This article reports an interview with Mr. J. Maurice Landry, the information director of the National Capital Commission. It goes on to explain that the National Capital Commission is interested in promoting the capital of Canada across the nation as a symbol of unity and a source of national pride.
February 24, 1966


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about when he raises a grievance?


George James McIlraith: The question which he posed is somewhat more restricted than the content of his speech, with which I am in complete and total accord. The question yesterday was this: Will the minister inform the house whether the National Capital Commission intends to promote the capital across the nation? If so, how and how soon?
The National Capital Commission is an agency established to make plans and assist in the development of the national capital region to make it a suitable place as a capital. This is a continuing job which has been carried on for over 60 years by this commission and its predecessors, since about 1897. Improvement and development of the capital is its main purpose. It can do certain other things only incidental to this main purpose. One of these incidental activities is informing the people of Canada about what it is doing to improve the capital. I believe it is that type of information service which the hon. member spoke about in the early part of his remarks.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would it not have helped for the hon. gentleman to have agreed to the appointment of a special committee of parliament, as was suggested from this side of the house?


George James McIlraith: I am afraid not, it would have been premature at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: After 97 years?


George James McIlraith: In any event, information kits and articles are set out to newspapers across the country, the information staff give illustrated talks in various cities, films are shown and pamphlets and film strips are sent to schools. Also the Rotary Clubs of Canada are assisted in showing the capital to a selected group of high school students from across the country in May of each year; bus tours are provided for members of parliament so they can have an opportunity to see what
IMr. McNulty.]
the commission is doing, and the establishment and staffing of an information centre in Ottawa where visitors may get information about the commission's work. I refer there to the new information centre. All these activities are designed to explain what the National Capital Commission is doing to improve the capital.
The Commission is not empowered, fortunately or unfortunately-and in this case I think unfortunately-nor is it equipped to inform the public of Canada about all the functions and programs of the government and the capital generally, nor is it equipped to inform the public about parliament, the work and administration of the various departments and agencies of government, international activities involving embassies, and things of that nature.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
The National Capital Act does not provide the commission with the power to carry on these activities. For the centennial of 1967 parliament has established the national centennial administration under the National Centennial Act and the commission is working with the centennial commission which is doing the job of providing over-all information about the centenary of confederation and other national capital activities connected with it.


Thomas Miller Bell: On the only other occasion when I used this procedural device to bring a question before the house, fairly good results were obtained. Hon. members may recall that I referred to the closing of McAvity's industrial plant in Saint John, and it was possible to avert this move.
The question I raise tonight has in it some of the same elements-loss of industry, loss of employment and an uninterested provincial government. I see a smiling Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in his place at this late hour. He is relaxed and confident, now that his own estimates have gone through and he has really nothing to worry about now for the balance of the session.
I hope the minister can help me this evening. This question concerns the exclusion of Saint John, Fredericton, Dartmouth and Halifax from the Area Development Incentives Act. It goes back to 1963 under the old act when certain cities in the maritimes were
February 24, 1966	COMMONS
excluded. Hope was held out that when the new act was introduced in 1965 the situation would be changed. But they were again excluded. My objection is that the mayors and others above been kept on a string; they have been hoodwinked into thinking there was some hope for them under the act. This is not the fault of the Minister of Transport. But it appears, now, that the answer will be a definite "no" and that there will not be an opportunity for the inclusion of the cities I have mentioned in the designated area plan.
We are now faced with the necessity of doing something for these cities in an equivalent way. Everyone knows that they are faced with unique problems in this regard. It appears that the Atlantic Development Board is being considered as one means of assisting them, but this has not been definitely stated.
I think there is need for haste and that immediate efforts should be made to settle this problem.
Its effects have already been shown. Established industries in some of these cities are moving outside the perimeter of the excluded area. Saint John has already lost old established industries which have moved outside to nearby towns, in each case obtaining the grant which is available under the act. In the second place I understand, although I cannot prove this, that there are many industries which wanted to go to larger cities such as Halifax and Saint John-towns which have a labour surplus-but they have not even gone to the maritimes because those towns were not available to them under the terms of the act.
I suggest that the minister, as the minister responsible for the Atlantic Development Board, should direct the board to take this matter under advisement if it has not already done so. The board should be asked to look into it immediately, call for briefs if necessary from the cities and get right down to business. It is not the hon. gentleman's fault. The government could have avoided this situation by bringing these cities in earlier without any trouble. They have been playing around with the industrial future of these cities.
I think it is high time we had an answer to this question. If the minister wants an example of a method by which an equivalent amount could be given I suggest he take an amount of money and have it administered initially by the board. If necessary it could be channeled through the two agencies in New
DEBATES	1771
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Industrial Estates in Nova Scotia and the Productivity Council in New Brunswick, and let them deal with this matter, or at least be a party to advising where assistance can be given. I hope the minister will not think that some of the other benefits, some very good benefits, that are given to these particular cities- wharves, roads, harbour bridges-are part of it. There must be a fully equivalent benefit to the cities that have been forgotten and stalled by this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, one gets compliments only by indirection from the opposition, but the hon. gentleman has complimented the government in two respects. He has suggested we have a very good program for area development, but it does not extend quite widely enough. We are very glad he approves of this program and wants it extended.
He has also said that I must not use as an excuse in reply all the other good things the Atlantic Development Board is doing for Halifax, Saint John and the rest of the Atlantic area. I do not intend to do that at all. I know the hon. gentleman is almost as pleased about the harbour bridge as I am. I am also sure the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) is almost as pleased as I am about the considerable extension going to be made to the elevator in Halifax.


Mr. Forrestall:: Unemployment is still 10.5 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It should, of course, be remembered that unemployment is one of the criteria for the area development agency, and the only reason Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton are excluded is that unemployment in those places is less than it is elsewhere in the Atlantic region.


J. Michael Forrestall: The four cities are improving-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The Minister of Transport has the floor. He has only three minutes to reply and I think he should not be interrupted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have great difficulty in making myself heard in the house. The Atlantic Development Board, ever since the area development program was established, particularly since the new criteria were established in the summer of last year, has been very conscious of the kind of incidental effects which they might have in

February 24, 1966
Supply-Items Passed
the possible diversion of industrial prospects from Halifax or Saint John to other communities, something which I think is more likely than in the case of Fredericton, and is also conscious that their magnetic attraction might not be as great because of these incentives.
While it might be inconsistent to provide the same kind of incentives, if the government had intended to do that it should be done by the area development organization itself. The board is very much aware of the importance of not doing anything that is likely to be decisive in any specific case in order to make sure that an industry which may be wavering will in fact locate in these places.
I can assure the hon. gentleman, all other hon. members, and through the press everyone in Halifax, Saint John, Fredericton and the adjacent areas which are not covered by the area development incentive program that any concrete proposals for meeting any specific problem will certainly be welcomed indeed by the A.D.B. The general problem is under review at every meeting of the board, and constantly by the staff.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.42 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]


[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise-
1. General administration, operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from firms and individuals requiring special services, $45,485,600.
Taxation-
5. General administration and district offices, $46,278,100.
Tax appeal board-
10. Administration expenses, $152,500.
[Stage Direction]
1. Maintenance and operation of the Prime Minister's residence, $32,500.
Privy council office-
Ministers without portfolio-*
5. Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of Parliament to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible 
or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $7,500.
10. General administration, $1,098,400.
10b. General administration, $257,000.
lOd. General administration-to extend the purposes of privy council vote 10 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include the expenses of a pilot program, undertaken by volunteers, to advance social and economic development in community affairs and to provide a further amount of, $88,000.
15. Expenses of the royal commissions listed in the details of the estimates and the expenses of the preparatory committee on collective bargaining in the public service. $3,104,300.
15b. Expenses of the royal commissions listed in the details of estimates, $233,900.
[Stage Direction]
1. Office of the secretary to the Governor General, $308,200.
5. To authorize reimbursement to the lieutenant-governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties up to maximum per annum for each as detailed in the estimates, $142,500.
[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
1. Allowance in lieu of residence to the Speaker
of the Senate, $3,000.
5. General administration, $1,077,200.
House of Commons-
Members of the House of Commons-
10. Allowances in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and in lieu of apartments to the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons; allowance to the deputy chairman of committees. $6,500.
10b. Members of the House of Commons-allowances in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and in lieu of apartments to the deputy Speaker of the House of Commons: allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
15. Expenses of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, of delegates attending other inter-parliamentary conferences, expenses connected with visits of delegates from other legislatures, including the expenses of the inter-parliamentary conference to be held in Ottawa in 1965, Canada's fee for membership in the inter-parliamentary union, Canada's share of the expenses of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association including subscriptions to publications of the association, and a grant of $22,000 to the Canadian North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Association, $316,475.
15d. Expenses of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, of delegates attending other inter-parliamentary conferences, and expenses connected with visits of delegates from other legislatures, including the expenses of the inter-parliamentary conference to be held in Ottawa in 1965, $55,000.
20. General administration, $5,035,500.
February 24, 1966
[Stage Direction]
20b. General administration, $10,000.
Library of Parliament-
25. General administration, $482,900.
[Stage Direction]
1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the International Bureaux at Berne and Montevideo. $221,303,000.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $6,694,000. Welfare services, allowances and other benefits-
5. Administration, including the expenses of the war veterans allowance board, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $4,187,700.
10. War veterans allowances, civilian war allowances and assistance in accordance with the provisions of the assistance fund (war veterans allowances) regulations, $106,127,000.
lOd. War veterans allowances, civilian war allowances and assistance in accordance with the provisions of the assistance fund (war veterans allowances) regulations, $500,000.
15. Other benefits including treatment and related allowances, burials and memorials, the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council and repayments under subsection (3) of section 12 of the Veterans* Rehabilitation Act in such amounts as the minister of veterans affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of amounts equivalent to the compensating adjustments or payments made under that Act, where the persons who made the compensating adjustments or payments received no benefits under the Veterans' Land Act, or where, having had financial assistance under the Veterans' Land Act, are deemed by the minister on termination of their Veterans' Land Act contracts or agreements to have derived thereunder either no benefits or benefits that are less than the amounts of the compensating adjustments or payments, $5,678,000.
Pensions-
20. Administration, $2,798,200.
25. Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the pension Act; Newfoundland special awards, and gallantry awards (world war II and special force), $184,079,000.
25d. Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; Newfoundland special awards; and gallantry awards (world war II and special force), $1,700,000.
Treatment services-
30. Operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for hospital, prosthetic and related services, $47,228,000.
35. Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $3,006,000.
Supply-Items Passed
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
40. Administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement; upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property, taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities; and to authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act and to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible, and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $4,322,400.
45. Grants to veterans settled on provincial lands In accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, grants to veterans settled on dominion lands in accordance with an agreement with the minister of northern affairs and national resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $145,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
L95. Purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected:	removal of encumbrances; stock and
eauipment; and protection of security under the Soldiers Settlement Act and the Veterans' Land Act, $34,600,000.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $1,027,500.
3. Construction of extension to research laboratory in Pointe Claire, Quebec, for use by the Pulp and Paper research institute of Canada, $1,700,000.
5. Contributions to the provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the details of estimates, $7,910,000.
5b. Contributions to the provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the details of estimates, $675,000.
10. Freight assistance on western feed grains including assistance in respect of grain storage costs in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $19,500,000.
lOd. Freight assistance on western feed grains including assistance in respect of grain storage costs in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $1,500,000.
Generallib. Payment in respect of extra costs resulting from unloading the S.S. Wheat King at Quebec while en route to deliver grain at Halifax, $58,400.
Forestry-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates, $8,885,600.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,772,000.
[Stage Direction]
February 24, 1966
Supply-Items Passed
Rural development-
25. Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act program and Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act program-Administration, operation and maintenance, $798,500.
30. Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act program and Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act program-Construction or acauisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including
authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the province of New Brunswick of the cost of the Petltcodiae river dam project, $848,900.
35. Payments in respect of projects and programs under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, and payments to provinces pursuant to agreements entered into under that act. $16,880,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 25, 196S