1966-05-10

RESIGNATION OF CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members a communication I have received from the Chief Electoral Officer:
Ottawa, May 4, 1966. The Honourable The Speaker of the
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sir:-
In my report dated January 19, 1966, made to you, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 58 of the Canada Elections Act, I requested to be relieved of the duties of Chief Electoral Officer for the reasons that I gave in that report. For the same reasons, I now find it necessary to resign my office of Chief Electoral Officer.
In order to enable the new Chief Electoral Officer to commence the preparations resulting from the redistribution of electoral districts, which will be required to be made before the next general election, I respectfully suggest that the effective date of my resignation should not be later than the date of publication of the proclamation declaring to be in force the representation order referred to in section 22 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
After that date I propose to carry out the assignment that I am given by section 9 of the Representation Commissioner Act to study and report on methods of registration of electors and absentee voting, and to continue to discharge the other duties assigned by the two Acts in question.
I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
N. Castonguay,
Chief Electoral Officer.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Monimo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
On the C.B.C. newscast, Thursday, May 5, at 6.30 and at 11 p.m., commentator Jean-Marc Poliquin in his usual style commented on alleged leaks from the Quebec Liberal
caucus concerning the current provincial elections and on the Liberal party prospects in some areas of the province.
To such garbled, imaginary and unfounded comments both as to wording and overall meaning, the sensation-seeking commentator attached my name and that of several colleagues of mine, to give his news the tone of an official newscast on the national network and thus insidiously create the impression that I and some of my colleagues were opposed to the premier of Quebec.
This unfounded, humiliating and prejudicial news item rouses indignation and contempt.
My question of privilege is a personal and collective one for the following reasons:
First, a political party caucus is a strictly private and confidential aSair; any infringement of secrecy reflects upon every member of this house.


An hon. Member:: You have not been here long.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Because it is not controlled at the federal level as it is at the provincial level.


Ovide Laflamme: Second the national radio or television network and the press do not have the right to allow rumours and hearsay to be commented upon without giving in detail their sources of information.
Third, it is cowardly and unworthy of a public service to broadcast such trash and attribute statements to any members of this house without checking whether they are authentic.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has indicated in his introduction the basis for his question of privilege, but without hearing any more I must advise him that none exists.
I would suggest that he consult citation 108 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which states:
Libels on members have also been constantly punished: But to constitute a breach of privilege, they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity, and the libel must be based on matters arising in the aetual transaction of the business of the house.

May 10, 1966
Business of the House
The matter the hon. member is mentioning obviously does not arise in the actual transaction of the business of the house.
I should also point out a provision of citation 104 paragraph (5) that reads as follows:
(5) As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
Since this involves a matter which, according to the hon. member himself, goes back to Thursday last, I do not feel the question of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity. For this reason, I cannot find that a question of privilege exists in the circumstances.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement about the business of the house. Last night when indicating the house business for today I said we would proceed first with item No. 5 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill C-151 providing for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas, to be followed by the Customs Tariff resolution. I then indicated two other items, second reading of the collective bargaining bill for the public service and the resolution dealing with a measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act and other superannuation acts.
Consequent upon and after discussions with the house leaders of other parties, I should like to indicate a change in the proposed business for the house today. We propose to proceed with the first two items, the special rural development measure and the Customs Tariff resolution, and at the conclusion of those two items, we will ask for unanimous consent to proceed to the consideration of estimates now before the house.
For tomorrow's business we would propose to call the two bills standing in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and at the conclusion of those bills proceed to consider estimates that are before the house. Because this is a Tuesday, and under the provisions of standing order 56 we

cannot proceed with the consideration of estimates without having a debatable motion and that motion counting as one of the four supply motions allowed each year under our rules, I would therefore ask unanimous consent to move:
That notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 56 or any other order of the house, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without question put when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply later this day; and
That the committee of supply this day then may proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the departments of forestry, labour, industry and post office, but of no other department; and
That the house resolving itself into committee of supply shall not be deemed a supply motion for the purpose of any order limiting the number of supply motions or providing the procedure for supply motions.


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


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: No, Mr. Speaker. If hon. members will look at the estimates of the Department of Forestry, which have been mentioned, they will see that they include the ARDA program, which really comes under agriculture. The agriculture committee has had the estimates of the Department of Agriculture referred to it, and I would expect that part of the estimates of the Department of Forestry would be referred to it as well because part of those estimates is concerned with agricultural arrangements.
We cannot be responsible for how the government decides to allocate the business of the various departments, but I think it would be very foolish if this type of arrangement was agreed to. It would take out of the discussion and review of the agricultural estimates a large part of the potential discussion of the ARDA program which is under the Department of Forestry.
I would also suggest that if the estimates of trade and commerce are brought before parliament it will mean there can be no committee discussion on the wheat board or the grain commission, which is also a large part of agriculture. I think this is just another indication that we really have not sat down and decided what we are going to do with estimates. If we are to be fair in dealing with estimates I am opposed to this motion.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question. He mentioned the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. This motion has nothing to do with the estimates
May 10, 1966

of the Department of Trade and Commerce. They are before a committee, and this motion has nothing to do with any other estimates that are now before a committee.


William Arnold Peters: I agree that this is true. I only raised the problem of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce because I think the steering committee of the agriculture committee have felt that we will have to ask for the estimates of the Department of Forestry to be placed before the agriculture committee in order that they may discuss the ARDA program, which is part of the Department of Forestry. I think we will have to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to appear before the agricultural committee, because the responsibility of that minister includes the operation of the grain commissioners and the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Starr:: That is finance.


William Arnold Peters: Well, perhaps this has now gone to the finance department. Perhaps I have the wrong minister and the wrong department, but the point is that we should really consider this matter in order to make the work of committees effective. If the agriculture committee is to discuss these matters and report back to the house, in order for the discussion to be complete we must have the opportunity in the committee to discuss the whole problem of agriculture. This will mean a discussion of the estimates of departments that are involved in agriculture. Perhaps the minister has not considered this matter, but I feel strongly enough about it that I am not prepared to give unanimous consent.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent the minister cannot proceed with the motion.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the estimate referred to by the hon. member for Timiskaming, could I ask the minister whether he would agree to send that part of the forestry estimates dealing with ARDA to the agriculture committee rather than to have it discussed here?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the house leaders have agreed that those estimates should be dealt with in committee of the whole. However, I shall be very glad not to ask that they be discussed here. I should remind hon. members that committees have responsibility for work assigned to them by the House of
23033-312J
Business of the House Commons. It is not the responsibility of the House of Commons to deal with such work as the committees wish it to deal with. There seems to be some confusion on this point. In any event, I will consider the point and discuss it with the house leaders of the other parties. I would then ask that my motion carry today without reference to the estimates of the forestry department, and that we proceed with discussion of the labour estimates.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support what the hon. member for Timiskaming has said.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Would the pragmatic socialists hold their caucus somewhere else so we can carry on our business?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Reid Scott: If the wiseacre lawyer is finished we can proceed. We seem to have leaders all over the place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reid Scott: This raises a similar problem as far as I am concerned, and I am sure I did not know about this at the beginning. But how stupid can we get?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we should not have a debate on whether there is unanimous consent. I would now ask hon. members whether there is unanimous consent and, if so, the motion will be put.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous agreement.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, could I have one point clarified. Is there unanimous agreement that I have permission to delete the reference to the estimates of the Department of Forestry from the proposal put before the house?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to ask a question. I am not objecting to it, but does this not remind the members of the House of Commons that we have agreed to a 30 day limit for discussion of estimates? If we bring in these estimates, which may or may not be the important ones without the business committee having allocated times so there is a fair distribution of the discussion of estimates within the 30 day period, does not this bringing in of estimates

May 10. 1966
Veterans Affairs Report haphazardly without that type of consideration tend to eliminate the proper time which will be allotted for the departments that the members of parliament and the parties agree should be considered more important than others?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not create that difficulty. The house leaders have already started to discuss the method of computing the exact numbers of hours in the 30 day period with a view of trying to apportion the time equitably among the different types of supply items which are included in the 30 day limitation period.


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


Reid Scott: There is no consent.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, do you not think the N.D.P.'s could have their caucus outside the House of Commons?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry) moved:: That the second report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, presented to the house on Friday, May 6, 1966, be concurred in.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to say just one word. It is obvious that the veterans affairs committee has found a way of dealing with the problem of the lack of a quorum.


Mr. Herridge:: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wish to inform the house that the standing committee on veterans affairs has the highest attendance record of any committee in this house, as the members arrive within 15 minutes of the time set for the meetings.


Michael Starr: It is quite obvious now, Mr. Speaker, that the caucus should have been held before the members came to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-179, to amend the Criminal Code (attendance at execution).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Milton L. Klein: Article 645 of the Criminal Code lists the individuals, such as the sheriff and prison doctor, who shall be present as witnesses to the execution of a person who has been condemned to death on a charge of capital murder. The object of this bill is to add to this list the presiding judge and all the jurors at the trial.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER

Milton L. Klein: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-180, to amend the Criminal Code (punishment for murder).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Milton L. Klein: Under the present provisions of the Criminal Code the death penalty is mandatory in the case of capital murder. The object of this bill is to allow the judge the discretion to impose either the death penalty or the alternative of imprisonment for life.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him whether communications are now taking place between the United States administration and Canada with reference to threatened action on the part of the United States to bring in restrictions against tourists from the United States, thereby adding still further to the $1.5 billion payments deficit.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware there have been no further developments in this matter since I made my report to the house last week.


John George Diefenbaker: In the past week have there been any communications with Washington taking strong objection to this projected action?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Leader of the Opposition is saying the United States intends to take this action. I know of no such intention.
May 10, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	4927


John George Diefenbaker: Then I ask the minister whether there is any foundation for the suggestion made in an article by Knowlton Nash, who is usually very reputable, to the effect that the United States administration is seriously considering restrictions on spending by U.S. tourists.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition knows that he cannot ask a member of the cabinet to comment on the accuracy of press reports.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, I simply ask this. Is the minister in a position to say that under no circumstances has he in the last week had any communication with the United States government in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it quite clear that I have not had any such communications. Suggestions of this kind about further restrictions have been floated from time to time in the United States. We have not been informed officially of any; therefore I cannot accept the premise that the United States government intends to do these things. I cannot read the minds of the members of the United States administration any more than I can read the mind of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, but I have not had any direct communications of this kind.


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest to the minister that it is not a question of mind reading but a question of a government that does not stand up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question. The minister referred to suggestions and communications, and I am wondering whether he could explain the difference between the two.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. There are many occasions when reports appear in the newspapers which do not represent the official opinion of the United States government or even the Canadian government. I want to say to my right hon. friend that there have been no official communications about this matter with the Canadian government so far as I am aware. If there had been I can assure him that there would be very strong protests from the Canadian government; but since there have been no communications of this kind I think it would be quite premature for the
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian government to go out and cry from the housetops before the United States government takes action the Canadian government will protest.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perlh):: A further supplementary question. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether there has been any indication by the United States that they will tighten any of the present restrictions or resort to any supplementary measures in this respect. I do not mean in respect to travel funds alone, I am talking of the outflow of funds from the United States.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had no approaches from the United States government to consider the effect of any purported United States action, which would be the only basis on which I could answer to the house. The hon. gentlemen can read in the papers, as I can, reports about what the United States government may do. I cannot answer questions about these reports; 1 can only answer questions put to me as to whether the United States government has communicated with the Canadian government, and it has not.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister inform the house whether Mr. Chester Ronning and/or anyone else is now in Viet Nam, or has been there within the last week or two, continuing the search for ways of using the international control commission for the purpose of initiating peace negotiations in that unhappy country?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that Mr. Chester Ronning is not in Asia. He was here last week.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I shall put my question to the Prime Minister.
4928	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Has the government set up an inquiry about the recent fires in Montreal harbour and, if so, is the government or the Prime Minister in a position to tell us what progress has been made, if such an inquiry has taken place?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to deal with that question, but I will make inquiries of the Minister of Transport immediately.



BANK ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask the minister when the house can expect the resolution in regard to revision of the Bank Act.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this will be on the order paper fairly soon. The cabinet is just completing its consideration of the issues raised.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the members of the house whether any conference of commonwealth prime ministers is presently planned for June or July of this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the communique issued at the last commonwealth prime ministers' meeting at Lagos in January stated that if the Rhodesian situation was not cleared up by June or July there would be another meeting of the prime ministers of the commonwealth in July of this year.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, last night the Minister of Transport promised the house that he would be making [Mr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	May 10, 1966
available to hon. members copies of Bill C-178, dealing with the reorganization of the government. The house passed the resolution last night but hon. members cannot get copies of the bill. My question to the Prime Minister is, when will these copies be available?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am informed the bill was available in the house last night.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which is based on the answer given by the Prime Minister a moment ago to the effect that copies of the bill relating to the reorganization of government departments were available last night. I have just checked; no bills were available, and none are yet available, because they are at the printer's.


George James McIlraith: I had one here last night.


Mr. Churchill:: Then why didn't we?


Michael Starr: Again on my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to have had a bill which is not yet printed, but he has it in some form or other. No one else has a copy of the bill which he says was available. Available to whom?


George James McIlraith: It was available in the house at the table.


Michael Starr: It was not. Again I raise a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have checked with the table and it appears the bill was not available at the table.


George James McIlraith: I should just correct the hon. gentleman on the procedure. I do not know the numbers that were available; it may well be that insufficient copies were supplied. When a resolution is passed the usual procedure-though it was deviated from four or five years ago on two or three occasions-is to have limited first printing. I think the number is 25, but I will verify that and find out the exact number. Then when the bill is given first reading, a pro forma reading, the required number for total distribution is made available, and those copies are usually available the next morning.
If this bill on government reorganization necessary steps to find out why it was not distributed I would be very glad to take the necessary steps to find out why it was not distributed in the usual way to all hon. members, but the bill was available last night at the conclusion of the resolution stage.
May 10, 1966


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, once more I raise a question of privilege on what the government house leader has just said. He still leads us to believe that the bill was available, when it was not. He is trying to tell us about the procedure through which a bill must go for printing, and we all know that. We want to know when the bill will be available to members of the house, and that is all he has to answer.


George James McIlraith: If that is the case-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair can offer some assistance. I will certainly endeavour to intervene, where intervention might help, to ensure that distribution is made without delay.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege which, in effect, you have ruled upon, I asked last night at the close of the house, as reported at page 4911 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, can we obtain some assurance from the minister that the bill will be available tonight?
The Minister of Transport answered in these words:
There are some copies available and I will endeavour to see that as many as possible are distributed as soon as possible.
I was in the house last night until eleven o'clock and I received no copy of the bill. The first thing I did this morning was to ask for the bill. I was told by the Prime Minister that it was available. However, on asking the ushers, the messenger boys and the people at the table it turns out that no bill is available. I want to re-emphasize what my colleague has said about this question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Is this a new question of privilege?


David Réal Caouette: It is the same question of privilege as that raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton).
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle and his colleague for Ontario (Mr. Starr) must both know that the bill concerns government reorganization. They must not be surprised that it was not distributed yesterday. Let them wait and they will have it today or tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the worsening situation regarding the lack of mortgage moneys for home building, and in view of the consequent serious inflationary effects which this is having on the home building industry, will the minister not consider making available more funds for home building purposes through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that this question was asked some days ago and replied to by the minister. I do not think there is any new element in the question as outlined by the hon. member.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that there is indeed a new element, in this question. Mortgage funds, according to my information, are becoming unobtainable from any source. This is a matter of great urgency, and it is something that should be dealt with now. It was not dealt with one week ago.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry, of which I have given him oral notice. In view of the fluctuations of the New York Stock Exchange yesterday owing to several incorrect announcements by General Motors with respect to the operations of their various plants, does the minister consider this a form of retaliation for the successful campaign carried on for safer cars being undertaken by the member for Brome-Missisquoi?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Did the Minister of Justice say last Sunday, during a political meeting in connection with the Quebec elections, that the splinter parties
May 10. 1366

Inquiries of the Ministry did not have a sense of responsibility and that they were unwanted in parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion, this question is not in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice made statements which are apparently quite irresponsible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot raise this point in the circumstances-


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house whether he delegated his Minister of Justice to the public meeting in Sorel last Sunday and whether it is his intention to allow other federal ministers to go and help Mr. Lesage?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. When he makes announcements in my riding about public works, will he also give the announcements to the radio station as well as to the newspaper? He might also send a copy to me.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister optimistic about the success of plans which would prevent the hon. member for Davenport, as requested by the leader of the Liberal party in Manitoba, from carrying his party into a Toronto oriented policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot accept that question.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to reply to the question from the hon. member for Red Deer on Friday last, due to my absence from the house. I may say also that I received notice from the hon. member for New Westminster that he intended to ask a

question similar to that put by the hon. member for Red Deer.
I agree with hon. gentlemen that the situation arising out of the controversy about salmon net fishing limits in the Noyes island area off Alaska is one which requires the urgent attention of the Canadian government. I should like to assure the hon. gentlemen that the Canadian government has been giving this matter its most serious attention and is taking steps to deal with it as effectively as possible.
Contrary to rumours circulating in recent days to the effect that a proposed meeting to be held in Seattle was to be cancelled, in fact such a meeting is to be held in Seattle between officials of the Canadian and United States governments to renegotiate the location of lines along the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Alaska, to the seaward of which net fishing for salmon will be prohibited for Canadian and United States fishermen. The Canadian government is fully aware of the unsatisfactory situation which has prevailed because of the discrepancy in the net fishing limits as applying, on the one hand, to British Columbia along with California, Oregon and Washington, and on the other hand to the state of Alaska, a discrepancy which is not satisfactory from the Canadian standpoint.
I wish to assure this house that the Canadian representatives at the Seattle meeting will do their utmost to work toward arrangements regarding net fishing limits on the west coast which are satisfactory to Canada.


Mr. G. L. Chatterlon (Esquimall-Saanich):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether any representations have been made to the minister by the United States administration with regard to a possible retaliation by way of ouy exports of fish products, if Canada takes unilateral action?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Speaker, no such representations by the government of the United States have come to my attention.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, last week it was pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture that a few days
May 10, 1966	COMMONS
after he had announced his new dairy subsidy program, the milk processors upped their transportation charges and the farmers were not benefiting from the new policy. The minister at that time stated that in a few days he would report to the house with respect to contemplated government action in this regard. I would ask the minister if he is now ready to report to the house.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in the province of Quebec there appear to have been some examples of the situation the hon. member referred to. As to the question of the manufacturer concerned raising transportation charges, this does not come within the ambit of federal authority. There is no federal authority to prevent manufacturing plants from raising transportation costs.
As I indicated when I announced the program, the federal share of the subsidy program enables the manufacturers to pay $3.25 per hundredweight. It is up to the producers to organize themselves to prevent the kind of action they object to, and it is within the provincial ambit of authority to act if they so wish.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In future when the government designs a dairy subsidy policy, will it make sure that this policy is fitted to the needs of the individual farmer? I am sure the government wishes to benefit the individual farmer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is rhetorical.


William Heward Grafftey: Should this matter not be of benefit to the farmer, to the individual?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell the house whether he has received recently a request from the Quebec minister of justice for a nation-wide royal commission on organized crime? If so, will the minister take action on such request?
DEBATES	4931
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, personally I have never received any formal request from the Quebec minister of justice regarding a royal commission on organized crime.


Gilles Grégoire: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us if his contacts with the provincial government at Sorel recently were close enough to receive an informal request?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question has not been accepted. The hon. member cannot therefore continue to speak on a question ruled out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question does not follow that of the member for Lapointe but rather that of the member for Chapleau.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
A little earlier the minister told the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) that no official request had been received from the province of Quebec to set up an inquiry on organized crime. However, at the time of federal-provincial conferences, and more specifically at the last one between the ministers of justice of Canada, was there not talk of setting up such an inquiry to discover and hunt down organized crime in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is putting forth an argument and asking a question dealing with events which occurred some time ago already. I do not think the question can be put in such a way.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. With all due respect-and you know how respectful I am-the Minister of Justice said a little earlier that he had not received any request. Well, I am just asking him if that matter was discussed at the last federal-provincial conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The first question was in order and the minister answered it. The second question is not and the minister should not answer it.
May 10. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
[English1



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State may I direct my question, which is for her, to her parliamentary secretary. Would the parliamentary secretary request the printing bureau to produce the reports of the standing committee on external affairs? Other committees seem to have had their reports in prompt order, but our committee has not received its reports. We rely on the report of the previous meeting in order to carry on our next meeting.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: My question is for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Has a policy or practice now been developed in his department to freeze or slow down promotions in the navy between the levels of commander and captain?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. The promotion rates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -for the Canadian forces are better this year-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -than in the last five year average.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question to clarify a press release issued from his office, having

to do with the issuance of the centennial gold coins. The value of the coins amounts to $21.91, and sets of the coins are to be sold for $40. Can the minister explain in what the $19 difference is going to be absorbed, with relation to this set?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this is not the type of question which should be asked at this time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, or rather to the Minister of Finance?
Does he intend to consider favourably the representations made by the Trucking Association of Quebec Inc. concerning the depreciation on automotive equipment to be reduced from 30 to 20 per cent and the sales tax of 11 per cent on the cost of retreading tires?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question of a general nature which the hon. member might put on the order paper.
IEnglish]



CONSULTATIONS RESPECTING DISCLOSURE BY CORPORATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he consulting with the provinces so that the constitutional difficulties involved in working out legislation which would require full financial disclosure by corporations of their financial structure and operating results could be solved, in line with the speech he made last week in Toronto?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are starting these consultations in June, beginning with the securities legislation, and I am quite sure we will cover the whole field as we proceed.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask
May 10, 1966

the Prime Minister whether a decision has finally been arrived at in connection with possible amendments to cover hate literature. Some weeks ago it was indicated that it was only a matter of days away.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under consideration as to what action can be taken during this session.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Oni.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Is the minister aware of the legislation placed before Congress in Washington regarding the curbing of imports of Canadian cheese, and may I inquire what action the government contemplates, if any, in order to protect the interests of the Canadian cheese industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt that this question is of immediate urgency. If it is, perhaps the hon. member might justify it at this time.


Harold Warren Danforth: If I may elaborate, Mr. Speaker, an announcement was made in the house a few weeks ago by the Minister of Agriculture that exports of Canadian cheese to the United States had been increasing. Now a bill has been introduced in the U.S. Congress which, if passed, could result in grave circumstances so far as exports of Canadian cheese are concerned. The bill has been introduced and I want to know what action is being taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It might have been better had I accepted the question in the first instance.
Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture) Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member that the minister and the government are carefully watching any legislative measures adopted across the line which may affect us here, and this particular measure is under study at present.


Eric Alfred Winkler: As a
supplementary question, could the parliamentary secretary say whether the Canadian government is doing anything to protect hog producers against imports of pork?
23033-313J
Inquiries of the Ministry COAL



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the MacDonald report available yet?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a
supplementary question, based on the remarks of the minister's predecessor, who last Sunday evening asked that the Prime Minister and other members of his cabinet be a little more specific, could the Minister of Finance indicate when he expects to receive that report, which was due some time in January?


Mitchell William Sharp: As soon as it is prepared, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a
further supplementary question, how long does it take to dot an "i" and cross a "t"?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his capacity as superintendent general of Indian affairs. In view of the report that the Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled that Indians in the province lost their right to hunt migratory birds out of season with the introduction of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, will the minister assure the house that his department will be prepared to pay the expenses of those so convicted if they desire to take their case to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this question as notice.



REQUEST FOR SUMMARY OF NATIONAL GRID STUDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the
May 10. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys in what is to be his new capacity as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it has to do with the National Power Grid. Before the bill is debated on second reading would it be possible for the minister to give the house either a progress report on the study of the Ingledow report or some form of written summary on which we can base our remarks? Second, has there been any consultation between the minister on the one side and Ontario Hydro and the Ontario government on the other side concerning the interconnection between Sudbury, Ontario, and Manitoba?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I am not acquainted with the second part of the question. With regard to the first part, I shall try to inform myself better and see if this matter can be brought within the framework of the discussion on the reorganization of the department.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as the minister who deals with matters coming under the purview of the Combines Investigation Act. Would the minister look into the possibility that a conspiracy may exist between a former member of this house, an officer of the Canadian Labour Congress, and the executive producer of "The Public Eye", a former public relations director of the C.B.R.T., to portray on the program "The Public Eye" tonight a biased and distorted view of a certain trade union in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The significance of this question is not apparent to the Chair. I assume that the minister, if he understands the purport of the question, will take appropriate action.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interesting question asked by the hon. member for Skeena, will the minister provide all hon. members with a copy of the script of the program "The Public Eye" which is to be televised at 10.30 this evening? I am sure everybody will find it most interesting.



INQUIRY AS TO TERMS OF REFERENCE OF MEDIATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of Mr. Ouimet's statement this morning that it was difficult to see what kind of outcome would result from the present negotiations conducted by Mr. Keate, could the Prime Minister tell us whether terms of reference have been drafted for Mr. Keate's negotiations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Keate is in touch with both sides to the dispute, and has been for some days, within the terms of reference outlined a week ago Sunday when I announced his appointment.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said that terms of reference have been given to Mr. Keate, could he supply a copy of them to Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, the president of the C.B.C., who said this morning that none were available?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The terms of reference to which I have referred were included in the statement I gave to the press a week ago Sunday announcing that Mr. Keate was going to try to be helpful in this matter.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the widespread interest in the subject of automobile safety, has the minister yet received the report from the Department of Justice dealing with the question of which level of government has jurisdiction to outline safety features for motor vehicles at the production level?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Reid Scott: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister table the document so that members of the house may see it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the rules of the house, the tabling of opinions by the law officers of the crown is not the practice.
May 10, 1966



Mr. Scot! (Danforlh): May I ask a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister complete his perusal of the document so we might question him on it when he appears before the committee on justice and legal affairs?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will peruse it, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Inasmuch as the little village of Long Branch has decided to follow the lead of New Toronto in respect of the dumping of fill into lake Ontario, which is the senior level of government, the private developers, the village of Long Branch or the Department of Public Works?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask the minister for a legal opinion.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I would not welcome it from him anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to prove to this house that the filling in of lake Ontario is not a laughing matter, may I ask whether the government is accepting the challenge of the village of Long Branch in defying the order of the engineering branch of the Department of Public Works to stop filling in the lake.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This second question is not acceptable because it is argumentative.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that he is reported as having said yesterday that Canada now is enforcing the 12 mile limit measured from the sinuosities of the coast against fishing vessels from certain countries, could the minister say how many countries or preferably which countries are still being allowed to fish within such 12 mile limit?
Rural Development


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the only countries which are still allowed to fish within the 12 mile limit are those countries which have entered into a treaty with Canada and those which have established a historic right. Perhaps the hon. member is prompted to ask his question in view of a press report this morning to the effect that the U.S.S.R. and Japan have such a right. The situation is not so.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the minister indicate which countries have been prevented?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that both questions are out of order. Perhaps I should not have accepted the first question by the hon. member for Queens, because it is the type of question which relates to debate which might take place in the house and is one which normally should be placed on the order paper.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minisier of Forestry) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-151, to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the present bill, No. C-151, will establish a fund for economic development which will add greatly to the scope and flexibility of the ARDA program. Before examining the purposes and administration of this fund in more detail, I think it is desirable to describe the general context of the ARDA program so that hon. members will be able to see why such a fund is necessary and will see how the proposed fund can deal with the gap which now exists in the ARDA program.
Hon. members are familiar with the ARDA legislation which was amended this session. They are equally familiar with the program which has come into effect across Canada since the act was unanimously approved by parliament on June 21, 1961. Before proceeding further I should like to give appropriate recognition to the part played by the minister of agriculture of the day, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), because I believe that ARDA is one of the most useful and well conceived pieces of legislation on the Canadian statute books.

May 10. 1966
Rural Development
During the two and a half year initial pilot period under the first federal-provincial general ARDA agreement, some 735 projects involving alternate uses of land, soil and water conservation, research and community development were put into effect. These involved a federal commitment of approximately $35 million. Since the termination of the first general agreement nearly a year ago, the program has been continued and intensified under the federal-provincial rural development agreement.
There is reason, 1 believe, for great satisfaction in the way in which the ARDA program has developed. Many hundreds of worth-while projects have unquestionably improved the environment and circumstances of rural people, and many programs by other agencies, both public and private, have been modified in some degree because of ARDA to accommodate more closely to the realities of the modern rural situation. In short, ARDA has accomplished much both directly and indirectly.
However, it is now possible for ARDA to accomplish more. Many, perhaps most of the ARDA projects to date represent an intensification of alternate land use and farm adjustment programs which had been in effect previously. It is understandable that ARDA did not concentrate on more comprehensive projects because both the provinces and the federal government required time to do physical, social and economic research in considerable depth, to develop staff, to plan rural development programs and to establish ARDA within their system of priorities.
Certain facts have become apparent as the ARDA program progressed. First, it became obvious at a fairly early stage of the program that the problem of low incomes in rural Canada could not be solved within the agricultural sector alone. Even if all the low income farms could be enlarged, improved or consolidated, there would still remain a considerable problem of rural low income. Second, it became equally apparent that some rural regions were so hamstrung by poverty, lack of social capital and poor educational opportunity that no ordinary program of resource adjustment and rural manpower development could hope to greatly improve their situation in a reasonable time. It is this latter fact which impelled this government to take the special approaches which are implicit in the bill before the house today.

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Before discussing the more particular problems of the rural areas which are relevant to Bill C-151, I will refresh the memory of the hon. members by repeating certain statistics on poverty which were assembled by ARDA and published in various combinations during the past several years. Mr. Speaker, I have two pages of tables which I should like to have tabled, without reading them, by unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister simply wish to table these documents or is he requesting that they be printed as part of Hansard?


Maurice Sauvé: I should like to have them printed as part of the text of my speech, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to above are as follows:]
Table I-Some Indicators of Rural Poverty in Canada by Province
Percentage of Percentage all farm of rural families that non-farm
	have "low	families
	incomes'""	with annual income be-
Province		low $3,000
	%	%
Newfoundland Prince Edward	32	69Island	36	58Nova Scotia	32	53New Brunswick	33	55Atlantic Region	33	58Quebec	29	48Ontario	16	31Manitoba	25	48Saskatchewan	21	48Alberta	19	39British Columbia	15	29Western Region	20	38Canada	22	43Absolute total	families	familiesfor Canada	95,410	294,349
a>
A "low income" farm family is one whose farm has a total capital value of less than $25,000, gross sales of agricultural products of less than $2,500 a year and off-farm work by the operator of less than 25 days a year.
May 10, 1966

Percentage of rural population of school age or over,
	Percentage of	but not
	male rural	attending
	non-farm	school, whose
	wage-earners	highest grade
	earning under attended is	
	$2,000 a year	Grade 8
Province		or less
	%	%
Newfoundland Prince Edward	53	72Island	52	58Nova Scotia	40	58New Brunswick	48	72Atlantic Region	45	63Quebec	40	77Ontario	24	59Manitoba	31	64Saskatchewan	33	61Alberta	26	57British Columbia	19	46Western Region	24	56Canada	32	64Absolute total	men	peoplefor Canada	203,666 :	2,078,591


Maurice Sauvé: These figures were, of course, based on the census of 1961. However, it would be optimistic to assume that the absolute figures have altered substantially for the better. Children in many rural regions still grow up with few opportunities, and the great technological revolution in agriculture and the other primary industries has by no means run its course.

I would like to explain, briefly, Mr. Speaker, what those statistics mean when they are taken out of the cold generalities formulated by the statistician.
Those statistics show that, in rural areas, half a million families live in poverty, that is over 2 million Canadians.
I am calling on some remarks included in the report of a study made recently for ARDA by the Canadian Welfare Council. Those statistics show the existence of poverty that is not due to a moral failure but to a lack of possibilities and outlets in rural areas.
One could find that out easily by reading the 200 pages of the report of the Canadian
Rural Development
Welfare Council and several members have already done so. That document outlines the life of 300 Canadian families whose members are for the most part honest and very hardworking people. A thousand similar reports could be prepared without giving the full picture of the situation of those unhappy people who fight to survive in our society where affluence prevails in general.


David Réal Caouette: Hear, hear.


Maurice Sauvé: How is it then that those people are reduced to almost total helplessness in a society which is well organized and generally effective?


David Réal Caouette: But badly organized.


Maurice Sauvé: Why are so many people in rural areas living in poverty? I do not think that is because of character deficiencies or lack of personal initiative. It is due rather to the lack of a rational and organized way of dealing with the present potentialities in rural areas.


David Réal Caouette: Especially the pocketbook.


Maurice Sauvé: The federal program called ARDA can and wants to support the provincial efforts aimed at solving problems of that kind throughout Canada. A great deal of progress has already been made.
It would be tragic, however, if Canada acted too late and did too little to really succeed in bringing a higher standard of living to the rural population. Most important human values are concerned. Such values are not only the obvious and negative aspects of human misery.
If we, that is all the other Canadians, walk the other way, feeling that it is not our responsibility to organize our society in order to serve the have-nots among us, our lack of interest will have repercussions on the vitality of our society. If we cannot do it, what can we really expect?
There is another side to the question which we cannot forget. It is true that the country's production and consumption potential shows, at the present time, a heavy decline because hundreds of rural areas are at a standstill, underdeveloped and underproductive. That potential could certainly be evaluated at several billion dollars.

The statistics on rural poverty which have been assembled and published in map form

At the provincial and federal levels of government co-operation is essential among the numerous agencies which have a role to play in the comprehensive development program, and I am most pleased to note that co-operation among the various government agencies is improving constantly as each agency more clearly perceives its role and the role of other agencies. I may state my conviction that one of ARDA's most significant contributions to rural development has been that ARDA has provided a sort of reference point for the planning of many private and public agencies. This has resulted in a breadth of view and a degree of co-operation which had previously been in some degree lacking.

In Quebec, the pilot-area for ARDA development extends east of Riviere-du-Loup along the south shore of the St. Lawrence. It includes the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdelen Islands. Its 16,000 square mile territory offers limited resources to the 325,000 inhabitants scattered in some 250 communities located mostly along the coast.
The area is far less urbanized that most of the other parts of the country. In 1961, its agricultural population was 83,000 and the non-agricultural rural population numbered 130,000. Approximately 38 per cent of the active population found employment in the lumber industry, agriculture, fishing or mining, that proportion being two and a half times greater than the figure for Quebec as a whole. Only 17 per cent worked in secondary industries, as compared with 28 per cent for the whole province.
The per capita income was lower in the pilot-area than in the rest of the province, namely $700 per annum as compared to $1,206 per annum. Almost a third of all income of any kind came from transfers from the federal or the provincial governments. These payments, totalling $83 million, equalled the total value of goods manufactured in the area. Unemployment often reached up to 35 per cent of the population during six months of the year.
It was obvious that such a situation cannot be tolerated in an affluent society. Accordingly, the Quebec government set up in the area, thanks to considerable financial assistance from the federal government, a research and social stimulation program under the terms of ARDA.
Rural Development
As a result of intensive work over a period of three years, the Quebec government is now able to launch a vast overall program of rural readaptation and development.
These three years of work clearly show that the inhabitants of the region can react most dynamically when the occasion arises. During the winter of 1964-65, 5,000 of them took courses to qualify for grades 7, 8 and 9.
In view of this, it would be intolerable to allow this enormous economic and social waste to continue through a laissez-faire attitude on the part of the government. The fund for rural economic development, which is to be established by Bill No. C-151, now before the house, is the answer of the federal government to this sort of situation. I believe the Quebec government will soon present a detailed plan which will help us to make proper use of the fund in this vast pilot-area suffering from such economic imbalance.
fEnglish]
To conclude the examples of regions in which the fund is applicable, I will turn to the ARDA pilot region in New Brunswick. This region, located south of the Bay of Chaleur, comprises 3,350 square miles and in 1961 had a population of 106,000. A little more than three-quarters of the people are Acadians. This region differs from most other parts of Canada in that its rural non-farm population is rising. While the rural non-farm population of Canada as a whole dropped to 19 per cent during the 1950's, the rural non-farm population in this region rose from 46 per cent in 1951 to 61 per cent in 1961. In Canada as a whole, rural farm and rural non-farm people represent 30 per cent of the total population. In this region they represent 70 per cent. The income per family is about one third of the Canadian average. Unemployment varies from 6 per cent in summer to 30 per cent in winter.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The educational situation reflects the economic situation. In 1961, 15 per cent of the labour force of the area had no schooling. In Canada as a whole the figure is 5 per cent. Less than one third of the whole labour force had achieved a grade four education. Less than one third of the young people of 15 to 19 years were in school. One quarter of the teachers of the region have not gone beyond grade nine. I hope that hon. members will consider this last statement carefully. Imagine how an intelligent, eager child must surely and quickly lapse into frustration and

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
apathy when forced to accept the poor quality of instruction which an uneducated teacher, however well-intentioned, is able to impart. It is like trying to grow plants without water and sunshine. If hon. members saw the television program "Inquiry" a year and a half ago, which made a report on this region, they must have been shocked at the terrible situation of the families living in this area.

There is no need to say more. Only by large capital investments, by a new, careful and general land redistribution and by other measures strong enough to change the way of life of each community, can we hope to end the poverty of these Canadians. In this region, as in others I have mentioned, ARDA teams-which are groups of experts in economic and social development-are deciding on plans of action. The special fund provided for by Bill No. C-151 is indispensable for these programs; it will bring an economic impetus which will counter the social and economic stagnation now holding back thousands of our rural people and preventing Canadians from making the contribution they might if they had the opportunity.
It is essential to assert that the government does not want the fund to be used in the form of transfers. The fund will not serve as a disguised social welfare program nor as a program whose sole objective would be to give work to the unemployed. It will not be used to support the economy in areas having unsufficient resources to ever be able to provide a reasonable income to its citizens. The fund will be used to develop promising resources and provide other opportunities for resourceful people. Because it is concentrated on relatively small areas whose needs are great and whose economic potential is adequate, instead of being diluted right across the country, the fund should give impressive results over a few years. By this I mean that we can expect to see these areas work much better socially in about ten years and much more rationally from the economic standpoint.
I must say that in planning the creation and the application of the fund, we have considered similar plans developed in the United States and in Europe and taken advantage of their experience; we have developed our programs after consulting all the provinces of Canada and with their consent.
[Mr. Sauvfe.l

Our intention under ARDA is not simply to adopt a welfare approach, which alleviates problems but does not solve them. Rather our practice will be to gather the facts, to evolve a strategy of development. On the basis of a plan for the most rational form of development and adjustment the programs are carried forward in a co-ordinated and planned way. ARDA seeks always to achieve the best possible combination of public investment and participation by the local people. ARDA seeks the most efficient investment for basic improvement of the region's capacity to provide a sound base for the economy. There is no thought of making transfer payments or creating employment by artificial means. Investments are selected and priority is given to projects which will achieve the maximum effect within the human resources and financial resources which are available.
The special fund for rural economic development will be employed to finance development and adjustment programs which cannot be financed by other public programs, whether federal, provincial or joint programs, including the normal ARDA program. The fund will be applied on the basis of joint agreements with the provinces which will set forth the strategy for development of the area and will outline the development program and the arrangements to carry it out. Provinces in the process of developing plans for application of the fund include Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The approach now being considered offers promise of greatly improving the situation in certain low income rural regions of Canada. It is doubtful that any other program approach could succeed within a reasonable time. The fund for rural economic development will be administered by the rural development administration of the Department of Forestry, which also administers the ARDA program. The fund is intended to finance certain rural development projects and programs under comprehensive rural development plans for certain problem areas. The fund will be employed to implement such plans in special rural development areas which are rural areas that warrant a comprehensive, co-ordinated approach to economic and social development because they are subject to widespread low income and have major adjustment problems but have recognized developmental potentials.
May 10, 1966

The comprehensive rural development plans for these areas under this act will be implemented through agreements with the provinces. These agreements, as authorized by the act, will allow the federal government to undertake directly parts of the approved comprehensive special rural development area program, or to undertake parts of one program while the province undertakes other parts, or to share the costs of projects and programs undertaken by the province.
A proposed comprehensive rural development program will involve the following steps: (a) the undertaking of the necessary studies and research to determine the main development and adjustment problems of the area, and its potential; (b) it requires the involvement of local people through the establishment of rural development committees who will take part in the planning process; (c) it then requires the preparation of comprehensive rural development plans for the area, and (d) the implementation of the projects and programs in the plan to increase income and employment and to raise standards of living for the people of the area.
The joint federal-provincial agreements under the act will set forth a general strategy to develop the area and the programs and projects which will be implemented. They will set down the role of each level of government in implementing the plan.
The kinds of development projects and programs that may be implemented are not restricted. However, those projects and programs which may be carried out by existing federal and provincial agencies will be carried out by them.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is proposed that in those projects to be carried out by the provinces the federal cost-sharing will vary, depending on the priority allotted to the project or program in the over-all plan.
It is proposed that the projects and programs under the plan will be of the three types:
1.	Projects allowed for under the general ARDA program. Moneys from the fund may be employed to increase the federal financial contribution for some of these projects under the comprehensive plans.
2.	Other federal and provincial programs which will be financed in the normal on-going way.
3.	Major developmental projects under the plan which are specifically required for these
Rural Development
areas, and the federal participation in which will be financed entirely from the fund.
The federal government will retain considerable initiative in a number of ways:
1.	The federal government will participate in the research and studies.
2.	Direct federal programs will be required to implement some parts of the plan.
3.	The federal government will jointly participate only in those parts of the program which are believed to be in the national interest, and the priority attached to them will be expressed in the degree of federal participation.
The advisory board provided for under the act has a particularly important function. Since the plan will propose direct participation or direct action by federal agencies, and will propose joint projects which are in the fields of interest of a number of federal agencies and departments, it is essential that the officers of these agencies be actively involved at the senior level. The board will assure that interdepartmental co-ordination is achieved to implement the plans, and that a number of federal departments are actively engaged. It will help assure the required mix and balance and integration of the various programs.
No simple, single unco-ordinated program approach will prove effective. The board will not only assure co-ordination but will assure program input at a senior level in the federal administration. The active participation of the people affected will be promoted at the regional level. The act permits and provides a framework for joint federal-provincial planning and program implementation to tackle directly the difficult problems of these low income rural areas.
The effective co-ordination of the programs of a number of provincial and federal agencies and departments involves rather complex administrative and organizational problems, but we believe that this act provides a program framework within which this can be done effectively.
From what I have said hon. members can see that the fund for rural economic development is an important weapon in our arsenal against rural poverty. It is a tool which provides what has been previously missing, a method of framing comprehensive development plans for the regions of Canada which most need help. This proposal provides a vital means to an urgently necessary end. It is a

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
proposal that deserves the support of all hon. members of the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak on behalf of all the members in all parties on this side of the house when I thank the minister for giving us not only the general aims and objectives of this legislation but also for being courteous enough to tell us something about what has been done in detail. I think what the minister has done today could be an example for other ministers in the government. By giving us a statement that has been clear, comprehensive and non-partisan he has provided us with an opportunity to discuss the subject in the manner in which it should be discussed. I do not believe there is any question but that there is no place for partisanship in a discussion of a subject like poverty, whether it be at the rural level or the urban level.
The problem that affects the industrialized nations of the world, where the wealth of those who are doing well increases steadily, is that you have in the midst of this affluence a body of poor in the cities and rural areas who do not seem to be able to take advantage of the updraft in the economy. If they are left too long in this environment they simply begin to think it is a way of life. Then you have a deep sociological problem which cannot be resolved by government action. It is a question of changing the attitude of the people concerned.
Having said these things and realizing, I think, that the minister is emotionally involved with these people, I think the job of the members of the opposition should be to discuss this legislation in principle, conveying the ideas that we believe are worthy of commendation to the house as well as pointing out what might be improvements. First of all, this legislation, when enacted by parliament, creates a fund which is to be administered by the minister and an advisory board and upon which special areas of this country will be able to draw for special projects. This measure will be placed alongside the ARDA program. In my judgment it gives some chance to control the expenditure of money for this particular type of development in special areas.
I think this principle is good. It allows those who have control of the finances of our country to establish more clearly what the criteria of the program are and to assess if the money is being well spent rather than have moneys provided for an overall ARDA
[Mr. Sauv6J
program. In order to refresh the memories of hon. members as to the purpose of ARDA, I may say it was set up originally with three purposes in mind. The first was land use. Land use programs really can only be carried out by government. They are strictly a federal or provincial government operation.
The second purpose of ARDA was the conservation of land and water. This is a physical task which, once again, is usually beyond the financial and physical capabilities of the individual farmer. This too will be largely a government operation.
The third purpose of ARDA was rural development. In this regard you muster all the human resources of the area, not only those who are not doing too well but the business and professional people. The government services available bring all these human resources together in a joint effort to try to lift the income level of the area. It is under this section of ARDA that this particular bill applies. Under the bill a fund of $50 million is to be established upon which the minister and his advisory board can call to help in those areas which are designated as special areas.
The minister has described three special areas in Canada. One is the Interlake area of Manitoba. The second is the lower St. Lawrence on the south side, including the Magdalen Islands, while the third area is in northern New Brunswick. In his statement the minister mentioned the C.B.C. program concerning one of these counties in northern New Brunswick. I watched that show and listened to it. I do not believe you can say anything else but that no nation can stand idly by and allow a situation like that to continue. These are essentially sound, moral people, but you could tell from their conversation that their faith in themselves and their hope for the future had almost disappeared. They did not know what to do. This program will enable us to bring them help.
There was another program in the same series dealing with a county near Ottawa. The difference between these two counties was clearcut. I believe the county in New Brunswick was Gloucester. The people of the county in Ontario had not lost faith. They were struggling to stay off relief. They believed in their land and believed that their country would produce a way of life for them. They were ready and willing to take on any challenge they were given. A county like this could be easily made into a pilot project under ARDA because here you have the
May 10. 1966

human resources ready and willing to take the risks and to work. The people have a reputation for great mental capacity, as the evidence concerning schools shows. They have the reputation for being hard workers. But above all they have the reputation for having a moral fibre unmatched in any other part of the world. When you go through the spectrum from the extreme case at one end to cases at the other end not too difficult to rehabilitate, I suggest that in between there are many cases of need.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have gone into this background in the hope that the remarks I am now going to make will be considered by the minister in a constructive fashion.
The first point I want to make has already been made to the minister by me in the house and it deals with the question of constitutional responsibility. Under the present constitution agriculture is a joint responsibility. The federal government can do anything it wants under the constitution in relation to agriculture in any province. The provincial government can do anything it wants within its own province. There is complete power for both governments to do anything they want.
However, when you begin to look at the needs of the people in these lower income areas you soon find you cannot redevelop these areas unless you use all of the resources such as the forests, the fish, industry and recreation, and these particular functions are outside the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. For half a century we have had to stand by and watch the relative lowering of incomes in these areas because of the excuse that the federal government had no responsibility in that field. In many cases the provinces felt that they did not have the financial capacity.
The great feature of ARDA, Mr. Speaker, was that we enabled every province without exception to agree that because of the great need of these people we could forget in this particular legislation any thought about the favourite tool of the partisan politician, which is quarrelling over the constitution. In this particular legislation there were no party differences. In this legislation there were no provincial rights or federal or centralized rights advocates. We were Canadians trying to help the people who needed help. If this concept is clearly in the mind of the minister, then I have no fear for the future. I think he
Rural Development
grasped the warning I gave him some months ago.
With regard to the activities of ARDA I have noticed that over and over again the minister has repeated that nothing will be done by the federal government unless they receive a recommendation from the province. I stated in the house that this practice was making him the most centralist minister the country had ever known. I did not make this accusation to bother the minister politically. I was simply pointing out that when you are working with the provinces and trying to solve problems which require the use of their sovereign fields of jurisdiction or those of the federal government, then you must have great flexibility.
For example, if the province of Quebec wants to take government action under this legislation-call it socialism if you like-then let them be; that is not our concern. Our task is to get the job done. If the province of Manitoba wants to use the uplifting force of private enterprise to achieve the same objective of raising income, then let them be.
In other words, what I was complaining about at that time was this. I know from long experience in dealing with organizations like Treasury Board, committees of cabinet and committees of civil servants that those bodies all try to put their own imprint on any proposed legislation. If any way can be found to delay a good program until every shoe lace has been tied they will find it, because they are the experts.
The minister will need to take a firm hand in administering the ARDA legislation to see that no group in Ottawa, be they advisory board, committee, Treasury Board or otherwise, breaks the minister's will to make certain that the job is done. That is the first point I want to raise.
My second point is very important and must be raised now. It is becoming very clear to me, as the federal government now moves from the stage where it provides money to carry out planning operations for 2,000 projects across the country, that sometimes the planning involved is purely federal and sometimes a study is jointly supported by both federal and provincial governments. With all these studies pouring into the minister's department the time for action has now come.
This is the significance of this bill. A fund is being created to handle those special areas where it is clearly indicated that something has to be done on a mass, comprehensive

May 10, 1965
Rural Development
basis rather than on an individual, small locality basis.
What is my proposal? My proposal is that we have to have some type of federally operated agency to carry out the purposes of ARDA, and ARDA includes this special area of rural development. I should like to suggest a name for this agency which we now need and which should be in existence. The minister may change it if he likes, but I would suggest it be called the national land and water services agency. My reason for naming it in that way will become clear as I speak.
In 1934 we set up in Canada an agency under what is known as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. As one of those who survived the dust storms of the thirties I look back over the period of nearly 30 years and see what has been accomplished by P.F.R.A., mainly in the southern part of the three prairie provinces, and I have to ask myself why this was not also accomplished in all of Canada.
There are good, consitutional reasons why it was not done. However, now that every single government accepts that the ARDA legislation goes beyond the constitution, I would suggest that if the minister would work out in collaboration with P.F.R.A. the machinery which would have to be set up, the type of administration which would have to be applied and the rules applicable thereto, a bill could then be brought into the house to set up such an organization. I have suggested a name for it which represents what I think the government will find it will have to take part in. If you are going to have land use measures put into effect as a joint proposition between t he federal government and the provinces, then some agency will be required to carry them out. If you are going to carry out conservation of land and water some sort of agency will be required to administer the program, particularly in these rural development areas.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
To increase incomes in these areas you have to do things such as draining the muskeg, building dams or half a dozen other things that come to mind which will increase income. Then you have the job of scrambling around trying to find someone to carry out such a program, someone who can assess the cost for you. You need an advisory board to tell you what it should cost. This is one of the proper functions of P.F.R.A. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is faced with the

proposition of doing something of a physical nature, he needs the P.F.R.A. engineers to provide him with an estimate of the cost. Sometimes this is not done by the federal government. The province may do it but the federal government may have some agency that can advise.
The point I want to leave with the minister is that over and over again the provincial governments do not have the machinery for this sort of thing. Why should a province like Manitoba maintain the expensive machinery of P.F.R.A. to handle redevelopment programs? They are glad to turn that sort of thing over to P.F.R.A., sometimes paying part of the cost themselves. When farmers build dugouts, they have them inspected by officials from P.F.R.A., and that is all. But we should have an agency that checks on government expenditures, developments, land use and conservation.
Sir, I should like to propose here a national land and water services agency which would carry out purely federal operations not only relating to ARDA but to other departments as well. It would carry out co-operative programs between the provinces and the federal government. Obviously it would have to work with all departments and not just with ARDA.
Such an agency could assist those provincial governments which do not want to maintain the necessary large staff with skilled people to carry out operations of the sort I have mentioned. For instance, in the case of a dam it takes years to build a staff to plan and construct the dam. Once the dam is finished, the staff are thrown out of work. But if you had a national agency employing such people they could be moved around. A province would not need to ask for help because such services would be officially provided. Under such an organization any work of this kind could be better and more efficiently undertaken.
Next I want to deal with the question of the advisory board. On reading the bill I was a little disturbed about the advisory board. I will not discuss the bill in detail at this stage but just put my thoughts before the house in a general way.
My first reason for being disturbed is that there is something lacking in the bill. It does not show any indication of awareness on the part of those who drafted the bill that ARDA is subservient to and always must be subservient to the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers. I think I have told the minister
May 10, 1966

privately, and if I have not told him publicly I do so now, that the ARDA legislation agreement with all ten provinces was more than just a written document. It was the work of two federal ministers sitting in this house at the present time. I refer to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and myself. We gave our word that ARDA, being a device primarily to raise the income of agricultural areas, would always be under the over-all umbrella of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers which is, under the very sophisticated reasons behind its establishment, responsible to the two levels of government to see that there is no overlapping of functions between federal and provincial governments as well the minimum possible clash in the proposed use of land, water and air. If I am incorrect in this assessment I know that my colleague from Brandon-Souris will correct me.
I remember the provincial ministers who attended that meeting in the office of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources agreeing that if it was the solemn pledge of the federal government that ARDA was not a way of imposing the federal government's authority in agriculture upon the provincial jurisdiction, they would go along with it. They recognized that there are other types of uses for land besides agricultural uses and that it would not do to work so hard to redevelop agriculture as to affect unfavourably forestry, recreation or wild life interests.
That is an understanding which was not written into the legislation but was to be honoured and passed on from one government to another. I am disturbed about this advisory board. I am disturbed that there is no mention that the viewpoints and decisions of the advisory board and the minister with regard to special areas will be passed on to the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers. Perhaps it is not necessary to put that into the bill but perhaps it is necessary to state it publicly. It is important to reassure the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers that we look on them as the over-all resource body covering fisheries ministeries both federal and provincial forestry ministries both federal and provincial, and all the various ministers. This body must be the umbrella under which we all operate.
The terms of the bill I will not refer to in detail but they can be read in this framework. The bill does not mention the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers. If one reads the bill carefully it seems to suggest that the
Rural Development
special areas fund has been put into a secondary position. For instance, if any other agency can do a job the proposed agency in the bill must back away from the job. It seems to have the power to veto decisions of the minister and the board. I am not going to say any more about that. I think I can say what I have to say more precisely when discussing the details in committee.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by making some general comments. The minister was good enough to give us a description of what has been happening in the Interlake region of Manitoba, in northern New Brunswick, in the Gaspe and elsewhere. I have only looked at the report dealing with the Interlake area. It was a good report and well worth the money spent on it. However, I am sure the Minister of Forestry has spotted as I did that the potential of forestry for lifting up the incomes of these rural people has been overlooked.
I expressed this view privately to my friends in Manitoba. You always have to watch these prairie governments. They are so concerned about traditional agriculture that it is difficult to get them to look beyond that furrow and realize there is money in trees. This must be done and this is where the task of the minister comes in.
I have not been able to read the other reports. However, at this time I should like to pay a small tribute to Mr. Hutton, the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba. I served under Mr. Hutton for a number of years. I do not think any minister of agriculture in any province would mind my saying that I have never met a minister more dedicated, more outspoken on behalf of farmers, or who tried harder to get them to raise their incomes by doing new things, than Mr. Hutton. He has decided to leave his high position in public life and go into the pulpit as a minister. I could not let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to a man who has done great work not only for Manitoba farmers but for farmers all across this country.
Another suggestion I wish to make is one that is going to be very difficult to work out. In deciding how much money should go into various operations there is the power under ARDA, and I believe under this legislation, to use the basis of need. I think hon. members understand what I mean. You do not take the number of people living in an area and say that help to them will work out at so many dollars per head. You take their need for

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
help, into consideration. Whether the money goes to the interlake area or northern New Brunswick is not our concern. I do think that if there were discussions between the various ministers across the country, they would support the concept, if is is left up to them, of allocating the money on the basis of need.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There is a clause in the bill which says that the advisory board must meet at least once a year. I hope that was not put in for any real purpose. If there is a year's delay in waiting for the board to meet and give its commitment to any program that has been worked out, this will hold up arrangements much more than the present set-up. During the next 10, 15 or 20 years the advisory board will have to meet frequently because nothing is so frustrating to local groups who produce an idea and get the approval of the province and the minister's office than to have to wait months for the advisory board to meet. Local people must see action. They are not as patient as civil servants trained to wait for decisions.
These are small points but I wanted to make them. I was very glad to hear the minister say that he will not use this legislation for social welfare or for the relief of unemployment. These are not the purposes of ARDA. These are not the purposes of rural development. Leave relief and work on dams and roads to other local, provincial and federal programs. Do not spoil long-range legislation designed to build permanently the income capacity of areas. If these other things are mixed up in it they will kill the long-range program.
The minister is quite right that this is not a transfer payment type of legislation. This is social capital by way of investment that will be returned in higher incomes and a better standard of living for the people of Canada. If that purpose is maintained then this legislation is good.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we have a debate on a subject as important as ARDA and the complementary program outlined in this bill. The minister's introductory remarks were non-partisan, obviously reflecting the thinking of the farm population and those involved in social service fields. The problem is serious enough to warrant non-partisan consideration and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) indicated his agreement with this approach.

It is always a pleasure for me to listen to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, a former Conservative minister of agriculture, when he speaks about the ARDA program, because it is one in which his party is really able to take pride as being a completely new approach on a long-term basis to problems of people in all fields connected with the rural areas of our country. The ARDA approach is one that can be supported by people living in the rural environment and those in the urban communities. If the establishment of a manpower department has any vision such as that associated with ARDA, it will create a brighter picture for people in urban centres.
I wish to make several criticisms of the legislation before us. The minister gave no good reason for introducing this regional type of program rather than incorporating it under the ARDA program which already has regional divisions and makes allowance for the development of the type of program outlined today by the minister. It may be that the reason which the minister will eventually give will be that in the regional program the federal government will carry out projects in those areas of Canada where the need is greatest without necessarily having the support of provincial governments. If that were so then there would be some reason for making these two divisions, because in the case of the first there must be co-operation federally and provincially. But if the minister does not give this as the reason, then I feel we are going to have a duplication of staff and an increase in bureaucracy resulting in people tending to say: After you, Alphonse, it is not in my department.
If the minister wants to see an example of this he has only to look at the Department of Industry and its many branches covering regional development in the electrical field, the aircraft field and other industrial fields, each one a bureaucracy unto itself and with the minister not knowing what they are doing. With such diversification the stage is reached when everybody can pass the buck to somebody else without anybody doing anything about it. This is a criticism which is also made by farm organizations and, after all, an amount of $50 million is not so large to incorporate within the ARDA program where administrative machinery already exists.
I am not familiar with all the areas which the minister has selected. I have been in the Interlake area of Manitoba and agree with the comments the minister has made about it. The majority of the people there have a gross
May 10. 1966



annual return of less than $5,000 from the sale of their produce. More than 40 per cent of them sell less than $1,200 worth of produce annually and they certainly are in dire need.
I believe the south shore of the St. Lawrence is the minister's own area and I presume one reason it is being given immediate attention is his complete knowledge of the people and conditions in that area. The minister mentioned the Magdalen Islands and the Gaspe area where conditions are the same, and that area does need assistance.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Incidentally the minister will have a great deal of difficulty in my opinion in developing a program in much of that area which will provide a solution to the problems of the people there because the problems they face involve the distance of the farms, even if they are economic, from the market and also the ability of the soil to produce diversified farm products. There is also the fact that educational standards in this area, as in many agricultural areas, are far below the national level and certainly much below the requirements which we believe are necessary for agricultural communities if they are to develop and place themselves on a firm base.
This raises the second point, Mr. Speaker, the matter of education. In Canada we find that our rural population is not in a good position to attain a reasonable or decent standard of living. So far as the agricultural population of Canada is concerned, educational standards are far below what is desirable and really needed for agricultural purposes. In my own riding we have a compact agricultural area in the little clay belt and I know that education in this rural area is almost nil. It is true that the children go to urban schools now and receive a fairly good education in a general sense, but not in the sense of equipping them to operate a farm. In order to be economic, a farm today has to be in the production range of $40,000 to $100,000. The type of education required to keep the books for this kind of unit, to make the necessary purchases and do the marketing, is not available.
It is quite true that the agricultural college at Guelph and some of the other agricultural schools throughout the province have provided limited leadership training for some of the farm people, but most of the young farmers have neither the money nor the time to leave home to obtain the type of education they
Rural Development
need. I think the minister will have to consider the whole problem of education because it is high time we recognized the fact that it is no longer sufficient just to have a pair of overalls and get up at six o'clock in the morning and go to bed at ten o'clock at night after working all that time in order to be able to make a living. Farmers do that now and do not make a living. There are many people who are working as hard as they can and are giving of their best in an effort to make a success of their farm operation but are not able to do so simply because they have not had the education.
In order to farm well and make a reasonable income a great deal more training is necessary in many fields than has been given. I know this is a fact. When I am at the farm at New Liskeard which my father and brother operate I see my father sitting at his desk drawing pictures of cattle for registration purposes, working out his record of milk production, deciding whether or not he got beaten on the surplus milk price in relation to his quota for fluid milk or deciding how best to take advantage of the income tax structure of the federal government about this time of the year.


An hon. Member:: Or reading Hansard.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think he has time to read Hansard. I believe that 25 years ago this type of work was not necessary. Most farmers got along quite well if they had sufficient products to sell so that they were able to pay their debts at the rural store. If they were able to break even, they were all right; if not, they had to do a little better. If they went in the hole, the bank manager told them about it. Today, even with the very large loans provided and the other facilities available, they are in serious trouble.
I think one of the main problems of the farmers is their inability to duplicate what has been done in the field of industrial development in this country through retraining and technical training to qualify people for specific jobs in industry. We have failed to do this in the agricultural field. Innovations are being practised by farmers which, had the proper education been available, they would know had been tried and had been found unsuccessful.
As I have said many times, the ARDA program really represents the future for agriculture in Canada. It also is the future for a number of other aspects of our renewable resources. It can really provide the future for

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
our forestry industry; it can provide the future for our recreation and tourist industry, and it certainly can provide the basis of a better future for Canadians to come. In all aspects ARDA will be operating in the renewable resource area. Any education now will provide opportunities for Canadians for many generations to come. If we act in a responsible manner the result will be evident for generations. I would not say for all time because it is hard to say what eventually will happen, but certainly in the foreseeable future much can be done.
The minister has indicated three areas in particular which are to be covered immediately under this program. I have no objection to the three areas he has chosen but I am quite sure every member in this house would be able to stand up and name other areas. I should like to know from the minister, however, what preliminary work has been done by the officials of ARDA which warranted the selection of these three areas. In selecting an area to come under this program I would think one would have to be assured that there was a possibility of changing its environment so that it might provide an economic income for the people left in that area.
I was shocked when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) came into my area during the election campaign and made the statement that the Liberals had a program to solve the farm problem which was for the government to buy the farms, develop them and sell them back to the farmers. From watching the operation of the House of Commons I would say, God help the farmers if this should happen. If they are in bad shape now I hate to think what shape they would be in within a very short time if the administration of farms was taken over in this way.
To give an example of how bad the situation is in respect of agriculture, I notice in Votes and Proceedings that a meeting of the Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development Committee is scheduled for this afternoon at 3.30 while the house is sitting. I do not know whether the committee met but they did not have the right to sit at this time because they had not made arrangements to do so. The fact that the introduction of this ARDA legislation today had been known for several days is an indication that really much is to be desired in respect of the operation of the house, but I will not go into that.

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It does give an indication of what might happen if the government decided on an agricultural policy of buying up all farm land and selling it back to the farmers. This is an idiotic arrangement because all it would mean, if it meant anything, would be that we would have to have a sufficient number of people in the forestry department attached to the ARDA program to operate these units. Surely these people do not intend to get up as early in the morning or go to bed as late at night as the farmers must. It would be doubtful that they could do much better with the facilities available to them than the farmer can now do.
I presume the problem in the interlake area is similar to the problem in the New Brunswick area, although I am not familiar with the situation in the Gaspe or the Magdalen Islands. There must surely be large areas in the county of Gloucester, New Brunswick, as well as in the interlake area of Manitoba where there are small farming uneconomic units. It is doubtful that the farmers will be able to borrow enough money to establish economic units and pay for the extra land and equipment necessary to operate them.
The government through this policy may be able to amalgamate some of the small farming units so that the operators will be in a position to increase their earnings. It is also true that the government may be able to develop the potential of agriculture in some of these areas through reforestation rather than by developing the lands for agricultural purposes. Whatever we do in this regard must be accompanied by direction on the part of the federal government.
In relation to these possibilities the government must keep two factors in mind. There must be a sufficiently broad and comprehensive survey made of all projects to enable the government to be sure that there is a reasonable chance of success. The government must also take into consideration all the ramifications involved in moving rural people from an area which has been occupied by them for generations to urban communities. This transition must be undertaken in such a way that it will cause the least displacement of people in a social sense.
The government must take into consideration another problem which will be raised by the transfer of a segment of our population. Many individuals prefer to remain on farms
May 10. 1966

or in rural areas even though they are uneconomic and do not provide the normal luxuries of a modern society because they prefer the rural environment. If and when these people are moved from these rural areas to urban centres consideration must be given to the question whether the areas to which they are to be moved can support them with whatever government assistance is to be provided.
I remember a speech made by the then minister of agriculture when the ARDA legislation was introduced in which he referred to the Renfrew area. This area is generally rocky and non-arable. The minister suggested that it should be devoted to a reforestation program with one man working perhaps 15,000 acres until the trees had reached maturity and allowing controlled cutting on a perpetual yearly basis. He suggested that this program would probably require the moving of 15 or 20 small family farm units.
I have often wondered whether these family farm units have any desire to be moved to the outskirts of urban areas where they would be completely at a loss to cope with existing circumstances because they might often find themselves without trades or training enabling them to fit in. In many instances their educational standards would be so low that it would be difficult to train them for new jobs which they would not want and which they had not asked for but which we had decided they should be given.
Would it not be much better to move these people into a small municipality with a post office, a small general store and perhaps a gas station where they would feel more at home? Perhaps under this legislation small factories could be established to provide these displaced farmers with a means to earn a living. I am not suggesting it would be necessary to provide schools and other urban facilities, but perhaps they could be provided with small acreage holdings in order that they could have gardens and live in a semi-rural atmosphere.
If the government does not give consideration to the problems I have mentioned I suggest that many of these farming families will eventually wind up living in the slums of our metropolitan areas. Surely it would be better to provide employment for them in suburban areas where they could breathe freely and feel more at home. As I said, perhaps factories or other small industries could be built under the provisions of the ARDA legislation in order to provide these
Rural Development
people with an opportunity to make a living while at the same time enjoying the advantages of a rural environment.
I was raised on a farm myself and I have no desire to live in the city. I have no great desire to become a farmer but I do live in the country and enjoy the rural atmosphere. I think everyone who has moved from a metropolitan area to a suburban area has done so because of a basic desire to get away from the crowded conditions of cities and live in a rural atmosphere.
We must be very careful in this redevelopment that we give consideration to the feelings of the people who are going to be moved. Their co-operation can be obtained more easily and to a greater extent if the suggestion is that they be moved to a semirural environment in small communities where work can be obtained rather than to slums in urban areas in which they will feel completely out of touch.
I know that the minister is interested in the transitional problem. The amount now provided is very small. Although my arithmetic is very poor, if there are 50,000 units involved and the amount is $50 million, each family will receive about $1,000.


Arthur Laing: Perhaps you should ask the Social Credit people.


William Arnold Peters: Surely that amount of money will not be sufficient to assist these people in the way envisaged.


Arthur Laing: The Social Creditors are better at multiplication than division.


William Arnold Peters: I did not intend to cause this kind of a discussion, but I am sure the minister will agree that $50 million is not nearly sufficient to provide a solution to the problems of the three areas in question and the 250,000 people involved. The $50 million will only be enough to start the project. I am sure the minister will have no difficulty in obtaining more money when he comes back to the house because there is genuine support on all sides for this type of program.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In closing I should like to make this last comment. I hope the minister will be a centralist, which was the accusation levelled at him by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I hope the minister will keep tight control over the whole program. If there is any justification in this division, it is in the fact that the minister is able to maintain tight control over the program. There is no question that the

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
other ARDA program became a political football of some of the provincial governments. In Ontario patronage is being practised to a great extent in regard to some of the projects that have been undertaken. I am not saying this is a bad thing, particularly in relation to the cases I know about; I do not think it has really hurt the program although it has been the cause of some political deception.
I hope the minister will keep really strong control over this program and that the provinces will not be allowed to sidetrack him in the development of a program for which the federal government will have to pay. I hope the minister will keep right on top of the program. If he wants advice, assistance and co-operation from the provinces, that is fine, but the program should not be jointly administered. If we are to take over one of these areas, let us take over and make it work. If it is successful we will know we are on the right track in achieving a solution for the Canadian rural problem. In that event we will be able to extend the program into other areas. If the minister operates a co-operative program we will never be sure which is the right method to be used in extending it into other areas because we will not know which program should be operated. Let us give the program a chance. I ask the minister to keep federal control over the program. If he does this I think he will have the support of every member of the house in trying to solve what is an immediate and very serious problem.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must congratulate the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) for introducing Bill C-151 which, in conjunction with the ARDA program, will help to develop further the areas in need of help. I did not speak very long, approximately three of four minutes at the stage of the resolution because I wanted to keep what I had to say until the bill itself was introduced. It is always more interesting to speak when there is something to refer to than trying to guess what it is all about.
We will try not to keep the discussion going too long in order to vote those amounts as soon as possible. However, they should not be voted too quickly because there is an election campaign going on right now in Quebec and one knows that the province is always ready to make political hay out of such good things. Our province must not be trusted. I would not like to see a recurrence of what happened during my last election

campaign, namely ARDA money being used for political purposes.
The minister explained his bill at length and did it well. He started by telling us about poverty in rural areas and ended by saying that something had been done. Some things have been done in the last three years but a lot remains to be done, and the best tool is always money. Those are briefly the general ideas of his speech.
With regard to poverty, Mr. Speaker, if I may talk about my region, and I must do it in order to make it better known to the minister, poverty in my region has increased particularly over the last thirty years. There is no need to make a socio-economic study to discover it. I live in that region and I know it. Between 30 and 35 per cent of the farmers earned a living from farming and approximately 60 per cent of them were part-time farmers and part-time loggers. Those who lived from farming have kept on doing so. Because of higher taxes, but especially the high price of mechanization, those farmers faced with bankruptcy because they have to buy machinery much too costly in proportion to their income, leave after 15 or 20 years. Some family estates were mortgaged, whereas farm lands often valued at $50,000 and $60,000, without any mortgage, were mortgaged to the hilt 15 or 20 years later. This is what we see today. Farmers are still making a living on their farms, but less than 3 per cent of the farms are not mortgaged. That is the first problem to solve.
Farm assistance was not granted in time and that was the first mistake. The governments failed to help those farmers to modernize their farms. All government appropriations went to help other provinces. I am not blaming these other provinces, they were lucky, but we have simply been forgotten. I am not blaming the federal government, far from it, but I do blame my own province which failed to take action at the proper time and which still has not done, and I will prove it later on, what it should have in order to use ARDA.
Those farmers who depended on their farms for a living have received no assistance when they should have, and now they are faced with bankruptcy. The last three years have been particularly bad for the farmers of my riding, because of the weather, the rainmaking machine, the artificial rain. For three years in a row the farmers have not even produced enough to feed their own livestock. And, last fall, all dairy cattle herds were
May 10. 1966

reduced by 50 per cent; half the herds had to be slaughtered. The result is being felt in the whole province of Quebec. In fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) told us we would have to import butter.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
That is the reason why. Our area is productive, it is an excellent dairying region, but this year it will not be able to produce. It needs government assistance. Our farmers, with government assistance from both governments, can improve their lot, provided the governments face facts and put an end to playing politics and come to their help before they are forced to kill off their herds. That is the first reason.
There is another one, namely that the farmer does not live off agriculture, when he is half-farmer, and half-lumberjack. I lived through that period, for I am the son of a farmer. We had eight lots and yet we could not live off them. There were 16 children in the family and we could not live off the land. Such is the case with 60 per cent of our present-day farmers, especially since the last great depression. Lumbering was very easy. Father stayed home and four, five or six of his sons went to the lumber camps to get the money needed on the farm to buy tools and animals; the land was farmed a little, for the fun of it, just enough to obtain the required food. We never at that time considered making a living from the produce of the land.
What has happened, especially in the last 25 years? Lumber companies have grown modern, they were forced to do away with roughly two-thirds of their labour. Two-thirds of the lumbermen, two-thirds of these farmers' sons who used to go earn the money needed for their farms were laid off, because of mechanization, because logging was modernized. Some companies-there are four lumber companies in our area-that used to hire from 10,000 to 12,000 men hired 1,500 men this year. All those farmers' sons left the farm. They had to, naturally, because the governments, the members of parliament did not follow the march of progress. They failed to orient these farmers' sons in time. The latter were forced to quit the land; often the family head remained alone with his lots. Too old to farm them; he had to let them go. After eight, nine, ten years, unable to find a buyer, it would have cost too much to rehabilitate the land into production and he had to abandon it for lack of help from the government.
Rural Development
I feel that that is the reason why today people talk about the land having been deserted. It reminds me of the days during the depression where cities were being emptied and people sent to our farms; from that time on our area developed.
They developed those farms and, today, we have exactly the opposite. That same population is leaving to go back to the city. Why? Because when the father no longer gets unemployment insurance, he must get social assistance. He must be a tenant in the city. Note well: he has to be a tenant in the city. Formerly, to obtain social assistance, he had to go to the farm. This year, in order to get social welfare, he must be a tenant in the city because if he stays on the farm, without work, without any possibility of farming it, he will get no assistance. It is impossible for him to get any; he is told: "Go to the city, leave the farm, and then you can get help."
In the province of Quebec, 60 per cent of our farmers are in that position.
For four years now, I have been fighting in this house but I do not yet want to blame the government 100 per cent. We talk, but talk always ricochets. We try to advise the Minister of Forestry, so that when he meets our good agriculture minister in Quebec, he might make him understand what we have been harping on for four years. If the same assistance were given a family going to the city-it is expensive in the city-if the same welfare cheque were given to have it stay on the farm, that family would be much better off, because it would have a garden and keep some cattle, etc.
But no. We are doing the opposite of what was being done during the depression and we are doing the nonsensical thing, with the result that in my home town, 40 per cent of the population is getting welfare. These people come from all the small parishes because they cannot have welfare assistance at home. They give up their farms, give everything up and come to our town to try to survive.
If the amount of money we are voting today were liable to help the farmer who does not want to go into town, but who is forced by circumstances to do so, or to give him assistance that would at least help him start earning a livelihood on his land and, later on, to increase his holdings, we would have the satisfaction of knowing that we have been generous, because the minister is well aware that today, a farmer cannot live on 100 acres of land, he must increase his holdings.

May 10. 1966
Rural Development
Let us stop driving off a farmer with thirty years of experience and sending him into town to be on relief. Let us start by keeping him there for a few years, let us try to establish him, for the time being. I feel this is the worst we can do today, it is very poor tolerance. I note that the Government does not find it so. It is absolutely necessary that ARDA look to the old farm families to give them the necessary help.
I must admit that something has been done in the last three years, but in my area, particularly in Quebec, I think too much has been done-here again, I am not blaming any one, I am simply making the point to the minister-too much has been done on the study of each problem.
In other words, we have had the satisfaction of studying the percentage of our poverty and of crying over it. Even if more tears were to be shed on our poverty, this would not change anything.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It is all very well to study poverty, but others things are pressing, not only now, but they have been pressing for three years. Under ARDA, moneys have been granted-and I spoke of this before-for blueberry fields. If, at least, these subsidies had been properly organized to protect the family farm, as I was saying, instead of sending the families into town. Up to $95 were given to build blueberries fields on crown lands, uncultivated land where there was nothing at all. Yet, one of the aims of ARDA-the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) said so a while ago-is the use of cultivated lands. That is one of the aims of ARDA.
Grants were being made and it was under a provincial program; besides, I discussed the matter with the minister. It is obvious that everything cannot be controlled from here, in Ottawa, but I think the minister has a part to play; he can at least give advice. Blueberry unions were formed only with small-time friends of the party as members; they had their share of the grants and paid settlers and farmers $25, $30 or $35 and pocketed the $80.
In fact, I met the Quebec minister concerned and told him that if he could afford to give $70, he should give it to those farmers, in so far as they improved blueberry patches.
If this had been done, perhaps they could have saved 25 or 30 per cent of the land of those farmers who now live in the city on social welfare.
They boast that unemployment no longer exists. The minister has just said: "We have

33 per cent unemployment." For our part, we have 30 to 40 per cent who live on social welfare in our region. And the provincial minister tours the province boasting: "There is no more unemployment."
I tell you that those words are not quite plain. I refer to the Quebec minister when he says that there is no more unemployment.


Mr. Lachance:: The good Quebec minister.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I do not want to talk too much about him. However, the facts are there.
But ARDA money must absolutely help the farmer. Let us stop making studies, let us stop pouring everything into study groups.
I read also in the bill that an advisory board consisting of ten senior officials would be appointed. I am filled with apprehension when I see such a board consisting of ten senior officials but not one single member of the area, not one single member of the UCC Catholic Farmers' Union. It is interesting to have officials; there should be five officials and five members of the area, five members from the Catholic Farmers' Union, of the parish council that is where information should be sought. If you want to be useful, you must seek information. If you want to know the actual situation in an area, you will achieve nothing with ten men, ten bureaucrats from Ottawa; these officials know nothing of the Roberval area.
For instance, appoint in your advisory board, members of the Catholic Farmers' Union, members of the Council for Economic Orientation and of the council of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. Even the member of parliament will be able to give you good information. We are elected by the people, as you are. Why leave us aside? We are elected to work for the people. Do you think it is because we are in the opposition that we will allow anything to be done without saying a word? On the contrary. We are here to protect the interests of the people and you can be sure that we will protect them.
Now we are told that there is much to be done. There remains a great deal to do

and I want to close on this thought-to save the family farm.
I hope the minister is not in favour of the principle of the community farms, because I would not agree at all.
He has succeeded in trying out this system of community farms, but we are now coming back to family farms. A direction must be given to save the family farm; the family lot
May 10, 1966

must be enlarged. This is essential, because the basic principle of agriculture in the province of Quebec is the family farm.
I heard a good minister, in Quebec if you please, 100 per cent socialist, Mr. Rene Levesque, say that the state had to take control of everything and that it was the end of private enterprise.
I am completely against that. I submit it is private enterprise that built up the country and that will develop it; it is through it that we will prosper. As long as we have socialist ideas, we will have the same headaches as today and I think the province of Quebec will not be rid of them soon, administrated as it is by all those socialists.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the tool mentioned by the minister, that is, the $50 million we will vote, will really help economic development. The objective of ARDA, when established, was first the use of farmlands, then draining and water preservation, and then rural development. This bill concerns particularly the third objective of ARDA, but the second and especially the first, which is the use of farmlands, should not be forgotten. The point is not to develop crown lands in the wilderness.
The point is to save the 45 per cent of unused land. Today, someone spoke, of buying back uneconomic land. I think the idea is wonderful, but it would have to be put into practice, for I do not know, at least in my region, whether a farmer was paid for his land. I myself asked the provincial agronomist that redistribution of land be arranged, for example in the case of someone who would be willing to sell his lot to increase that of his neighbour by giving him some 300 or 400 acres. But I do not know whether it is ARDA which is at fault or whether the scheme was born out of other circumstances. The idea was to help the farmer, and particularly the farmer's son, to acquire land. There are farmers' sons who are only waiting for that today.
Obviously, a father with eight or ten children cannot buy them three lots each.
The government must help him, not by a loan but by material assistance. I do not say it must give him everything. Let the farmer keep certain obligations but let the government help him halfway, so that he can begin to operate his farm economically.
Convinced as they are, people in our district can see these ills nowadays; they can lay their finger on it. They know they must go
Rural Development
back to the land, that things must change. And this change will not take place without the farmer, first and foremost, and the help of the government. It will not come about by the government fighting the farmer. It will occur when the farmer takes the first step, with the help of the federal government and the provinces, toward complete possession of a farm that will be forever his.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make lengthy remarks on this proposal. No doubt as we enter into a discussion of the various clauses there will be comments and questions which will arise. At this time I do want to state the support of the Social Credit party for the particular measure before us now. I regret very much that I was not privileged to be in the house when the minister made his introductory address. As all of us know, many of us are supposed to be in two or three places at the same time, and because of that factor I was unable to remain in the house. I understand that the minister made a very comprehensive statement about the background and possibilities of the ARDA program in relation to rural development, and I know that as this program is carried through it will have increasingly beneficial results with regard to the economy of our country. Since the inception of the ARDA program a number of significant changes in its application have been made. In the main I believe the broadening of the application of the act has had beneficial results in many areas of the country.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) was reported to have said recently that there is no limit to what can be carried out under the present terms of the act. This statement was made in my own constituency a little over a week ago when the minister met with representatives of the various municipalities who were concerned about some areas of development required in the locality. I hope the minister enjoyed his visit to my constituency. I am sure he found those who gathered there were men of vision and competence, men desirous of doing the very best they could for the further development and progress of that section of the beautiful Fraser Valley.
In introducing the resolution on March 8 on behalf of the Minister of Forestry the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) referred to the problems of low rural income,

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
poverty and underdevelopment. As reported at page 2882 of Hansard he stated:
As the ARDA program has evolved, it has become evident that special comprehensive and coordinated development programs for these areas are required if living standards for the people in these areas are to be greatly improved in a reasonable length of time.
From looking at the bill it is apparent it is designed to work out programs not solely on an individual farm basis but encompassing a larger area. This is very commendable, but I should like to say at the outset that the appropriation of only $50 million would appear to be a very small amount in view of the task it is hoped will be accomplished. I hope this is not an indication of the rather limited use which some people may think is contemplated under this legislation. However, Mr. Speaker, being mindful of the vision the Minister of Forestry has for his department, coupled with the need for such a development program, I believe we can look forward with anticipation to the work which will be accomplished under the terms of this legislation.
We are given to understand that a great deal will be involved in the development of this program. Areas are to be selected and this will be a very important part of the entire program.
Reference was made by a former speaker to the fact that the advisory council will apparently be made up of ten officials from departments of the federal government. I do not think that this will be conducive to the best application of the entire program because it appears to me that to a large extent the success of the program and its effective development and over-all application will be dependent upon the views and knowledge of the local inhabitants in these areas and the attention they give to it. I refer to those who know their area, who live there and work there, who are cognizant of the various problems that are faced. So I suggest that the selection of these areas should not be entirely based on the views of the advisory board but should also take into consideration the views of those who are closer to the projects contemplated.
It appears that this bill encompasses physical, social and economic surveys of the areas affected. I believe this was the reason the Minister of Forestry met with officials in my own constituency, to discuss the possibility of an overall survey of the needs of a given area. I believe it is a good thing that the government is prepared not only to give

assistance in the actual execution of plans but is also willing to take part in the burden of making surveys.
We also find that the entire program is dependent upon the co-operation of provincial authorities. I presume it will be possible, as has been the case in the past, for the provincial authorities to recommend particular programs for consideration.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without going into detail on any of the particular aspects involved but considering the overall picture, the need for such a program and the possibilities envisaged by the minister so far as his department is concerned, I believe the entire program to be a very commendable one. Even though in the past there have been limitations and perhaps frustrations and certain obstacles placed in the way, considering the overall picture I believe that this program will have a tremendous effect and bearing upon the development of these areas and the raising of standards of living, with a consequent contribution toward a better environment for people to carry out their responsibilities and occupations. Therefore, as I have said, so far as we in this party are concerned we are going to give this measure our support.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the present government has included the war on poverty in its program. I am convinced that this program is most commendable. His Eminence Cardinal Leger has advocated concrete action and we agree with him.
Bill C-151 introduced by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) is certainly in that category, since it aims at furthering the development of the rural areas where greater poverty prevails. In conjunction with the provinces and through this legislation, we seek to reach mainly the areas where salaries are also low because of economic and social rehabilitation programs and which, in the council's opinion, based on information submitted by the province about the physical, economic and social situation of the area, offer reasonable possibilities of economic and social development.
It is meant to push ARDA further still and to make it more effective and more concrete. I understand there are regions where poverty is more prevalent and they are the ones which must be helped first. However, Mr. May 10. 1966
Speaker, in every region which seems prosperous, there are pockets of poverty or individuals who are no better off than the economically weak regions.
That is why there should exist in each rural county an ARDA council. I would see it linked to the county council or to the C.F.U. Thus, it would be possible to analyse the situation in order to prepare assistance programs which would be submitted to the central committee in each province.
Very often, people talk about ARDA but do not know where to go. Then, every citizen, every parish could get in touch with the office in the county which could analyse the projects and submit them after approval to the central committee in each province.
Of course, in some pilot areas, very exhaustive studies were made and gave results but they will give more with that new legislation. But until it is possible to analyse the situation in all the counties, I think that temporary ARDA committees in each area could help considerably numerous individuals while helping farming at the same time. And I think of my own parish, about cleaning up of the Envies river, developing the tourist industry and countless other projects.
There are in my riding and in my region some unusually attractive spots for tourists. I would even say that there are none other like them in Canada but they cannot be developed without help. I would like to talk about the northern part of my riding between St. Jacques des Piles, La Tuque, Lac-Edouard and the new road from La Tuque to Lac-Bouchette. The development of that area would help enormously to increase the standard of living. I am convinced that the tourist board of the St. Maurice region and the mayors' conference are waiting for help from the governments to make exhaustive studies on tourist possibilities and realizations.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that an even more promising future is in store for the region because of ARDA and that is why Bill C-151 deserves our full approval. I therefore extend my most sincere congratulations to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
1English1


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to compliment the minister on his presentation and the background material he provided. Certainly, sir, I cannot resist the opportunity of pointing out to the minister that it is unique for a minister 23033-314
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of the government to take the time to analyse exactly where he is in order for him to be able to portray with wisdom where he will go in the future.
Many of those engaged in the profession of agriculture will look upon this measure with some degree of scepticism. Too often in the past the members of this great profession have seen measures designed sincerely to help the industry become, after a glorious presentation in the house, nothing but first class coloured illustrations on campaign literature. The results for farmers have proved to be of very little value.
Listening to the minister's dissertation this afternoon, I am convinced that he is sincere in his desire to bring about a measure of relief to the areas that he so eloquently described. I am sure that all of us who have had an opportunity to read some of the reports referred to can understand to what degree Canadian citizens have been subjugated financially. I think we are beginning to see on all sides of the house why it is so necessary to take the necessary steps at the federal level in order to bring about the relief that must be brought to these areas.
I am concerned that we are speaking of setting up committees in respect of the administration of this bill. Too often in the past we have seen large sums of money designated for specific means to aid the citizens of Canada, but for every dollar designated for that specific purpose it seems that just a few cents have reached the people most concerned.
We have also set up ever more bureaux. We have an overlapping of authority and the passing of responsibility from department to department and from bureau to bureau, as was so ably pointed out by one of the preceding speakers. When we consider how frustrating it is for a member of parliament in pursuit of a principle to go from department to department trying to obtain some definite ruling on a question, how much more frustrating must it be for those in agriculture to have to wait for measures that will make their lot an easier one under the conditions we have today? May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order



May 10, 1966
Private Bills
3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Agriculture-request for protection on grade standards; the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc), Finance -depreciation reduction-automobile equipment.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Hon. Douglas Harkness (Calgary North) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-5, respecting United Grain Growers Limited.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill refers to a company, the name of which is familiar to all members from western Canada and quite probably to most other members of the House of Commons. Its country elevators, 750 in all, are to be found in every part of the prairie provinces at some 600 different points. It is the oldest of the farmer-owned business institutions now operating in the prairie provinces. Organized in 1906 and with a record of continuous progress during 60 years, it is this year celebrating its diamond jubilee.
The primary business of United Grain Growers Limited is handling grain and during its history it has received from customers some 2$ billion bushels. Annual receipts now amount to 100 million bushels or more. Inventories of grain in its country elevators amounted on July 31 last to some $54 million.
It owns and operates a terminal elevator at Port Arthur with a capacity of 6.5 million bushels, and at Vancouver operates under lease another terminal elevator with a capacity of 3.6 million bushels. It has some ancillary businesses, distributing annually several million dollars worth of fertilizer as well as other supplies needed by farmers. Through a subsidiary company it publishes a well known national monthly farm magazine, Country Guide. The Company has 54,000 shareholders, the great majority of whom are active farmers in the prairie provinces.
The company was originally incorporated in 1906 under the Companies Act of Manitoba with the name, "The Grain Growers Grain Company." By 1911 it had expanded to such an extent as to need a federal charter, which

it obtained under an act of parliament in that year when its authorized capital was increased to $2 million from the former $1 million level. Amending acts were passed in 1915, 1916 and 1917 to enable amalgamation to be carried out with another farmer-owned company under the name United Grain Growers Limited and with an increase in authorized capital to $5 million. Another amendment in 1941 enabled it to carry out reorganization of its capital stock structure, and one in 1950 increased its authorized capital to $7.5 million.
Under these enactments the company has been empowered to set up an organization differing in important respects from many other incorporated bodies. Voting rights are confined to the holders of membership shares which may be issued or transferred only to farmer customers of the company. Each such holder is entitled to one vote and one vote only. Because of their large number, member shareholders are organized into 314 locals, each of which elects a delegate to annual or special meetings of the company and proxy voting is not allowed. The company is empowered to issue out of its earnings, patronage dividends to customers after dividends on capital stock have been provided and reserves have been set aside.
United Grain Growers is and has been a very large taxpayer, as indicated by the substantial provision for taxes on income included in annual financial statements. The amounts paid in patronage dividends are deductible in calculating taxable income to the extent provided in the Income Tax Act for all companies making such payments. Its dividends on capital stock, like those of all companies, come out of income on which tax has been paid. I mention these facts because in the other place a question was raised as to what the tax position of this company is or was.
Prior to 1941 United Grain Growers had only one class of share with a par value of $25, which could be issued or transferred only to farmers. That limitation created difficulties for those who might find it necessary to dispose of shares when qualified purchasers had little money for investment. It was desired to correct this situation but at the same time to ensure continued control of the company by its customers. Consequently, a division of shares was effected into two classes.
Each former share was divided into one $5 membership share and one $20 five per cent
May 10, 1366

preferred share. The former may be issued or transferred only to farmer customers. The latter may be held by anyone, but not more than 2,500 by one person. The plan worked satisfactorily. The market for shares was broadened with no change in the effective contol of the company. New shares were issued without difficulty when there was occasion to do so. Originally all the preferred shares were held by voting members. It is still the case that the majority are so held; in fact, the figure 53 per cent according to information furnished by the company.
The company has been headed from its inception by men recognized as leaders in western agricultural organizations and who have played their part in the country's public life. Hon. T. A. Crerar, at present the oldest member of the other place and the only person left in these precincts who was in the cabinet of Sir Robert Borden in 1917 and also in the cabinet of Mackenzie King from 1935 to 1945, was president of the company for nearly 25 years during its formative period until be retired in 1930 to give full time to his political duties.
He was succeeded by the late R. S. Law who served for 18 years, and then in 1948 by Hon. J. E. Brownlee whose death took place in 1961. I may say that during the nearly three and a half years I was minister of agriculture Mr. Brownlee gave me the best and most practical advice of any of the farm leaders from western Canada. Mr. A. M. Runciman, president now for five years, has become well known in Ottawa through frequent appearances before members of parliament and the government on behalf of western farmers.
The company has requested this amendment to its parliamentary charter because it wishes to provide a broader financial base for its operation by an increase in paid up capital. In presenting this proposal to the annual meeting last November the directors expressed confidence that members and customers would readily subscribe to a new issue of shares whenever such an issue becomes available. That, however, is contingent upon removing an existing limitation on the rate of dividends which may be paid on Class A preferred shares.
When the two classes of shares were established 25 years ago in 1941 it was during wartime and after a long depression when interest rates generally were low. It seems to have been assumed that 5 per cent would continue to be regarded as a good rate of 23033-314!
Private Bills
return on an investment and that the company) by passing such a rate of dividend, would be able to attract investors to its shares. At all events Class A preferred shares, with a par value of $20, were established in such a way as to preclude the company from paying a higher rate in years of good earnings.
To correct that situation it is now necessary to obtain such amendment to the company's parliamentary charter as is provided in this bill. When enacted this will empower the company in a year when earnings are sufficient to declare an extra dividend on Class A shares of a half per cent or multiples thereof, not to exceed a total of 14 per cent, that is, to a maximum rate of 6J per cent, subject to a concurrent provision for an equal rate of dividend upon the company's Class B membership shares. At the same time it is proposed to increase the authorized capital of the company from the present level of $7.5 million to $12 million.
Twenty-five years ago it could not have been foreseen that interest rates would rise to levels such as now prevail or that bonds of the government of Canada and of various provinces would be issued at rates substantially above 5 per cent. Nor could it have been foreseen that the company's business and its requirements for invested capital would increase to the extent that actually has occurred.
The reason for increasing paid up capital is to be found in expansion of the company's business which has taken place during recent years and further expansion which is expected.
When the company's affairs were last before parliament in 1950 reference was made to the company's balance sheet for the previous year which had shown assets to a substantial total of more than $16 million. That reference, I might say, was made by my former colleague from Calgary West, Mr. A. L. Smith, whose contribution to this house I am glad to be able to recall at this time.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The balance sheet issued as at the close of its past financial year on July 31, 1965, showed total assets of $89 million. A large part of that was made up by a grain inventory valued at $54 million. To accommodate grain stocks of that magnitude, the company has been enlarging its elevator system during the past 15 years, bringing its total investment in capital assets to some $42 million. That is a very substantial business to have been established on the basis of a paid up

May 10, 1966
Private Bills
capital of just under $5 million. Its size was made possible by extensive current borrowings of some $38 million and long-term debt of $12.7 million. It is apparent that additional funds made available by the issue of further paid up capital stock can be put to good use at once. It is also apparent that with a broader financial base the company can continue to expand its services to western farmers in the years which lie ahead.
I am led to believe that this bill, which involves the welfare of so many thousands of western farmers, will receive speedy second reading. Therefore, in order to expedite its passage through the house I would ask at this time, if that proves to be the case, whether we might have unanimous consent to continue in committee with this bill during this hour.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member realizes that before the bill could go either to committee of the whole or to a special committee it would first have to receive second reading. The bill at this point has not received second reading. I can only invite hon. members to participate in the debate.
If the debate concludes and the bill receives second reading, then the Chair might give consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member, although he knows very well that this would be a very unusual, indeed, unique practice. Standing order 102 provides that these bills automatically are referred to certain committees. In addition, standing order 105 says:
Every private bill, when read a second time, is referred to one of the standing committees as follows: bills relating to banks, insurance, trade and commerce and to trust and loan companies, to the Committee on Finance-
And so on. In other words, all bills automatically are referred to special committees. It would be a departure from this standing order and also from standing order 102, to which I referred a moment ago, to adopt the practice now suggested by the hon. member for Calgary North. In any event, at this time we still have not given second reading to the bill. I might ask hon. members whether they are ready for the question.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say first of all, with reference to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) that this bill might be dealt with in committee of the whole house after second reading, that in spite of the fact that I recognize, as Your Honour suggested, that this would be a

rather unusual procedure I for one would be very happy to support it in this particular instance.
It is a real pleasure for me to rise to speak to a bill presented to the house in this particular period of our proceedings which has to do with the capital share structure of a company to which I can give my warm and wholehearted support. In my view the proposal contained in the bill introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North represents an honest, straightforward, businesslike proposition. As such I feel it should commend itself very easily to the house. Unlike certain other bills with which we have dealt, having to do with the share capital of companies, this bill does not suggest the splitting of shares or any action which in my view would tend to deceive either the house or the Canadian people in the way in which certain other bills have, particularly those relating to certain oil pipe line companies. I mention this because I should like to emphasize that in considering this bill, as indeed in respect of others, I like to look at it on its merits as I see them.
As I said at the outset, I am very happy to give my warm support to the proposal introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North. As the hon. member said, this company is a rather historic institution in the western Canadian grain producing area. In fact I think I can fairly say that among my earliest recollections as a small child was the publication of this company coming into our farm home in the days when I still was resident in my native province of Alberta before as a young lad I went to live on Vancouver Island from which I currently come as a representative to this house.
I am interested to see that United Grain Growers gives a clear definition of its purposes in the explanatory notes. It indicates that the sale of further Class A shares will provide capital for the enlargement, acquisition or construction of additional grain handling facilities. To me this is a very legitimate reason for seeking to expand the capital structure of the company. Indeed, in my view I think it really is the only legitimate purpose for making changes in a capital structure.
Certainly the value of this type of organization to the farmers of western Canada in the handling of their grain has been evident even to those who have not had any close association with grain farming. The continuous support which has been given by farmers to this organization, as indicated by the
May 10, 1966

growth which has taken place and the fact that they have reached the point where they feel it is necessary and desirable to seek additional capital for further expansion, is an indication of the continuing worth of this farmer-owned organization to its customer members.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and because this company looms large in my earlier recollections, I thought I should like to say a few words in support of the bill which has been placed before us by the hon. member for Calgary North.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say substantially what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has said with respect to the proceedings concerning the bill. We are completely in agreement to waive the rules in this instance and consider the matter in committee of the whole house in lieu of sending the bill to a standing committee. If I might be permitted to transgress, I think we could have done this a few moments ago because quite often by unanimous consent the house waives the rules and makes special orders in respect of things which are to occur in the future. It is within our ambit of authority to agree unanimously that after second reading the bill be referred to committee of the whole house for consideration. However, that is another question and I merely make that comment in passing.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I notice that United Grain Growers is seeking to increase its capitalization by some $4,500,000 for purposes of expansion. It operates some 600 elevators in western Canada as well as two terminal elevators, one at Port Arthur and one at Vancouver. In the light of the heavy grain sales of recent years to the Soviet Union and to the Republic of China, it seems to me that recognition has been given to those sales and undoubtedly to the necessity of increasing the capacity of terminal elevators.
Not long ago the Canadian government decided not to proceed with a proposal to expand the facilities of the terminal grain elevator at Prince Rupert which is operated by the Board of Grain Commissioners. I should like to urge the United Grain Growers, if they are thinking in terms of using some of the $4,500,000 to extend and modernize terminal facilities, to give consideration to the advantages of establishing terminal facilities at Prince Rupert. I point out the opportunity there resulting from the Canadian
Private Bills
government's decision to change its original intention in this regard.
The terminal facilities at Prince Rupert were built some years ago but were designed in such a way as to facilitate easy expansion. Docking facilities were provided in 1926 in anticipation of the capacity of the terminal elevator in Prince Rupert being doubled. There is an opportunity in this area for co-operation between the United Grain Growers and the Canadian government to expand terminal facilities. Prince Rupert is some 400 or more miles closer to the Orient than the port of Vancouver. It is located at the railhead of the C.N.R. and the elevator has a storage capacity of something less than one million bushels. These facilities could very easily be expanded and I am sure the people of Prince Rupert would welcome such an expansion. I make this suggestion in passing because of the reluctance on the part of the government to deal properly and adequately with a recommendation made some years ago that the facilities in Prince Rupert be expanded.
In general terms we look with favour on companies with a corporate structure similar to that of United Grain Growers Limited because they operate to some extent on the principle of co-operative ownership in that the people who own these companies are producers and have a greater say over the distribution and marketing of their products. That is in essence one of our concepts of public ownership, namely, that if people are given a greater say and greater control in their own economic affairs our society and economy will be much better off. It is for that reason we look with extreme favour on the bill currently before us. We wish this company well in its operations, and I personally urge it once again to look at the possibilities of establishing a terminal facility at Prince Rupert. I am sure the area generally would welcome such a plan, particularly inasmuch as the government itself has been reluctant to consider Prince Rupert as a shipping port.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Calgary North has suggested that standing orders 102 and 105 be suspended to allow this bill to be referred to the committee of the whole rather than to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 10, 1966
Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Harkness moves that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on the said bill. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that this bill has one clause and a schedule with several parts.
On clause 1-Increase o] capital stock.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the sponsor of the bill is in a position to make any comment on his own behalf or on behalf of United Grain Growers concerning the very interesting and worthwhile suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Skeena regarding an expansion of grain terminal facilities in the city of Prince Rupert. Those of us who have been following the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena realize that he has made a number of attempts to place before the house the advantages of the harbour and terminal facilities at Prince Rupert in relation to the possible expansion of our grain trade. In view of the position that has been taken by the government it seems to me that this suggestion is one which is relevant to the possible future activities of United Grain Growers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member as well as others will realize that I am in no position to commit United Grain Growers to a project of this kind. I am also sure I am safe in saying that the directors of United Grain Growers will give careful consideration to the remarks which have been made in relation to the establishment of a terminal elevator at Prince Rupert. What their decision may be will, of course, depend on what they consider to be the best interests of their many thousands of farmer shareholders who supply the grain. I am sure they will give careful consideration to the idea.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sure the hon. member for Skeena will agree that the directors of the company must consider first their responsibility to their shareholders. I am glad to note that the sponsor of the bill has assured us that the directors of the company will pay attention to the idea proposed by the hon. member for Skeena.

[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse what has been said about the possibility of encouraging the company to establish facilities in Prince Rupert. Over the last few years Canadian National Railways have spent millions of dollars in improving the railroad which has its terminus at Prince Rupert and on which this grain would move. Because a great deal of the grain goes to the Orient, it seems to me that rather than putting stresses and strains on the facilities at Vancouver and other places this is one place where a great deal of good for Canadians could be accomplished by United Grain Growers stepping in and filling the gap, as the hon. member for Skeena has said, and providing these facilities.
It is interesting to note that the greatest grain producing areas of western Canada are closer to the west coast. There is an exceptionally good railway grade for moving grain from Edmonton west through Jasper and Prince George. There are no high passes to go through and no steep grades to climb. It would therefore seem to me to be a very feasible operation. I should like to commend the hon. member who introduced the bill for making the statement that he would bring this suggestion to the attention of the directors of the company. I am sure the directors will look into all the advantages offered by the port of Prince Rupert, which incidentally is one of the great ports on the west coast.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have now had the opportunity of listening to the hon. member who sponsored this bill and the remarks of other colleagues in the house. I should like to add my support to this bill because it appears that the farmers have themselves operated this organization for a very long period of time in a very economical manner and the company has brought advantages to its shareholders as well as the membership who ship their grain through United Grain Growers.
The suggestion that has been made merits the attention of United Grain Growers board of directors. I refer to the building of facilities in the hitherto unserviced area, so far as United Grain Growers' elevators are concerned, of Prince Rupert. As previous speakers have said, the C.N.R. line appears to be the most direct one from the area of production to point of shipment to the Orient where a large share of our grain is now going.
It also appears from what has been said on previous occasions that the facilities of the
May 10, 1966

port of Prince Rupert lend themselves to the storage and assembly of a large number of box cars, which would facilitate the handling of grain in that area. This is not possible in some other areas. I believe that all of us in the house have been concerned with the situation that has developed over the last few years in the Vancouver harbour area where there has been a lack of facilities and railway sidings. There has also been a lack of space for the expansion of railway line facilities. I gather that this situation does not exist in the port of Prince Rupert.
The limitations inherent in the Vancouver area would therefore warrant the board of directors considering the port of Prince Rupert for the movement of grain, because it is generally conceded that the export of grain to the Orient will probably continue at an increasing rate for some time to come.
I presume that this company operates almost like a co-operative and applies the same principles. You do not have more than one vote no matter how many shares you hold; there is a limitation in this respect. That brings it into the class of most producer co-operatives in that to be a member of United Grain Growers Limited you must be a bona fide farmer, either as a lessee or as the owner of land. At least, I presume you must hold a permit-perhaps that is a better description-to be a member of United Grain Growers Limited. Therefore this body has many of the attributes of producer co-operatives. For this reason I believe the proposal that has been made, taking into consideration the increase in capitalization being sought, should allow for the consideration of development in an area that is not far removed from the large wheat fields of Alberta.
It seems to me there is a great deal of merit in the method of control in this company, unlike that of some companies with which we have been dealing recently. Those that are members of and support this organization should be quite proud of the advantages and facilities it has been able to provide its membership. They should also be proud that this expansion is now being undertaken on behalf of its members, and of the role the organization has played in western Canada over the years.
I therefore hope the organization will give consideration to the solution of a problem that has been worrying many members of the agricultural community in all parts of Canada whereby restrictions in regard to assembly of box cars have been causing considerable
Private Bills
hardship in moving grain to the coast and loading it on ships. In my opinion this difficulty could be eliminated if a greater percentage of grain were moved to a northern port. I hope, therefore, that at the next board of directors' meeting they will consider this proposal and will perhaps find the government, which has been responsible for these restrictions through the action of the Minister of Finance, in a position to assist them in providing facilities at this port. This suggestion has already been accepted and a recommendation in this regard has been made by the National Harbours Board. I refer to the establishment and extension of grain handling facilities in the Prince Rupert area.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the sponsor of the bill a question? As I understand it, there are two classes of shares, A and B. Class A shares are considered to be investment shares as distinct from membership shares. Does this carry with it the implication that class A shares are not what we would otherwise call voting shares? Do they entitle the holder thereof to be a delegate at meetings and to vote as such or is the right to vote and determine matters confined exclusively to holders of class B shares?
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. As I outlined, Mr. Chairman, the class A preferred shares have no voting rights whatever. The control of the company is in the hands of the class "B" shareholders. There is a limit of 25 class B shares to any one particular farmer and therefore the affairs of the company in that way are wholly in the hands of the farmer customers of the company.
There is also provision that there shall be no proxy voting, so that if the situation ever arose that the control of a large number of these class "B" shares passed to any of these farmers they still could not control the affairs of the company through proxies.


Frank Howard: This is a commendable thing to see in corporate law and I believe it can provide us with an opportunity to see if we cannot incorporate it in the same way in some of the bills which are dealt with between the hour of six and seven. I must apologize to the hon. member for Calgary North because at the time he was speaking on second reading of the bill I was in conversation with one of my colleagues in respect of another feature of the bill and I missed the point about the ownership.

May 10. 1966
Private Bills
I asked the question because as I understand the bill the increase in capitalization is purely an increase in the number of class "A" shares from 325,000 to 500,000 and no increase is contemplated in the number of class "B" membership shares. This prompted me to ask which were voting shares or whether both classes were voting shares. There are only 57,881 class "B" membership shares now outstanding of the authorized 200,000, and this situation should continue as it is at the moment. Is it the purpose of the bill to raise additional funds by attracting people to invest money in United Grain Growers Limited by way of class "A" shares or by way of debentures or lending money to the company at 6J per cent interest instead of 5 per cent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a maximum.


Frank Howard: Yes, as a maximum. As I said earlier, it is worth while to see the structure of a company set up in this way. It provides ideas for including this same concept in drafting legislation with regard to other companies which claim that one of their objectives in seeking to be incorporated is so that they can be owned by the greatest number of people possible rather than a small group. We will take this under advisement when other bills are before us.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the two types of shares can the sponsor of the bill throw any light on the restriction with reference to holding class A shares. This is outlined in the schedule of the bill at page 4 in these words:
That no person shall be entitled to hold or own more than two thousand five hundred of such shares.
I am intrigued by that limitation in view of the fact that class A shares have no voting rights and, as I understand it, are really entirely a source of capital funds for the company through the sale of such shares. Can the sponsor of the bill give us any information why that limitation is imposed by the by-laws of the company as set out in the schedule, placing a limit on the holding of class A shares?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, originally there was only one type of share and, as I outlined, when these shares were split into class A and class B shares the limitation of 25 shares was removed so that it would have been possible for class A shares to be made available to anyone who might be in the market to invest funds. At that time, as I

understand it, in order to prevent the accumulation of very large proportions of these shares in the hands of one individual or a small group of individuals or a company, the limitation of 2,500 was imposed so that a situation would not occur where the bulk of the preferred shares would be owned by one institution which would be able to exert financial influence, shall we say, on how the affairs of the company should be conducted.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now, by leave.


Douglas Scott Harkness: the third reading of the bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, before third reading is given I for one would like to express my appreciation to the sponsor of the bill for the lucid explanation of its purposes which he gave the house on its introduction at the second reading stage and also for the manner in which he was able to answer the questions asked when the bill was in committee of the whole. So far as I am concerned, the manner in which it was dealt with justifies us in having agreed to his suggestion that it be dealt with in committee of the whole house.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I believe the house should certainly be very cautious about the procedure which has been used today in allowing the waiving of a stage that provides for a detailed discussion of a particular bill. It is true that this should not be taken as an indication that this procedure should be sought or followed in other cases. However, I should like to join with the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) in saying that this bill appears to offer a number of innovations that other members would be well advised, when sponsoring bills, to be prepared to implement.
The passing of this bill indicates, I believe, the support of members for the principles which have been enunciated. As I mentioned a few moments ago, this organization does not fall into the class of co-operatives as we know them but certainly falls into that class
May 10, 1966

of farm organizations where shares are issued whose purchase enables anyone to participate financially while at the same time preferred stock is issued which provides for control of the company.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The provisions to limit the number of preferred shares held by a farmer to 25 and the minimum limitation of at least five shares being held by a person who is a delegate to a convention in my opinion are good. I think we should perhaps extend this principle to other bills I have in mind. If this were done, many of the objections we make to bills of this type would be eliminated. I believe the passage of this bill will indicate support for the idea of the shareholders of the company being provided through legislation with enough capital and the means of extending that capital to provide for the healthy expansion of their business. At the same time, the interest rate attached to this capital is in keeping with the type of operation being conducted. In my opinion the increase being requested is certainly not unreasonable, particularly after reading some of the deliberations of the recent inquiry into our two major telephone companies which operate in the public service field. The interest rate allowed these companies seems to be approximately the same as the interest rate requested by this company.
I believe, therefore, that the sponsor of this bill can be quite pleased at having accepted the responsibility for piloting this measure through the house. I think it is a good company. Nothing has been said against the company by anyone, and in this day and age that in itself is quite an accomplishment. The sponsor is to be congratulated also on the fact that he understands the operations of the company for which he is sponsoring the legislation, and he probably has been well briefed by the company. This bill and the way it has been sponsored should serve as an example for many of the bills that come before us in private members' hour which are not as well prepared or as lucidly explained. It therefore gives me pleasure to add my endorsement to that of other members who are in favour of this bill with regard to the United Grain Growers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that as a farmer customer of the United Grain Growers for some 20 years now I was very happy indeed to sponsor this bill. At the same time I 23033-315
Rural Development
should like to say that I am not the holder of any shares in the company, preference or otherwise. As I say, I have been delivering grain to the company's elevator at my point at De Winton, Alberta, for some 20 years now. Again I should like to thank the house for the co-operation they have given in getting this bill through and to thank all those who have spoken about the bill in such laudatory terms. This company is one of the finest, farmer owned companies in this or any other country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: May I
ask hon. members if they wish to call it seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
hour allotted to private members' business having expired, the house will return to the consideration of the business interrupted at six o'clock.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sauve for the second reading of Bill No. C-151, to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, when six o'clock was reached I was speaking on some of the general aspects of the bill proposed by the minister. I was dealing with the fact it was hoped by those engaged in agriculture that this measure would not become bogged down by cumbersome bureaucratic methods, as has happened with many other measures of this type. Frankly, I am prepared to support this bill in order to see what will happen, how it will be used and how it will be administered.
It appears to me that under proper conditions this measure could be used as a real tool in helping agriculture, especially in the battle against poverty. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the way it is constituted and the way it may be set up, it could provide a ready vehicle for political

May 10. 1966
Rural Development
patronage. A great deal will depend on the calibre of the members of the advisory committees set up at the local level to advise the department on ways and means of administering the bill. If the farmers across this nation observe that men are appointed to these committees because of their peculiar abilities, because of their technical knowledge of the problems involved, because of their previous experience with the problems of agriculture, if men of this type are appointed regardless of political affiliations, then the people who are engaged in agriculture will begin to have faith in the government's objectives in passing this bill.
However, as I pointed out before, Mr. Speaker, if the farmers find that men of questionable ability are put on these boards because of their political affiliation rather than their knowledge of agriculture, then this operation will collapse. It will not receive and will not deserve the co-operation of the people engaged in agriculture. The co-operation of these people is necessary for the complete fulfilment of the wishes of the minister as he outlined them in the house today.
When the minister was dealing with designated areas of rural poverty he did not point out that Ontario has such areas. It is true that there are some sections of Ontario where agriculture is carried on to a remarkable degree and which are classified as some of the most progressive areas in Canada. However, sir, there are other rural development areas around the clay belt and on both sides of the Ottawa valley where conditions are not as affluent. I do not believe that the application of this bill should be confined to the areas outlined by the minister.
I am going to be very interested indeed when the minister deals with the different clauses of the bill to hear him outline in detail the machinery set up, provincially and at the local level, to analyse all the various areas across this great country of ours. As I stated before, agriculture today presents a tremendous challenge to people with vigour and imagination, to people who are determined to analyse the situation and to familiarize themselves with the tremendous problems of shortage of food, which will cost Canada and other nations dear in the future. We should design practical means to meet this challenge and to have the energy and resources behind these means to carry out our ideas, once they are conceived.

[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Once again, I think that far too often when we contemplate these areas of so-called rural poverty we confine ourselves to too limited a scope. We concentrate our thinking on what we can do to the soil itself in order to provide a better living for our people. 1 was very interested indeed to hear the minister speak of social welfare and the desire for and necessity to educate people, to train them for other trades and for a better way of life. But I cannot accept the solution which is offered in too many instances, that the people on these so-called submarginal farms and in areas of rural poverty should be taken off the land. This is not, in my honest opinion, the answer for which we are looking.
The reason these people are on the land is because they want to be on the land. They are on the land because this is the type of living they wish for themselves and their families. They are on the land by desire; and it is up to us at the federal level to explore the ways and means of providing the necessary climate which will enable these people to earn a living where they are presently located.
I have been tremendously impressed by one of the growing industries in this country, and how its methods might be applied in these particular areas. I speak of the tourist industry, with which we are all familiar. I am often amazed at the tremendous dollar earnings this industry brings into sometimes very small and restricted areas.
A striking example is taking place in my own province of Ontario. I happen to live adjacent to two provincial parks. These parks are perhaps no closer than some other areas to the United States, from where a great number of our tourists come. These parks to which I refer have been developed by local labour, which has cleared the underbrush and provided the necessary facilities. The amazing thing is that in the course of the tourist season these parks in their very first year of operation attracted hundreds of thousands of tourists, with a consequent tremendous influx of money to the area.
These tourists provide work for most of the local people by way of developing marinas, offering guide services, enlarging local vegetable and fruit routes, as well as bread routes. The dairy facilities require more scope. Very soon we see a complex municipality with tremendous surge. We see a little village of 700 to 800 people become for a few weeks a town of some thousands, bringing
May 10, 1966

tremendous benefit to the locality. I am wondering whether we could look into this aspect of the matter in our search for assisting these local people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one other fact of which we must never lose sight, and that is that this nation and the world more and more each day is approaching a crisis in the search for edibles to feed the multitudes of people on this planet. More and more we are becoming conscious of the fact that the people who live in the so-called have-not nations are not going to be satisfied with the low calorie diet which has been forced upon them through the years. They are not going to be satisfied to see their populations decimated every year or so by famine. They too are becoming knowledgeable and know there are areas where there is abundance; but unfortunately areas of abundance are becoming fewer and fewer every year. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in the last few years some of these so-called exporting nations are becoming importing nations because they do not produce enough food themselves to feed their own populations. So we must never lose sight of this fact.
In addition, we should never develop a policy which to any degree removes arable land from cultivation and out of the over-all concept of producing as much food as possible. Food and water are the two most important commodities of human resources Canada will have for the future. These are two commodities we must produce in abundance; and in my humble opinion as far as ARDA is concerned our program must be directed toward this production.
How do we do this, Mr. Speaker? I think we must provide a tremendous amount of money for the research which is necessary to bring these so-called designated poverty areas up to a production never before thought possible. This is done by producing grains which have a shorter growing season or which have a higher protein value; grains which can be grown in soil which cannot produce grain today. By the use of proper planting methods we must extend our growing areas further and further afield and produce food more successfully.
We must not only develop these areas but must employ the necessary technicians to show our farmers how this food may be grown, how cattle may be raised, and how poultry may be reared on a limited acreage to provide that living for our families which is necessary. The people will learn by example.
23033-315*
Rural Development
If, under this scheme as set out, the government intends to take area farms or a township or county in any segment of the country, and carefully husband all of the resources available-as was so ably pointed out by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton)-analyse them and see what can be done, and by going into such areas show the rest of Canada that we not only have the desire at the federal level but the ability and knowledge to increase the living standards of these people, regardless of whether they are on the farms, in the related industries or in small factories, then if we do raise the living standards of an entire area which is suffering from poverty today the people of Canada will take heart and support such a bill as that brought in by the minister.
However, if we find that the enthusiasm of the minister, when it is filtered down through the various bureaus and committees to the grass roots level, is nothing less than lip service, then we are doing the people of Canada a disservice in this type of legislation. I have hopes that this bill will be the beginning and not the end. As has been pointed out by other speakers in this house, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the minister, not only as to the manner in which he administers this bill, but in the way he provides the enthusiasm and drive behind it.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
If he can do this, if he can make the people enthusiastic about it, if he can keep out partisan politics and keep out everything that would distract from the accomplishment of the purposes set out in the bill-if he does nothing else, he will have performed a great service to the people of this nation. This is what the people of Canada are waiting to see; this is what the people of Canada expect from a government. The people have a right to this; they have a right to expect this kind of administration. Surely the minister is in a position now to meet this challenge.
I think the minister grasped the concept of this when he carefully analysed the problem. I hope, after serious consideration, that the legislation he proposes is correct. If the minister has considered this legislation, and if his associates in the department have carefully considered it, and applied themselves, not just to treating it as another act of parliament, as window dressing for political purposes, but to making it work as something designed to help the poor areas of Canada, it will not only have the support of all sides of the house, but it will have the support of that

May 10. 1966
Rural Development
great agricultural industry and its leaders in Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Ponliac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity of speaking to the new resolution because it deals with granting the Department of Forestry $50 million to set up a fund for rural economic development.
I sincerely believe that in the two counties of Pontiac and Temiscamingue, there are areas in which this new measure can surely be applied. We were recently given the report of an inquiry on rural poverty in four counties. One of the ridings mentioned was that of Pontiac. There, in some remote areas of that large county, we found extremely poor people, lacking in education and means of improvement. The same may happen in the county of Temiscamingue.
I am truly convinced that rural areas in the East are in great need of government assistance. In as prosperous a country as ours, it is abnormal to have regions in which people live in misery, poverty, ignorance, without hope of ever knowing such improvement as would give them as decent a standard of living as the majority of our citizens enjoy. Doubtless there are areas where people live on farms which cannot produce profitably, where the climate will not allow it.
According to the program set up by the department, I understand that in those cases, the solution would be very complicated, that many of these people would be asked to move where their work and their skills would be better rewarded. The problem of rural ridings is one of the major problems in our country. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that during the last electoral campaign, I visited many unfortunate families, where the father was out of work or was paid a salary which did not allow him to enjoy or even come close to a normal standard of living, where children had a long way to go to reach school and often did not even have the necessary clothes to go.
I must congratulate the Minister of Forestry for his interest in rural areas. In passing Bill C-151, we are taking an important step.

There appeared in the newspapers recently, Mr. Speaker, a report from the Economic Council of Northwestern Quebec. In this report it was stated that the council viewed

with alarm some of the problems facing the rural population in this region. The council has recommended that a study be made of the county of Temiscamingue, regarding the economic situation and possible projects that might be undertaken to help ameliorate the conditions that exist. Just recently also, the Minister of Forestry for the province of Quebec has announced that such a study will be undertaken. This will be a joint federal provincial plan and $12,000 will be spent on this study. I am confident that if the right kind of study is carried out, good results will be obtained.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there were only three regions mentioned in the minister's speech as he outlined the bill this afternoon. However, I find nothing in the reading of the bill that would exclude the counties of Pontiac and Temiscamingue. In these two counties one can find all of nature's unspoiled beauty and natural resources. It is a large region beginning only a few miles from here and ending about 50 miles from the city of Rouyn. There are operating mines in both sections of this riding, north and south, also to be found are many saw mills. At the town of Temiscamingue, in Temiscamingue county, can be found a large pulpmill that has been in continuous operation for almost 50 years, and is owned by the Canadian International Paper Co. In Pontiac county there is now under construction a similar mill by the Consolidated Paper Corporation. This is in Litchfield township near Portage du Fort. There are lakes and streams abounding with fish, and big game hunting is available for both moose and deer. Farming occupies a large segment of the population in both counties. It is truly a region where ARDA and its programs can certainly help to upgrade the living standards of those sections which up to now have not kept up to the more prosperous sections of our vast country.
I sincerely hope that the advisory board set up to administer this fund will take into serious consideration any demands for this region. There is no doubt that Pontiac-Temiscamingue certainly qualifies in respect of physical, economic and social conditions, and has a good potential for economic and social development, including tourism, which is attracting more and more people to our region. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this particular measure. I think it has been well stated up to this time
May 10. 1966

that in principle we agree with the general terms of the measure as outlined by the minister.
We are interested in this particular measure as it relates to the province of Ontario. Although I would suggest to the house that possibly a similar type of assistance might have been available to the rural areas in another way, or under existing legislation, nevertheless we are pleased to concur in the principles as set forth by the minister. I believe that this type of assistance and this type of philosophical thinking is quite necessary.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I listened to the minister very carefully and realized that what he said applied to a number of areas in the province of Ontario. Indeed, not too long ago the provincial government prepared an economic report in-dictating the levels of income in several areas of Ontario, and it was revealing to note the averages stated in it. Also, a survey was completed under the aegis of the federal government covering some of the same areas. This being the case, and as I have said previously in other debates, it is difficult for people as a whole to appreciate that they are living in a poverty stricken area, or a depressed area.
One of the objections I have to the way the government has acted is with regard to the manner it has dealt with the country as a whole. Just recently we finished the debate on redistribution, and I know the minister has much sympathy with my words in this regard because he is in a similar position of extinction. The government appears to want to reduce the voice of rural Canada, and that has been evident in the way the maps were drawn. I objected to that last week, and I object again this evening on behalf of the people I represent-not that I consider myself the best representative in this house, but the people in my constituency depend on me for the things which flow from legislative and statutory government.
I have another grievance in this regard. Not too long ago I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) about the importation of pork products into this country. I relate this to the fact that the minister says the bill before us is designed to give a lift to rural areas. I tried for a number of days to get an answer from the government. It was at a time when prices received by the pork producers had reached the highest point in the history of Canada. The
Rural Development
minister gave an answer, cutting off my question at a certain date.
I knew I was getting the runaround and I was finally forced to put my question on the order paper so that I might get a detailed answer. As a result I found it was not just simply 2 million pounds of pork but 2J million pounds of pork which were imported, and that very week the price went right down. Surely we should have more regard for our primary producers. If they run across a time of high return, let them enjoy it. We should not take it away from them. No one can tell me that this was not deliberate. I realize I cannot put the finger on the government and say it was responsible, but it was responsible to the degree that it did not have the interests of the pork producers at heart.
Therefore I am prepared to give the minister full marks on his philosophical thinking about what he intends to do for these people through the measure we are discussing. But, as another hon. member has said, we do not want lip service: We want action.
Before this debate is concluded the minister should lay down in clear form the procedure that a group must follow, from the municipal level right through to the federal level. It is not clear now. During the last year I had a number of groups, organizations and individuals come to me in my area asking about the procedure. On numerous occasions I was forced to say "I really do not know. Have you done this and this? Have you been to see so and so? Have you a county organization"? They have told me, "We have been through all that. How on earth do we get our problem to the responsible minister in Ottawa"? On some occasions I have used very plain words to them, but for the benefit of these people I would ask the minister to make the procedure clear.
Since I believe the minister has spoken sincerely on behalf of the rural areas, I also want him to pay attention to the type of thing which happened back in March in regard to the importation of products that tended to reduce the income of our own primary producers. You, Mr. Speaker, and the minister both know that an industrial firm has a different method of control over such a situation. I think the minister will be able to do something about it if he remains as alert as he indicated in his speech this afternoon.
The minister has mentioned the flexibility of ARDA, and that this bill will fill a gap. He also mentioned the use of the program for

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
land, soil and water conservation. This is a very important thing at this point in our economic history. On many occasions in previous sessions I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to consider instituting a national water policy and a national water authority. This is another channel into which the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) could direct his thinking, because we cannot have one small area of our great resources dealt with at one time, and another small area at another time. Now is the time to consider a national water policy for the benefit of Canadians, a benefit which will flow to the rural areas as well as to those seeking water.
The minister also mentioned the importance of the social and economic effects on rural areas, and went on to say that farming as such is not the only rural problem. He mentioned education. This is truly worthy of consideration. I do not know how he can project his thinking in this regard because of the constitutional question, but I agree with him. The Toronto Daily Star of May 6 carried the following report:
At a conference of county officials in the Lord Simcoe Hotel yesterday, W. G. Rae-
A school inspector whom I personally know well, and who resides in my home town.
-blamed poor rural schools for much rural poverty.
Unquestionably the rural student or pupil does not have the same advantage as the city pupil. This is a ridiculous state of affairs if we want the rural areas to develop to any degree. If we are to spend $50 million under this bill, this is a factor which deserves consideration. Then there is the industrial side.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
A day or so ago one of the government supporters, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Addison), was boasting about the tremendous industrial development along the lake front in the city of Toronto. This is fine; I know this. I pass by there twice a week; but can we not do a little decentralization of this type of industry. Can we not support them to a degree that it will be economically beneficial for them to move into these areas so that they may develop. Then the educational system will develop on the same base. The educational system will serve the rural area in the same way it serves the urban area. It cannot do so now because of the decreasing economic situation which exists. I

can prove that by the census report for the year 1961, which I have before me. 1 could go down the list and point out a number of municipalities in that ten-year period which have decreased. I am sure the minister will be aware of this, because he also represents a rural area. I consider this to be a responsibility of government. I have been in municipal government and I know what the tax burden at the municipal level means. This may be an oversimplification, but it is becoming simply too burdensome. The only answer is to give them relief.
The people are there and in most cases they are willing to work, and do anything they are asked to do, so long as there is some area of development. Although the population figures for the whole constituency have increased, the decrease in the rural population is explained very simply; it is because the young people will not stay in the rural areas. I have said this before, and supporters of the government have supported this view. Almost anyone in the house who knows the situation in a rural constituency will tell you it is so. 1 will now depend on the minister to come forward with some ideas, and not five years or ten years from now. We do not want to wait ten years when our families are grown; we want something now for the young people, so that we can maintain their interest in the area after they have received a full and sufficient education.
To support further the view I am putting forward this evening, I have a newspaper report before me from the Toronto Telegram dated May 6, 1966, a few days ago. I think this is quite significant because of the fact that it is a report of a speech by a Liberal member of the legislature in the province of Ontario who is from a riding adjoining mine, Mr. Ross Whicher from Bruce, a person whom I know very well. The caption on the article reads "Farms starve, MPP charges". It says:
Mr. Whicher said the provincial government had done nothing to prevent these areas slowly being strangled-
He goes on in strong terms and says:
"We're not just asking for help . . . we're crying for it."
This is one of the areas which was painted as a black area and one which is underdeveloped, and indeed a poverty area. I say there are other areas in the province of Ontario. Mr. Whicher was supported by
May 10. 1966

N.D.P. members and a Liberal member by the name of Singer. He said:
"You've got all the flexibility in the world!"
This is what he was saying to the provincial government. It was the minister tonight who said he has flexibility in ARDA, and I sincerely hope he is aware of the need and will act accordingly. I can indicate to him the income which other counties in the province of Ontario have. These are official figures from the provincial government. In the township of North Hastings the income was an average of $1,380. In Lindsay township in the county of Bruce it was $1,530. Those are gross figures. I do not think we need go beyond the province of Ontario where the general belief is that everyone is wealthy. There are areas there which should be considered, too. I would ask the minister to bear this in mind when he is carrying out the terms of the legislation. There are others here. I could go down a long list, but statistics mean nothing except to prove a point at this time. We are looking to the future. We are looking to the minister to back up what he has said tonight. This concerns the whole country and not just one area.
I have sympathy for the people in Gaspe, whom the minister mentioned, the same as I have sympathy in respect of the need which I know exists in my own province. I am just as sympathetic concerning the people in Manitoba as I am in respect of the people who I know need help in my own province. We cannot go along and allow this area of taxation in the country to sink these people, because there is not another place for them to go. Most of them love the industry they are in and want to stay on the land; they do not want credit. Earlier in this session we expanded the use of the credit offered by the Farm Credit Corporation. But these people do not want credit; they have enough of it now. Some of them are buried in credit. This is the reason they feel no one is coming forward to do something which will give them the opportunity they require.
I notice that many of these points I have raised are in print in the bill now before us. I am pleased about that, because obviously the minister knew about all the provisions that were going into the bill. I do believe he has his finger on the important aspects of rural life which need attention, and he has outlined all of the ideas which will do the job. If he wishes to employ the powers that are at his
Rural Development
discretion, he will now through this legislation develop a program which will assist the people to help themselves.
The minister himself said that this is not a welfare approach. As I said to him, we are not interested in this business of coming along and offering returns for efforts which do not produce. These people are willing to put the effort forth themselves, if the opportunity exists. As he stated, the legislation is not designed to step in where public investment cannot support the program that may be necessary in many areas. We experience this in our area of Ontario almost every year. There are other things we need. I often think of the assistance given in respect of the trans-Canada road program through western Ontario, and that a road program well might be considered to assist some of the small secondary industries in coming into these areas, if they should deem it advisable to locate outside the urban areas.
If again, as the minister stated, the bill is to create in the final analysis a better economic balance, a better standard of living, and a new era of development, the minister I think can be sure of the support of every member on this side of the house. Because of some of the things I have mentioned, I do not think we should be suspicious-not at all- but I think we must be very watchful and on guard to see that what the minister has said indeed becomes action, and is carried through into a realistic program for the benefit of the people in rural Canada.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Mr. Hugh Faulkner (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly to this bill, which I consider a very imaginative one. Indeed, I think the whole approach exemplified by the minister is imaginative. It is one which deals with the sort of specifics we were told about last night on television. It is very important that this sort of approach be characteristic.
Before making one or two points I should like to deal with an assertion made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) to the effect that this government is pursuing a line which is designed to reduce the voice of rural Canada. I suggest categorically that that is a false statement, if it is based on the results of redistribution. Redistribution was considered by independent commissions whose decisions cannot be attributed to the government.
This party, of which I am very proud to be a member, is deeply concerned with what is

May 10. 1966
Rural Development
going on in rural Canada and, furthermore, unlike some previous governments, is resolved to do a very great deal about it. I think the bill before us tonight and the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) are symptomatic of the concern of the government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him whether he listened to my contribution to the debate on redistribution, in which I made a full explantion of the situation and suggested how it could be rectified. If he did so, the statement he has made is not valid.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, my statements were related to what the hon. member has said tonight, and that is all that concerns me at this time. His speeches cannot constantly be qualified by what he has said on previous occasions.
The other point I should like to make relates to something said by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), (Mr. Danforth) during this debate. He referred to a fear which possibly exists in rural areas, that some of this program is designed to move people off the land, and that the solution to rural poverty is wholesale migration. I think that is a legitimate fear, but I do not think it is a valid criticism. I do not think it was ever intended by the minister, within the framework of this legislation, to provide for such an exodus.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit another question? I certainly do not wish to inject a partisan attitude to this debate, but if the hon. gentleman is at all familiar with the promises made by his party during the last election campaign as to how they would solve farm problems he should be more aware of the cause for fear in the rural population as it exists today.


James Hugh Faulkner: I certainly hope that those individuals who incorporated promises of wholesale exodus from rural areas in their campaigns were defeated at the last election. Very few of us who are fortunate enough to be here incorporated that kind of promise in our election speeches.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Walter Gordon is still with us.


James Hugh Faulkner: The alternative, of course, is the concept of better land use. The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) developed some of the alternative possibilities, particularly when he referred to the tourism potential. I am
IMr. Faulkner.]
very mindful of this alternative in my own riding.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce mentioned the need for development of small industries in rural areas. I think it is imperative that members on all sides of the house make it clear to audiences in rural areas, who fear that somehow the solution envisaged in this legislation is some sort of exodus from farm areas, that this is not the purpose of the program.
I should like to make one or two specific points. I recognize, as do all hon. members, that the problem of poverty necessitates that priority be given to areas of chronic low income. I am concerned about the effects of this legislation on the more affluent, yet not totally affluent areas of Ontario. Although the problems in the Peterborough riding may not be as severe as those in other areas, they are nevertheless grave. It is very important that attention be given within the framework of this legislation to those areas which may not be chronic areas of low income, but nevertheless have grave problems. I trust the minister will give consideration to this situation.
My other point, which I think is extremely important, relates to the provision in this bill for the participation of residents of these areas. I have had some experience recently within my riding with what is going on at the provincial level in Ontario, and I think it is fair to say that there is a deep concern within rural Ontario, if my area can be taken as typical, about intrusions into the basic rights of citizens. They are not anxious to be patronized from above by governments. What they want more than anything else is simply an opportunity to exercise the sort of initiative of which they are capable, and it is important to stress this dimension in this bill.
This is not something that will be solved by a group of individuals located in Ottawa or Toronto. It will only be solved by an active participation on the part of the residents themselves in planning programs for their particular areas. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the results of the village development programs instituted in countries like India.
There must be greater efforts made to inform rural areas as to what will be available to them through this program, what this bill intends and how they in fact can participate. It is my experience that this information is not available to them, or has not been brought to their attention as yet.
May 10, 1966

My final point refers to the role which can be played by young people. At the present time there is an exodus of young people from rural areas. This is happening for one reason, that there is a greater opportunity for them off the farms. What is really lacking is a concerted attempt to show young people that there is a future for them, not necessarily on farms but in rural areas, perhaps in other lines. There is very little in the way of leadership training programs available to them. I noticed in one of the many press releases I received from the minister's office that such a program was carried out in Alberta. That is the sort of example that is necessary, and the sort of initiative that is needed.
As I look down the concession lines of my riding I find that the average age of the farmers in my area is between 50 and 60. Most of the young people who were there have gone to work in factories operated by Canadian General Electric and Outboard Marine, mainly because no one suggested there were alternatives. They felt they had to remain on the family farm or go to work at these factories. There is actually a tremendous opportunity for these individuals if the necessary leadership is provided, and these people can in turn take advantage of the work of organizations such as 4-H clubs which are doing an invaluable job in rural areas.
I hope the role that young people can play and the advantages of participation on the part of residents will be developed as fully as possible within the framework of this bill which, as I said at the beginning, is a most imaginative and important one.


Mr. Irving:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member said that a statement made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce was false. I do not believe the hon. member for Peterborough wants to leave such a statement on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that it is not unparliamentary to say that a statement is false, incorrect or inexact. What is unparliamentary is the suggestion that a statement is deliberately and intentionally false or incorrect. That is not what the hon. member said.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not able to hear all the introductory remarks of the minister when he spoke at the second reading stage this afternoon. Like other members, I presume, I went to attend the committee on
Rural Development
agriculture only to find that it had been cancelled. That fact says little for the coordination of committees of this house and the work of this chamber itself.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I would assure the minister, however, that I have on many occasions in the past taken the time to read-with diligence, I hope-some of the speeches he has delivered to various organizations across the country, agricultural organizations, groups of businessmen, and so on. In this way one gets a pretty clear picture of the thinking of the minister with regard to the problem of rural poverty, rural rehabilitation and ways and means of improving standards of living and levels of income in rural parts of this country.
I hope the minister will consider some of the points I raise this evening and reply to them seriatim. It may well be that what I have to say was touched upon by the minister when speaking this afternoon, or by other hon. members. I would begin by saying that the ARDA legislation in the course of the past few years has become very popular, at least in concept, and few members, if any, would really want to be critical of it.
On the other hand, I think that while we are all enthused with the legislation and the concept behind it, some of us are less enthused than others. I am one of those who, after reading about and studying the problem with which this legislation is designed to try to cope, has become somewhat sceptical and pessimistic about whether the legislation has the scope and enough money behind it thus far to really grapple with the problem in depth.
I shall try to deal with some of the reasons for my having become sceptical and somewhat pessimistic in this regard. I would ask the minister whether the amount referred to in the legislation before us, namely $50 million, is to be replenished annually, so there will be $50 million available for expenditure each year. Is this to be on a revolving fund basis or not? We have no clear indication in this respect from reading the legislation itself.
Another question that arises is, how long will the ARDA legislation be applied on a special, designated area basis? In effect, at the present time it is applied on a sort of test area basis. I maintain that it is not right, and we cannot justify for very long applying this legislation on a highly selective basis across the country. I know that in the case of crop insurance, for example, for a few years it was

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
deemed necessary and prudent to implement crop insurance on a test area basis so the administration could learn from experience and through that learning could decide when it was right to make crop insurance available on a province-wide basis. I maintain that after five years it is time we thought seriously about making this legislation applicable to all parts of the country, and all regions of the country that meet certain requirements having to do with level of income, land use, and so on.
I do not know whether the minister has mentioned this, but I would say with all the emphasis I can muster that to my way of thinking it is really unfair that we should continue year by year applying ARDA to only a few parts of the country. For example, in Manitoba ARDA at the present time is for the most part restricted in its application to the interlake area. It is true that agreements have been entered into with the province of Manitoba for the construction and development of a provincial park on the outskirts of metropolitan Winnipeg, and so on; but in so far as rural residents are concerned, the program has been restricted to the Interlake area. Yet there are other fairly large regions within that province that have much the same kind of economic circumstances as the interlake area. In the eastern part of Manitoba, running from lake Winnipeg in a crescent on the western escarpment of the Canadian shield, one finds much the same kind of farming operations and economic circumstances as in the interlake area. Surely an area like this should be considered for inclusion in the ARDA program before many more years pass. If this is not done one would have to admit that these people are simply being denied the opportunity to benefit from whatever programming ARDA has to carry out in the next few years.
I should also like to put to the minister the thought that already there is growing skepticism, not just on my part but on the part of many people to whom I talk about ARDA, to the effect that after this number of years-and it is almost five years now-it seems that ARDA is still very much in its first phase, that is to say in its analysis, survey and study phase, and nothing really concrete or tangible of any magnitude is being done by ARDA in the way of actual, concrete programming.
I know that before effective programming and implementation of programming can be carried out there must be a pretty thoroughgoing study and deep understanding of the

economic and social problems involved. But I am only passing on to the minister what I said is becoming a more deep-rooted attitude on the part of people in so far as ARDA is concerned. As	the	hon. member for
Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) said earlier today, if the feeling becomes more widespread on the part of people that there is procrastination and bureaucratic delay in this or any other program, that program will be killed in the minds of the public and particularly those who will be involved with it. With that sentiment I thoroughly agree.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I would take this opportunity of congratulating the minister on bringing forward this legislation, which I hope will be the beginning of a real intention to start, without delay, actual, concrete programs of development and income raising in different parts of rural Canada. I think at this point, too, it would be relevant to ask the minister whether all due consideration has been given to the desirability and possibility of including in the program the people living in areas such as those I have mentioned. I am sure the minister is aware that in the war against poverty program in the United States the practice, which I believe is authorized in the legislation, is that at each level there shall be representatives of the dwellers in the designated areas themselves. So that I hope, as the minister follows through with this legislation, if this practice does not obtain, one will be developed to include the various advisory and planning boards to deal with representations of the people living in these designated rural areas. The expertise must be there, but at the same time it seems to me that there is much to be gained by having included the opinions and the advice of people who are actually and directly involved.
I must say that in reading the several speeches given by the minister on ARDA and its implementation, I have not come across any reference to this specific point as to whether such representation was being allowed, encouraged or solicited by the administrators of this legislation.
Let me say too, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the task which faces the ARDA program is immense in the extreme, and that is perhaps the main reason why I am somewhat pessimistic as to whether it will succeed to the extent of the image built up by publicity of this program, and to the extent of the hope built up in the hearts of many farm families and farm people. There is nothing wrong
May 10, 1966

with publicity, of course; it is part of the process of informing the people of the problems they face, and informing them of ways and means being considered for helping them out of their unfortunate economic circumstances. I believe this kind of publicity is good, and that it is necessary. However, I cannot escape the impression that the publicity has had another effect as well, and that is to leave the impression that it will give to groups with an over-all problem, an inadequate farm income. I cannot see that this legislation will be able to assist them. But since it is a fact that ARDA shall be carried out in conjunction and in co-operation with two levels of government, and the various departments of the government, I would hope that among other co-operation which is to be carried out between the Department of Forestry and the Department of Agriculture vis-a-vis ARDA, they would also co-operate with respect to the problem of trying to come up with a new and revised policy statement on agriculture which would, among other things, deal with the problem of farm income.
As has been said by the Minister of Agriculture, for the first time in a long time-perhaps the first time ever-we are beginning to leave the economics of surplus in agriculture and we are beginning to enter the phrase of economics of scarcity of food products. As a matter of a fact, in recent days, certainly not more than two weeks ago, there was a major policy announcement from the White House to the effect that reverse United States government farm policy, particularly as it affected grain production, was now out to stimulate greater production from American farms. It seems to me that inasmuch as we are now beginning to worry about scarcity in Canada instead of surplus, now would be the time to concentrate on incomes and price policy for agriculture. Not until agricultural prices are improved considerably will we be able to hope that much of the rural poverty now existing in Canada will be erased. Only after we succeed in obtaining a more realistic and a fairer commodity pricing policy in agriculture will ARDA's task become manageable, because then they will be faced with the problem of attacking rural poverty, which stubbornly remains even after price revision and the measure of improvement it permitted.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister when he replies will be in a position to deal with some of these points and comments. I want to reassure him however that
Rural Development
while I do have some sceptical feelings to express relative to ARDA and its implementation to date, nevertheless at least in concept it is the kind of program which can be endorsed and if given sufficient moneys it will be able to do a creditable and memorable job in eradicating much of the world poverty existing in our country today.
I would restate that I feel much of this publicity about the efficacy of the program and its potential is really holding out false hope, and will continue to do so until such time as we have a revision of basic farm commodity prices and policies in this country.
[DOT] (8:10 p.ra.)

Hon, Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):	Mr. Speaker, I shall say first to the Minister that Bill C-151, which is now before the house, is a piece of legislation which will be welcomed by all Canadians.
I should like also to mention the intellectual honesty of the minister when he said, at the beginning of his remarks, that ARDA, which was introduced in the house by the former Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), had proved to be extraordinary legislation.
Indeed, ARDA which was presented by the previous government, has, I think greatly contributed up to now to the economic expansion of our rural areas. Of course, that legislation did not propose to cover all the economic sectors that are found in those rural areas; however, it has rendered a tremendous service to our farmers, our industrialists and those of our people whose income was below average.
I would say that Bill C-151, now before the house, supplements the ARDA legislation which was introduced by the former government and which was enacted by the house.
This legislation is entitled the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act. Of course, as a member from a rural area of Quebec, I must tell you that this legislation appeals to me in a very special way and that it is welcomed in our rural areas.
Through ARDA, the Department of Forestry has carried out in my area a project called Mont St. Anne, in Beaupre, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. I must tell you that the taxpayers in that locality have greatly benefited from that undertaking.
But what I find a little disturbing in that legislation is that apparently the provincial authorities will have the choice as to pilot

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
projects. The minister has already told the house that the provincial authorities will decide on the pilot projects and that the federal government will to a certain extent contribute to their preparation.
This afternoon, I was greatly impressed by the figures the Minister of Forestry gave us about the pilot project in the Lower St. Lawrence region.
Since I live on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, over the last few years, I had opportunity of hearing reports from directors of the pilot project of the Lower St. Lawrence area. The minister said it this afternoon and I noticed it myself during those television interviews, an economic survey was made not only of the economic factors but also of the human factors of the localities to which the pilot project of the Lower St. Lawrence region applied.
I am convinced that this pilot project was extremely useful when it came to statistics in the following fields: geography, demography, sociology and economics.
However, I deplore the fact that the government did not organize in the various regions of Canada a greater number of pilot projects.
There is in Quebec a designated area, that is to say an area which is not industrialized and where there is a lot of poverty. When there is talk of waging war on poverty, I think that those areas which are least favoured from an economic and social point of view should be the first ones considered.
The region I represent, Mr. Speaker, is one of those. When I speak of my region, I speak of the north side of the St. Lawrence, between Quebec City and the North Shore.
There are not a great many industries. In the Charlevoix area and part of Beaupre, there are only two paper-mills employing about 1,200 people. Of course, I am not talking here of the bush-workers who keep those mills busy but of the workers employed in the paper-mills. There are naturally family type secondary industries but they are far from employing the great number of unemployed registered now in our various selective employment offices.
I wish also to say that our workers do not have much schooling; I think the minister will understand that the area I represent can easily be compared to that of the Lower St. Lawrence and the South Shore, about which he spoke this afternoon.
To support my arguments, I would like to give you some figures. On March 31, 1965, we

had in the riding of Charlevoix, 2,691 men and 217 women, a total of 2,908 persons, claiming unemployment insurance benefits.
According to the 1961 census, Charlevoix had 8,273 paid workers, namely 6,469 men and 1,804 women.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Since the number of workers has changed little since then, the rate of unemployment, as of March 31, 1965, was 37 per cent in our area. If we add to this the number of persons in receipt of relief who are not paid benefits even though they are out of work, I think the rate of unemployment would easily exceed 40 per cent.
Heaven knows that our area provides exceptional opportunities for the experts, for those who want to look after the rural development of the district. Like all those who visited our region, they were able to admire our mountains, our lakes, the sites suitable for camping. In addition, in St. Urbain, there are mines still idle for lack of capital. Moreover, forestry operations are undeveloped because we lack the required capital.
That is why our area lacks secondary industries which could help especially those hard-working people whose only wish is to earn a decent living.
There are, of course, in our areas economic planning boards. We have the tourist board which, as you know, promotes the tourist industry in our region. For six months of the year, a large number of our people live on the tourist industry. But that industry is only developed to an extent of 20 per cent.
Of course, as I pointed out to the economic planning board, our Chambers of Commerce and also our boards which promote the tourist industry, try to do something to develop that industry which is essential to our population, because our area is one of the most attractive in the province as far as the tourist industry is concerned.
Even recently I asked that Tourist Council what grants it had received from higher governments to works stimulating our tourist industry. I was told that, last year, the provincial government gave that agency only $2,000 to $3,000. And why, Mr. Speaker? For publicity to attract a greater number of people, in an endeavour to develop, as I said a while ago, an industry that is profitable, the tourist industry.
Naturally, I believe the bill introduced by the hon. minister, as I have said before, is an
May 10. 1966

excellent one. But I would like the hon. minister to give us some explanations. The bill provides an amount of $50 million. This amount will, of course, be allotted by a board to be appointed by the department. Its purpose, will be, as indicated in section 4 of the bill:
(a)	the undertaking jointly with the province or any agency thereof of a comprehensive rural development program in a special rural development area; or
(b)	the payment to the province of contributions in respect of the cost of a comprehensive rural development program in a special rural development area-
I would like to know-I am sure he can tell us-if this money will be paid only where pilot-areas have been set up. That is extremely important. Will the $50 million provided for in this bill be paid to the provinces to help the pilot-areas already set up, those regions the hon. minister spoke of this afternoon? Here is an example: if a sum of $20 million is given the government of Manitoba, New Brunswick or Quebec, I would like to know, especially with regard to Quebec, if those millions given the provinces for rural development will be handed over exclusively to the regions where surveys of social, economic, and geographic conditions have already been made. I have no wish to start an argument with my good friend the member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gen-dron), but I would like to point this out: if the hon. minister intended these amounts to be spent first of all in those areas or pilot-areas already set up, I think it would be detrimental to the areas where the needs are just as great, whether the pilot-areas are located in other parts of the province, or elsewhere in Canada.
I would like the hon. minister to enlighten us in this regard. That aspect of the bill worries me for, in his opening remarks, the hon. minister spoke of three provinces where surveys had been made in pilot-areas. He mentioned New Brunswick, Manitoba and Quebec. I feel that should the act apply solely to the development of those pilot-areas, great and serious injury would be inflicted upon the other areas that are in great need of this help and also need these millions to fight off poverty.
In his opening remarks the hon. minister spoke of the war on poverty. We stand with him, we are all for fighting poverty in all its aspects. Now, I say it again, I feel there are
Rural Development
regions in Quebec in great need of government assistance, federal and provincial assistance, to pull out of stagnation, to develop economically and to raise the standards of education of their people. To my mind, one of those regions is the lower St. Lawrence. I am pleased to see the hon. minister seems to agree with me, but I would ask him to enlighten us at the end of this debate and tell us how these amounts will be allotted in those regions which are also underdeveloped, designated areas. I know our municipal councils have adopted resolutions requesting information on how ARDA might be used to develop our rural areas-


David Réal Caouette: They did not get any reply from the hon. minister.


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: -and in passing -did the hon. member for Villeneuve say something?


David Réal Caouette: I said they did not get any reply.


Martial Asselin: And, in passing, I must point out to the minister that obviously, agriculture at home is terribly depressed. I recently encountered some farmers who told me that their average yearly income is between $900 and $1,600. How do you expect a farmer who must pay school taxes as the worker does, and who must make payments on machinery to improve his farm to live in 1966? It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that school taxes are terribly high in the province of Quebec. It would be high time, I feel, that the minister consider this forsaken class that is the farmers.
And so, in closing, I strongly applaud this legislation, but I trust it will be equitably applied to all areas of Canada, not only in those areas where surveys have been made to decide the best way to apply it in the economic and social fields.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) for his speech and to assure him that our economies complement each other and that, undoubtedly, any provision likely to develop the Lower St. Lawrence, more particularly the riding of Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata, will affect his own economy. I also wish to assure him of my cooperation to promote more adequate communication so that the tourists who take

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
to the North Shore and the Lower St. Lawrence may benefit our two areas and contribute to their development.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I also wish to congratulate the minister on the introduction of his bill, on his dynamic administration of his department and on his often expressed desire to co-operate with the provinces and the public bodies which concern themselves with the problems of the development of designated areas in particular. Several members were jealous of our selection as a pilot area because there is also poverty in their regions. It must surely be the first time that poverty is to be envied. I believe there are two reasons-there is no cause for an area to congratulate itself on its selection as a pilot area. First, the main characteristic of those regions was a high level of unemployment, a low level of income and general poverty.
Another reason why we can be proud tc have been chosen as a pilot area is that in the Lower St. Lawrence region, we did not merely throw the blame on others and weep over our sorrows, but we tried to take our future in hand and organize ourselves for the necessary work of rehabilitating our region and of getting the help of competent authorities.
Indeed, in 1956, the former Secretary of State, now member for Outremont-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lamontagne), in a speech made at Mont Joli, introduced the idea of an Economic Council in our region which would unite our efforts and work toward our economic development. His message was to be heard by the chambers of commerce and the municipal councils which, as early as in 1956, grouped Riviere-du-Loup, Temiscouata, Ri-mouski, Matapedia and Matane through an economic council whose goal was to unite all men of goodwill in the region to promote the development of its human resources so as to ensure true and lasting prosperity and to represent them before governments and higher economic organizations with regard to regional questions.
Thus we became a group and the municipalities paid 10 cents a head while the county councils contributed 5 cents a head to the establishment of an Economic Council with a permanent secretariat to help with economic surveys throughout the region. We began by assessing our main strength, our population.
[Mr. Gendron.l
We had done a study on transportation, on agriculture, and we necessarily became aware that we did not have the financial facilities to develop more fully and adequately the complex program of studying a vast territory with many complex problems.
However, that work drew the attention of government authorities and we became the first pilot area in Canada under ARDA, with special studies projected and also I hope special subsidies.
The Economic Planning Board gave birth to the Eastern Quebec Development Board and brought together many experts of different schools of thought who, for three years, have been making studies of the territory. The E.Q.D.B. decided to undertake a general study of the territory instead of specific projects, and also encouraged the people to participate in that work. Undoubtedly, much could be said on the whole question of development and the new duties of whoever would undertake it with regard to his relations with the people and his future projects.
Suffice it to say that, to my mind, developers are architects who draw up plans for the land of the local people who are its first owners and who must therefore keep the initiative and the final decision which, is recognized as that of any owner with respect to an architect.
Social incentive may have a double purpose, that of inviting the population to understand the rules of the art of development as well as the purpose of translating the aspirations of the proprietor, of the local people. I dare hope that, at the conclusion of those studies which are to be made during the summer, there will have been a full understanding of this double mission, on the one hand, of the architect who must not only have planned his development, but also have considered all the aspirations of the local people and that the latter on the other hand, will realize the considerable risk in brushing aside all the studies and in thinking that planning or development can be done simply as chance directs or by improvisation.
I think both elements are essential and must play their part and that people in office, members of parliament and others, really do their share and take part with development experts in the preparation of a program which might possibly bring about a real development of the area. We hope for a great deal from the preparation of this plan and we
May 10, 1966

hope very sincerely that it will get the approval of the federal and provincial governments and that there will be numerous adjustments to develop the economy of the area.
We also have some concern which is shared by all outlying communities, or the less favoured areas, which now see great economic concentrations take place away from their temtories, and in relation to the problems of agriculture, on which a man could once make his own living and which today can feed about 30 persons, gradually moving toward an industrial and commercial orientation, while the necessary expansion of lands and better utilization of farming machinery release a great number of farm employees who cannot find employment in our areas and increase the haemorrhagic outflow toward the large sectors, which deprives our society of the dynamic elements for the development of our territory.
We are greatly worried because we know that, at the present time, industrial development is made in relation to great concentrations of population and also that universities settle where there are research centers, thus accentuating that migration of young people from the rural areas to the city and creating great problems.
We understand that the industrialist is not responsible for the social problems he creates but, in the end however, through his taxes and his participation to the fiscal and economic life of the country, he foots the bill.
One may wonder what social and economic problems those economic forces, left alone and aiming toward that greater centralization, create at all levels.
Air and water pollution, the ever-increasing cost of expropriation in large cities for road construction, underground and air traffic, finally the crowding in great cities of often badly prepared people from rural areas. What does that bring about as social and moral problems? What is the general cost to society and what is the problem with regard to the standard of living and the joy of living?
Will it be necessary in the end-and that is the question being asked in rural areas-to encourage progress where it is, where it can happen or if it will be necessary to stop that drain and try to create a type of economic stability which would be better distributed throughout Canada?
Rural Development
In short, to remedy unemployment in rural areas, will it be necessary to encourage only a policy of manpower mobility? Would it be aiming too high and taxing too much our human and economic resources to want to better economic stability throughout the country?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Those are the questions being asked and they worry the rural areas which, in spite of all, want to build, to expand.
Father Pierre said:
-that a world governed to please those who are happy and not to free those who suffer unjustly is necessarily doomed to hate.
One may wonder what the feeling of frustration felt in rural areas about that constant migration of their primary forces can result in at the political level for the future of the country.
If some demagogues really knew how to capitalize on those feelings of frustration, they could sometimes lead us in adventures which would have terrible repercussions on our country's future.
I submit that, in any case, we will have to pay the price of progress or recession, and by recession, I mean let things follow their own course and do nothing to restore the economic balance to which I referred a while ago.
It would be interesting to have exact figures on what I call the price of recession. What is the social and economic cost of this youth migration? People, speaking in a popular way of this centralization toward large centres, translate this thought by saying: water goes to the river and developments of large centres invite governments to invest the necessary funds for public works and other services, while the same services are refused to small centres because it would not be profitable. But shall we allow-and I return to my example-an extremely fertile land to be flooded and carried away into a single gulf, or shall we be able to embank it to allow irrigation of its shores for the benefit of all the areas?
The whole problem concerns the necessity to set up an economic balance throughout the province, throughout the country. This bad distribution leads directly to chronic and lasting unemployment in less favoured areas.
There is also the danger that this unemployment, this destitution may lead to intangible social calamities, when there are so many opportunities and so much good will that have only to be put to good use, so much

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
wasted talent and frustrated ideals, which need only a little hope and the possibility to solve these problems, and instead of being a burden, let alone a shame for society, they can become an important asset capable of contributing to the progress of the country.
It would be interesting to know exactly the social, moral and economic problems which this human stream, poured as in a single gulf, has involved for the big city. What is the exact cost of this overcrowding of population and public investments necessitated by its greater traffic?
It is easy to conclude that the economic forces left to themselves develop like a cancer killing the best cells of our society, and developing great urban centres which are too large for man and cannot answer his deepest aspirations.
A survey made in Paris among 7,700 families gave the extraordinary result that 80 per cent of them had concluded that if they had the choice, they would prefer to live in the country; 10 per cent were indifferent and 10 per cent were happy with their lot.
It may be easy to conclude that the large amounts invested in housing, which do not really meet the wishes of the people and to say that, one day, we might want to go back to nature, to own property where we could have a garden, a swimming pool, and other facilities, that the dwellings we conceive at a heavy cost might become slums because all those who will have the opportunity to get out and the necessary income to do so, will leave.
Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the philosophy of urban renewal and to promote instead a better distribution of municipalities and also their opportunity for a more harmonious development.
Areas where sometimes the most dynamic factors have been siphoned out, are faced with ever increasing community charges with a decreasing number of people to carry them. At any rate, society foots the bill.
There is no need to quote all the data of transfer payments or social security or unemployment insurance and assistance in the nine counties represented by the B.A.E.Q. but the minister said in his speech that it amounted to $83 million.
This is what I call to foot the recession bill. However, 50 per cent of the people work only six months a year in temporary jobs and during winter, the number of unemployed
[Mr. Gendron.i
amounts to 30 or 40 per cent of the available labour force.
Prejudices go around in that respect. We will, of course, get a clear conscience by saying that these people do not want to work, that they are lazy, they do not have the necessary drive, but I should like you to answer the telephone calls of those asking the mayor for the privilege to work in ditches with water up to their knees, in extremely difficult and painful conditions.
If it costs the government a lot and the gap still widens between the more favoured and less favoured groups, this is good reason to increase the measures for industrial development in the designated areas, and to have an overall policy to assist industrial development in the outlying areas.
I proposed, as president of Quebec union of municipalities, the establishment of a department for rural development at both federal and provincial levels. I admire the work performed by the minister and I am firmly convinced that this whole problem of rural development and war against poverty is everybody's problem, in short the problem of every department, of every crown corporation, and every individual.
When a war is threatening, is everyone not urged to contribute to its cost and to share in its problems? I say that this department of national development should be headed by the Prime Minister himself, because only the Prime Minister can effect the required coordination among all the departments, ensure the centralization of their activities so as to make them realize that it is not enough to administer at best their own department, but that everyone should concern himself with promoting a more harmonious development of our economic activities.
This responsibility should be shared equally by all crown corporations and companies, such as the General Financing Corporation, the C.F.U., whose mission should be not only to bring about a general improvement in their particular field but to implement regionalization and decentralization.
If this is nobody's concern and efforts are dissipated, this serious problem will never be solved. Farms should be regrouped so as to increase their economic potential. Our people are ready to do this. The establishment of quasi-agricultural bodies and the marketing of farm products should be promoted. I know that many pieces of legislation and many persons, namely the minister, are concerned with these matters.
May 10. 1966

Municipal regrouping must also be promoted to counterbalance the large centres and to enable them to secure the equipment and the services required for desirable development.
The dispersion of industry also represents a most urgent problem. This dispersion must be remedied by putting a premium on amalgamation, reconversion, plant building, to be paid automatically and directly to the contractor who creates employment, and thus emphasize premiums on employment instead of premiums on unemployment.
Additional assistance should also be given generously to equip and organize urban services in centres likely to bring about industrial development.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The establishment of regional industrial development organizations should be promoted to regroup contractors and companies, to distribute information concerning government services on imports and exports. Surveys through advanced projects should also be undertaken to reduce investment risks by contractors.
Employees have well attended training courses, and it may be the most interesting indication to observe the dynamism of those people in the underdeveloped areas and to see how interested they are when the slightest hope of improving their lot is given to them, and the efforts and the sacrifice to which they will readily agree for their own development and for the greater general development of their environment.
Everyone understands today the problem of agriculture cannot be solved unless that economic stability is arrived at throughout the territory, because a farmer needs that marketing; he needs urban centres growing within his territory which become a market for his products; he needs in many cases to find non-agricultural or seasonal work in industries which could help him to round out his income and make it possible for him to earn a decent living for his family. That is what I call meeting the cost of progress.
Our territory is very well endowed with assets and possibilities. Father Lebret said that we have a lot to learn from what we call underdeveloped countries. Such is the case for the areas whose fundamental qualities and assets must be revalorized and which must meet the challenge of our ancestors who wanted to make of those 30 acres of ice and snow the second most industrialized country in the world and the one with the highest standard of living.
Rural Development
The Prime Minister of Canada said:
In Canada, the pressures come from the north and south and not from the east and west, because our economic, social and geographic regional limits lie in the north and south. We have refused to accept the dictates of nature, economics and geography. We have built in the northern part of our continent a country which spreads from one ocean to the other and from the southern border to the Arctic ocean. Very few people in the world could have done that.
Well, we took up that challenge as a country. It is also true when it comes to a province; it is also true when it comes to a region. We have always wanted to take up a challenge to build a country. I cannot see why today we should give up those deep aspirations and keep only to what is understood, what gets along by itself, leaving the outlying areas to their lot under the pretext that it would be asking too much from the people to develop the whole territory.
The people want to take up that challenge. In the past, no one could see any possibility in the swamps of western Canada, and today it is the bread-basket of the world; important natural resources were discovered there and they are our pride and prosperity.
If there exists a territory with natural resources still untouched, with impressive water resources, which, on account of its location, is the doorway to the Atlantic markets and opens on Europe and America, it is indeed the lower St. Lawrence.
If there is a secluded part of the country where the people have kept unsullied the qualities of the great builders, and among other things an indomitable will to develop their own territory, if there is a country with a promising future, it is indeed the lower St. Lawrence.
Such a promising future is just beginning for this area, the cradle of our civilization, and the saying "Go East, Young Man" will undoubtedly be added to the traditional "Go West".
[English1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, along with the other members who already have spoken in support of this fund for economic and social development in rural areas, I should like to say that properly administered I think it can be a very excellent thing for the farming communities of our country. I see that in this bill provision is made for a fund of $50 million and that the

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
aim of the measure is to help the depressed agricultural areas in which this type of assistance is needed. This measure will be spread over ten provinces, and it seems to me this $50 million will have to be spread very thinly indeed in order to cover the areas in which it is required.
I hope this is just a preliminary amount and that the government will see to it that additional sums are made readily available as they are needed, because I am convinced they will be needed before very long. I should like to ask the minister a question, which I hope he will answer when he makes his summation at the end of this debate. What is the yardstick which the government is going to use in deciding which areas will receive this very much needed help?
I have in mind my own riding of Northumberland, and areas there which I believe to be very much in need of aid through this measure. I should like to know from the minister just how the decisions will be made as to which farming areas will receive this kind of assistance, and which will be excluded from it. During the election campaign the government claimed that the intention in this measure would be to take the people off the farms they are working; develop those farms into larger units, and then sell the larger units back to the farmers. The people whom I represent are not in favour of that kind of move, because they do not wish to be taken off their farms.
When they are removed, where do they go? They have no choice but to move to the city. With the new automated system into which we are moving more and more every day, one needs special skills in order to take a place in our factories in this automated age. People who have come off the farms will be at a great disadvantage in finding an opportunity to make a livelihood without having had the type of training which is needed. What the people whom I represent wish is to remain on the farms where they are today, and receive financial assistance in the way of farm loans at reasonable rates of interest, and farm loans which can be obtained without the many obstructions which are put in the way of our farmers today.
I have found that in many cases unfair restrictions are placed in the way of our farmers who desperately need financial assistance in order to buy the additional land which is needed to have an economic farm, and to buy the necessary machinery so that they can farm it economically. I hope the

main purpose of this measure will turn out to be the encouragement of our farmers to remain on their farms and to enlarge the size of their farms by the purchase of additional land, and the additional machinery which they need. I hope they will not have to move off the farms so that the government can take over their land, change it in various ways, and then at some later date, after they have displaced the people, sell it back to them.
I hope this plan will make it possible for people to maintain the family farm of today. Enlarge it if necessary, but maintain it. I am convinced this is the basis of our agricultural life, and indeed the basis of our true Canadian society.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We must make it possible for our young people to remain on farms. To do so we must make loans available to them at reasonable rates and without impediments. In this manner they will be able to carry on the traditions of their families by doing the work they are best suited to do, and like to do. They will not have to move to towns and cities to work in factories, but rather remain in the areas in which they were born; which they know; and in which they wish to live.
As we all know, our farmers need financial help today in order to be competitive. This help should take the form of reasonable loans so that they can purchase the machinery necessary to farm economically, and overcome the cost-price squeeze in which they find themselves at this time. Those of us who are associated with farmers, and have the honour to represent farming communities, realize that farmers are caught in a vicious cost-price squeeze, because the prices they receive for their products remain stationary, or continue to go down, whereas the cost of supplies, machinery, and other things they must purchase on a day to day basis continue to go up. The return they receive for the capital they expend is getting less and less.
This bill calls for the setting up of advisory committees. I hope the minister when he concludes the debate, will explain how these committees are to be set up, and what type of personnel they will contain. In this regard, I should like to mention something I found to be very useful when I was in the government some years ago, as minister of Trade and Commerce. We wanted to know how best the businessmen of this country could expand our exports. To obtain this information, we held a series of conferences in various parts of the
May 10. 1966

country, to which we invited businessmen. These businessmen, and the departmental heads, discussed this subject intimately and in detail. The businessmen explained the difficulties they faced, and asked us how best they could be solved. The departmental officials advised them, in turn, about the assistance available to them through the Department of Trade and Commerce.
This procedure could very easily be followed with beneficial results to the government and to the farmers of this country. Meetings could be held in the important farming areas all across Canada. Farmers could be invited to attend for the purpose of giving advice which could not readily be obtained in any other way.
When these committees are set up, I hope that the farmers whose operations may be affected by the provisions of this measure, will be given good representation, because I am sure they can provide useful and practical information. Only in this way can this measure be as efficient as it is intended.
I hope this measure will be accepted and begin to function as quickly as possible, because it is a good and useful one. Many good suggestions have been made by hon. members in all parts of this house, and I hope the minister will make use of them for the benefit of the farming community of Canada. I feel his approach to the problem is good, and I am sure he will take advantage of the many suggestions that have been made. I am very pleased indeed to give my strong support to this measure.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, having listened to hon. members of various counties, we can easily understand that even though pilot-areas are located in our province, there are others which are not considered as such but where the hon. minister could certainly find as much poverty as in any of the so-called pilot-areas.
This afternoon, the minister dealt rather at length with the poverty which exists in many rural areas of our country. In fact, the department, which is under the minister's jurisdiction spent several million dollars to discover the poor.
They forgot, Mr. Speaker, to spend millions of dollars to relieve them. To discover the poor is one thing, but to relieve their poverty is another.
Rural Development
A few moments ago, I heard the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) telling us about the poor in his constituency, one of the richest in Canada and the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) talking about the need to attract tourists in his constituency and asking the minister to direct tourists toward Charlevoix. He stated with reason, that the Lower St. Lawrence, the Charlevoix area, is one of the beautiful regions of the province. The hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) emphasized the importance of farm product marketing. I do not think the problem lies there. Farmers who are sure of selling their products are able to market them.
They have to be sure that they will sell their products at a profit, so that it will pay them. Nobody can blame a farmer who decreases his production or gives it up when he realizes that it does not pay. This, to some extent, is what is happening not only in one area but throughout Canada, except in the west where the government guarantees to western farmers the sale of their wheat at a profit. We do not enjoy the same privileges in eastern Canada.
I come from a mining area where 30 years ago, settlers were established on uncleared lands. The legislation was then known under the name of Colonization Act. We then had the Rogers plan in Ottawa and the Auger plan in Quebec and the federal government had developed jointly with Quebec a plan for those who wanted to settle on farms.
Well, thousands of families came to settle in Abitibi, in the vicinity of Chapleau county and my own county of Villeneuve, in 1934, 1935 and 1936.
Mr. Speaker, after 30 years of labour on these farms, it has just been found, in 1966, that there are poor people living there. It is important to consider now if it would not be wiser to guide them back to urban centres. The study that could be made today would not take long, because 30 years ago, we had settlements of 200 to 250 families while now-and I invite the minister to come up for a visit to my area-in these same settlements there is not even half the population there was in 1935. At that time, both governments, federal and provincial, had a settlement program under which the settlers were paid from $10 to $15 per acre of cleared, tilled and seeded land. These people were dying a slow death.

May 10. 1966
Rural Development
Nowadays, most of those remaining in those agricultural sectors have to work in our cities, in our mines and other industries in order to support their farms because the land no longer feeds the farmer.
Now the minister tells us that he has found out poor people in those settlements and in the agricultural parishes. Kindly take note of this. Some members of Parliament claim, as we were told last night on the C.B.C. radio network, during the news report: "Settlers live in slums and shanties; the Abitibi settlers are unhappy".
The settlers of Abitibi are no more unfortunate than those of Lotbiniere or those of Montreal who live in shanties. Our settlers are as respectable as any of those people. They are getting bad publicity. There may be some poor people but in comparison with other areas, there are not more in our area than in Montreal or in Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata, Charlevoix, Lotbiniere or in any other agricultural riding of the province.
There is in our northern area an exclusively agricultural county, that of Temis-camingue, which has perhaps the best farming land in the province of Quebec, and there again the farmers experience difficulties. Why? The farmers do not want to work. Their farms are not large enough. I heard the premier of the province of Quebec mention this fact on television. It is intended to reorganize the farms, to create collective farms, since an area of 100 acres is not large enough to ensure the livelihood of a family, but most of these farmers have no more than 40 to 50 acres of arable soil ready for production.
If we could only assure the farmers and the settlers that they can sell their products and earn a profit, Mr. Speaker, the farmers in Quebec and in eastern Canada would undoubtedly double, triple and quadruple their production in a few years.
The minister indicates that it is so. Then, why spend hundreds of millions of dollars to say that we are looking for the poor whereas we should spend those millions to assure the sale of their products? He was saying that we must be able to expand markets. We are told every day, every week and every month that two thirds of the world are underfed, that people in India are underfed, and they tell us in the House of Commons, in Canada, one of of the most affluent countries in the whole world, that we must find markets for Canadian farm products.

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame to hear such statements in the Parliament of one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It is neither the markets nor the market possibilities which are lacking but the financing which would secure the sale of the farmer's products.
The Minister of Forestry knows very well that I am right on that point. Let us guarantee the farmer the sale of his products and you will see a decrease in the number of the poor in the rural areas of our country. This guarantee of sale of the products, Mr. Speaker, will put a check on the desertion of family farms, prevent the creation of community farms, and a farmer on a 100 acre-farm will be able to do well and even have employees.
We have seen community farms in Russia: Their agricultural production has been decreasing year after year for the past ten years. In Canada, because of the family farm, our agricultural production has increased.
Today, in Quebec, we do not produce 50 per cent of the consumption of our province. It is said that we lack markets, openings. Let us be reasonable. Let us use our brains and organize agriculture on a viable base which will allow the agricultural class to live like the other classes of our society.
Bill C-151 stipulates that an amount not exceeding $50 million is to be earmarked for agriculture to help farmers throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, when we are at the point where farmers, not only in Abitibi, Rouyn, Val-d'Or and La Sarre, but in all the province of Quebec, leave their homes in winter to work as lumbermen in Abitibi and in northern Ontario, we wonder why. But it is to earn money, because the farm does not give them enough for their living.
The minister does not speak about that. I see the member for Charlevoix; he has the same problems in his riding. There is not a single member here, who has rural areas in his riding, who does not face the same conditions, the same problems. We spend our time trying to find out the poor among the agricultural class. For 20 years, we have known that agriculture is poor, we have heard about poor farmers.
We are presented a program establishing at not more than $50 million the amount to wage war against poverty. His Eminence Cardinal Leger said it on television: We have been talking about the poor and poverty for a long time and yet nothing is done to relieve
May 10. 1966

them. Whatever programs we create, they will give nothing if we do not guarantee the sale of agricultural products in Canada.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This is the only way. Besides, it is the only method followed by this government and even by former governments, to assist agriculture in western Canada. The sale of wheat was guaranteed in the west; let us do the same thing in the east. We do not know what to do with foodstuffs, we are afraid of a surplus. Let us build refrigerated storage instead of paying inspectors to go and find the poor. Let us build refrigerated storage to store foodstuffs in case the people of the world would need them and, of course, first the people of Canada, our country that we are developing and building.
Mr. Speaker, this ARDA plan as that assistance to redevelopment is called: An Act to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas. All areas are special in eastern Canada.
The hon. member for Charlevoix mentioned that in his area, the government is not too quick to help fight poverty and he insisted on the fact that his riding is a wonderful touristic area, that the minister should tour his county in order to assess the possibilities for a tourist industry. He is right, that is a beautiful area. However, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the finest lakes for fishing are located in my area and also the best trout. This is why each year Americans and a good number of Canadian citizens come to my riding. But this is not the answer to the problem.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of farming does not concern only one group in a riding, it concerns all farmers.
I want to speak again of my area. It has good fertile lands. We do not have only sheds, log cabins as some would want to believe or try to make us believe, but there are agricultural opportunities in Abitibi. This is proven by the fact that Abitibi has existed since 1908, 1909. People who live there all the time have not always worked in mines; they lived off agriculture during the years 1920, 1921, 1922. The first mine to be opened in the north, at Rouyn, dates back to 1925, when the Noranda mine started its operations. In the Amos and LaSarre areas, we had farming and forests. The land was beautiful and our farmers had big herds in Abitibi as elsewhere in other provinces.
But, when sales in the dairy industry no longer pay the farmers, when costs of dairy
Rural Development
products exceed selling prices, everyone can understand why the farmers want to get rid of their herds. When it cost more to fatten a pig than it brings in, can the farmer or producer be blamed for doing so?
Farmers are forever being blamed: he has no talent, he does not have enough education. All sorts of nonsense is spoken about the farmers but, Mr. Speaker, I say so again before closing, the only way to help them and the rural people, in every province throughout Canada, is to guarantee the sale of their products.
Let us put an end to expenses in search of the poor, and instead, let us find a way to sell their products and encourage the farmers. You will see that the settlers, the farmers are able to organize their production according to the demand. All the government has to do is see that the products are sold. The farmers do not need the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), nor the hon. Minister of Forests, nor ARDA, to tell them what to produce when there is a demand and they are sure of selling their products.
You will see that farmers can organize production when they feel it is possible to sell their produce. And the same thing goes for stock breeders and dairy farmers. If there is a chance for milk sales to double, herds will be doubled within a few years. Two hundred and five hundred acres will not be needed.
A farm of 100 acres can provide livelihood for a family. It has done so in the past when there was a chance to sell its produce. You will see that the family farm could survive and be profitable to the farmer, and thereby to the whole of Canada, for, at long last, we will have brought balance to the economic life of the farmer, and he will stand on an equal footing with other classes of Canadian society.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monimagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that those who are familiar with the riding of Mont-magny-L'Islet cannot but warmly and sincerely welcome this bill introduced by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) and entitled: an act to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.
If you allow me a little aside before starting my remarks, I should like to call attention to a remark of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). He attempts to condemn this bill by suggesting that funds

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
are being earmarked for a poor hunt, meaning farmers. If he only takes the trouble, he will realize that even though the present government has not accomplished everything it intended, it has nevertheless accomplished a great deal especially by giving the country the best dairy policy since confederation.
We also have a program providing for the establishment of a feed grain purchasing and distribution agency for eastern Canada. All those measures are designed to help agriculture, but the main reason why I am interested in agriculture as a whole, is because provision is being made for the establishment of a $50 million fund, in addition to the $125 million available to us under ARDA.
I think that all fields should be looked into. At present, I am concerned with all matters pertaining to agriculture.
Before starting my remarks, I wish to say that I heard the hon. member for Villeneuve quote Cardinal Leger. On the same occasion, His Eminence Paul-Emile Cardinal Leger said about war on poverty something that should be noted:
As desirable as may be a strong state intervention, so should be rejected the idea that everything should be expected from the state and that it is sufficient, in order to eliminate poverty, for every individual to seek quietly to enjoy as much as possible the largest income possible, entrusting with the state alone the care of looking after the outcasts of fortune. The delusion that a brotherly and orderly human society can be established on that basis must be denounced. In the war on poverty, public authorities should therefore take strong action, but should allow programs resulting from private initiative, which are also necessary, to come into being and to progress.
This is what the cardinal said about war on poverty.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It is not claimed that this legislation will of itself solve all problems: along with others which already exist or which are being prepared, it will help not only the farmers but all levels where some unbalance is to be found.
Naturally, it is realized how popular a program ARDA is. Everyone applauded when it was introduced. I think it was the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) who said that after five years, he had some doubts; he felt that ARDA was possibly not progressing fast enough. He was not alone. We too may have felt for a time that ARDA was a cure-all for every ill and possibly quicker-acting than we thought.

But in view of the seriousness and the scope of the problem, it is quite evident that the greatest caution must be exercised.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) himself stated that legislation adopted 30 years ago may have been instrumental in establishing municipalities on crown lands that should have remained as such. Villages were founded all over and unfortunately, it is realized today that such villages possibly should not have been founded but that the areas should have been maintained as timber lands. Such things have happened in most ridings I have had the pleasure of visiting, in which I have stayed, lived and worked on the north shore of the St. Lawrence as well as on the south shore. Such legislation, it is being realized today did not produce the expected benefits.
It is obvious that with such a program as ARDA, with its scope and with all the assistance it is intended to bring forth, we must proceed cautiously.
That is why, in closing the debate, the Minister of Forestry, who is responsible for ARDA, will surely have the opportunity of replying to the observations that have been made.
But as far as I am concerned, I should like to join with the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) and others to say that we, too, are interested in the adoption of this particular bill. Obviously, if the legislation provided for an increase of $100 million instead of $50 million, everybody would be happier still. And when I say this, I am casting an eye toward the Minister of Finance who would undoubtedly not smile so readily if his budget were to be encumbered more than he can afford at the present time.
I come back to this point. When the topic is the farm situation, you can be sure that I am interested, not so much because I was brought up in the riding of Montmagny-L'lslet and have returned, there, but because, due to close co-operation with the South Shore Development Council, which is mainly concerned with the activities in the counties of Bellechasse, Montmagny-L'Islet and Kamouraska, we see various problems arise on several occasions.
Obviously, like many others, I am not too happy sometimes to be part of a so-called designated area or an area which is not quite able to meet all its wishes and aspirations.
May 10, 1966

Nevertheless, when we must face problems, it is up to us to consider them seriously and to establish priority needs. Agriculture, on the shores of the river, in counties such as Montmagny-L'Isles, Bellechasse, Kamouras-ka-and I would go as far as Temis-couata-faces very complex problems, because if farms are fine in the lower part of the county, when you get to the heart of the district-and the Minister of Forestry is aware of this, since he went out there and met with the local people-the problem of agriculture arises. There has been a suggestion about a reforestation program or an improvement program, through the development of parks that could be used by hunting and fishing clubs, thus allowing everybody to practise those sports. There is a program which, I am sure, concerns as much the neighbouring riding of Kamouraska as mine. Through ARDA, we foresee the possible improvement of the touristic industry, not only the domestic travelers but visitors from the neighboring United States, by developing access roads to Eastern Lake which, in passing, is very interesting and most important, being partly on Canadian territory and partly on U.S. territory. There are surely many things to be done there.
Speaking of reforestation, I am convinced that ARDA can certainly help us in the best possible manner. It may be, in a few years, the only lasting solution which will allow us to protect our lumber industry, the most important economic element of our constituencies. I am thinking of the sawmills on the upper limits of the ridings along the American border which, nowadays and for a few more years, must bring in their supplies of raw materials almost exclusively from the American side.
Under the Canada-United States project for dredging or harnessing the St. John river, these sources of raw materials will disappear within an indefinite number of years. That is why it is very urgent, considering the seriousness of that suggestion, of that agreement between Canada and the United States for the harnessing of the St. John river which is under study, to think now about protecting our forests, if we want to keep that industry of vital importance to most of the region all along the St. Lawrence.
Unfortunately, some of our forests have been plundered; I do not blame anyone here in particular. There is certainly legislation which should have been passed before, either at the provincial or at the federal level, but I
Rural Development
can scarcely mention it because I am not now asking myself whether what was done in 1962 or in earlier years was right. We are now in 1966 and we must look to the future to be sure that in 1966 and until 1976 at least, we have checked this danger sapping all our natural resources. To a certain extent, that is the reason for measures such as the one we are discussing to-night.
Mr. Speaker, this bill interests me because I see that it means to increase revenue and employment, raise the standard of living and, above all, provide for the participation of the inhabitants of the region in the implementation of such a program.
That is another commendable factor which should be mentioned and which will help to reassure our young people, to set them up or to resettle them by giving them the benefit of the experience of older people, their parents who, as pioneers working these strips of land, managed to make them productive in spite of changing times and hardship. If young people still wish to live where they were born, where their home is, they and those who are less young will, under similar programs, be able to participate themselves in the struggle of their region for survival. Let us extend this to the provincial and national level and we will be sure of reaching our goal.
This is not what I call a war on poverty. I believe it is a well planned and orderly way to look at our production and examine our future needs.
Can we blame a government or a department, be it the Department of Agriculture, that of Forestry or the one responsible for ARDA, for insisting to tell people who desperately want to stick to a strip of land which is not really one but rather an expanse of rock, that in spite of their insistence and their obstinacy, they will never be able to grow the products they want to sell or need for their subsistence?
Then the time has come for the government to help those people through appropriate legislation. I am not saying that those people have to be moved and dragged all over the country, but it is certainly our duty to concern ourselves with the people living in areas where there is no means of subsistence, so that they are not ruthlessly uprooted. But if they are now classified as farmers without really being so actually, they will never be.
Why not let them benefit, under ARDA, from the advantage we enjoy for reforestation work? That would give work to all the people concerned and would ensure the devel-

May 10, 1966
Rural Development
opment of a heritage so very important in an area like the one I have the pleasure of representing here. That would enable us to bring about improvements in every respect and in every field. It is this flexibility of ARDA which will enable us, when the very necessary studies which are under way have proven the foundation of certain measures, to work more wisely and particularly more seriously without having to boast of any action of our government.
It does not necessarily endeavour to find where the poor are, but it tries above all to bring them relief. And in this field of help to the needy, the party to which I have the honour to belong is certainly not the one which has done the least since confederation. Anyway, there always remains something to be done. Through conscientious work, not by always doing the same thing and distorting the facts we shall succeed in accomplishing something for the poor people. In fact, it always comes back to the dollar sign. It always ends up the same way. It is always the same tune. If we lend an attentive ear it is always the same tune, the same song.
If the bills presented to our attention do not always completely fulfil our aspirations, we can always try to improve them somewhat. But it is nevertheless a new landmark which will allow us to follow a safer path, which will allow us, without political distinctions, to further our social, cultural and economic development to its fullest extent if we wish to have a more prosperous and stronger country where it will be good to live.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The county of Montmagny-L'Islet which, according to the new redistribution of seats, is to disappear-it will remain the same in length and breadth-to the advantage of surrounding counties in which it will eventually be incorporated, will become one of the most prosperous counties, where this dangerous downward trend will have been stopped and in which production will start again.
I wish to congratulate from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of my constituents, the Minister of Forestry for having introduced a bill which will certainly make our work more pleasant and more effective.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for having taken so much of your time.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac wish to ask a question of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet?


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member tell us who led the people into poverty, who brought poverty, who ruined the economy of the country, who did all that?


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Speaker, it should first be proven that we have reached a point that calls for such pessimism as I have just heard from the hon. member, to which I do not agree at the outset-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The hon. member for Queens.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I will try to be as objective as possible. It is not of much interest to me which government belonging to which party had the best or the worst record with regard to the rural problems of Canada. I think we all recognize that there are rural problems.
I want to base my remarks on the problems existing in the maritime provinces chiefly, but my references will be directed almost exclusively to Prince Edward Island, and what applies there in most cases equally applies to the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and to a lesser extent Newfoundland.
In the maritime provinces agriculture and the primary industries are a very important part of our economy. The primary industries of agriculture and the fisheries are the mainstay of our economy. Yet if we examine the over-all economy in the maritime provinces, what is the situation we find? We find that the population in the maritime provinces imports-and I use this term in the sense of bringing products into the area, not necessarily from outside the country-about half of its total meat requirements.
If you go into a shopping centre in the maritime provinces, Mr. Speaker, you will see foods that could be produced in the maritime provinces but which have been imported from all corners of North America. You find turkeys from California, carrots from Texas, apples from British Columbia, and so on.
In addition to this the agricultural economy of the maritime provinces imports great quantities of feed grains from western Canada;
May 10, 1966

and there is a place for them up to a point. We also find that in the last 50 years the maritimes have changed from producing an important portion of their flour requirements to a situation today in which virtually all flour requirements are imported from western Canada.
It is true that in Prince Edward Island especially, and also in New Brunswick, there is trade in the opposite direction in food products, chiefly potatoes, which are exported in large quantities to markets in central Canada and the New England states. In the past number of years the provincial governments have also made a great effort to develop frozen food industries, and they are helping the economy to a considerable extent.
What is happening to agriculture in the maritime provinces? Why is this great importation of food necessary? Is it that the potential agricultural production in the maritimes has already been fully exploited? You would imagine, Mr. Speaker, that that is probably the case, but in actual fact it is not the case. In my own province of Prince Edward Island, which depends to such a very great extent on agriculture, the situation has been a very discouraging and disappointing one over the period of the last 30 to 40 years.
I should like to quote briefly from a very excellent publication known as memoire No. 9, produced by the geographical branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, 1962-63, with reference to land use in Prince Edward Island. This publication points out that between 1911 and 1956 the Island's acreage of improved agricultural land decreased from 769,000 acres to 645,000 acres, or approximately by 16 per cent. In other words, over that period of time 16 per cent of the agricultural land in Prince Edward Island has been abandoned. In addition, the number of farms has decreased between 1941 and 1956 from 12,230 to 9,442.
This is to me, Mr. Speaker, a shocking decrease in the use of the agricultural potential of that small province. Naturally the question we need to ask and to which we should find the answer is: What is the basic root cause of this situation?
A number of factors can be cited. There are of course the economic causes, such as small farms which had served their purpose during the pioneering stage of subsistence living but which were unable to make the transition to a commercial operation which was viable. But I believe there are other 23033-316
Rural Development
causes. For example, I am concerned with rural blight. I have noticed that when a rural area becomes depressed a cumulative effect sets in and the economy of the area becomes depressed. It becomes more difficult for that area to carry the necessary facilities to maintain a reasonable standard of living, such as provision of good schools and so on. The educational level of the people drops and they become discouraged. The more ambitious of them, or at least the more discontented, emigrate from the area, which becomes depopulated as a result, making it more difficult for the people who remain to carry on supporting community requirements such as schools, churches, roads, telephones, power lines and so on. You have a spreading malaise within the area which, once it starts, is very difficult to cure. There has been a tendency by all governments over the years, I believe, to fail in their attempts to get at the root cause of this problem. There has been a tendency for agricultural departments to follow the doctrine that: To him that hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away. What I mean by that is that the agricultural departments over the years have been concerned chiefly, or to a great extent perhaps, with the better types of farmers-the farmers that tend to go to them for information.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
At the lower end of the scale there are the completely discouraged, poorly educated, depressed farmers who have given up hope almost entirely and who have failed. They have become so cynical in their attempts that they have failed to seek advice of a technical nature from agricultural departments which are doing their best to bring about better methods of farming and to bring about all those other things that would lead to a better life for others.
There is a tendency for government services to be provided-I mention services such as rural electrification, and so on-for those areas that have the greatest number of people, where such services can be put in with a minimum of outlay. The result of this is that thinly populated areas which need encouragement and stimulation are the last to be considered, and the last to be served. This has further discouraged the backward agricultural areas, with the result that even in a province such as Prince Edward Island, where agriculture is of such importance, and

May 10. 1966
Rural Development
which has been almost totally settled, there are places-in my constituency, and in other counties to a larger extent-where in a school district that in living memory had perhaps 30 students going to a one-roomed school, today has not a single resident. The whole area has been permitted to grow up in scrub. This is a very discouraging situation, and a very unfortunate one. I believe we are nearing the point when we shall require all the usable agricultural land of this country to help supply the food needs of North America, not to mention the food needs of the underdeveloped and overcrowded parts of the world.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this, as well as the ARDA program, is a new approach to the realization of the fact that previous programs have not met the problem of rural blighted areas.
I commend this legislation. I think it would be folly to expect it to be a cure-all for all ills, but I think it is a step in the right direction. I think one of the most important things that has to be done is to revive the self-confidence of the people who want to live in the country by agricultural or other rural pursuits. I believe this can best be done by setting up pilot operations. For instance, if an area has become blighted, I think it would be well, as an administrative project, to buy up the required amount of land to create an economic farm unit, and to put a young, well educated farmer on that farm, giving him some sort of incentive under a buy-back program to buy the farm so that he could demonstrate not only that certain things can be done, but that they can be done economically, thereby proving to farmers who want to carry on a modernized farming operation but who hesitate to do so because they have to borrow most of the money, that the operation can be made to pay off.
That is a responsibility that we have if we believe in what we are trying to do. It behooves us to prove the point that farms can be economic. Otherwise the confidence of rural people will be further destroyed, and they will hesitate to take advantage of programs which may be envisaged by those who are in government and who are conscientiously trying to do a good job, but who, unlike the farmer, have not any of their personal livelihood at stake, and who are living on a guaranteed salary.
After all, in this day and age it takes a large investment of something like $40,000 or
[Mr. MacLean (Queens).}
$50,000 to operate the average economic farm, and even that is a fairly small operation. It has to be demonstrated that it is good business, nevertheless, to borrow most of this money. It has to be demonstrated that if a farming operation is carried out with the most modern methods, with industry and good intelligence, a livelihood-and not just a poor livelihood, but a reasonable livelihood-can be earned for a man and his family, so that they can look forward to the future with the expectation of being able to educate their children, at least through high school, so that they can have some of the amenities of life, and so that they can live in a reasonable house with a reasonable standard of living somewhat comparable to that of the lower income brackets in the average city.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?
Some non. Members: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might announce the business of the house now for tomorrow and Thursday. We should like to start tomorrow with item No. 5 on today's order paper, the continuation of debate on Bill C-151. Then we should like to take item No. 12, second reading of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act, then, second reading of the bill to amend the Yukon Act. Then we would take the Forestry estimates, the Labour estimates, the Post Office estimates and the Industry estimates.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 I addressed the following question to the Minister of Agriculture:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister mind, for the information of members of this house, having a pamphlet issued by his department informing consumers what is being done by the
May 10, 1966	COMMONS
Department of Agriculture to protect consumers with respect to grade standards in all types of agricultural produce?
This should also include the words "distributed to members of this house".
I shall have to make that a correction in Hansard. However, I am quite sure that the parliamentary secretary understood the intention behind my always pure motives. I asked this question as a result of a meeting of the Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development Committee. The minister was present at the meeting, and some of the officials were answering questions with respect to literature and information that was published by the Department of Agriculture for the information of consumers, dealing with the work of the department in connection with the establishment of grades for all types of agricultural produce, for instance, meat, beef, mutton, other meats, fruits, vegetables, honey and so on.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
They also informed us of the inspection services undertaken by the Department of Agriculture to protect consumers across Canada, so far as possible with the staff available. I thought it was a very interesting and informative morning. It was for that reason that I asked the minister this question, but once again the Speaker failed to recognize the urgency and importance of the question, and I was referred to this late hour to discuss it. Anyway, I am quite glad to have the opportunity to speak for five, six or seven minutes instead of for one minute.
I mention this because I am quite sure there are many people in Canada who do not know of the services provided by the department, and of the literature and information that is available. In the first instance, I thought it would be a good idea for members of this house to understand this, because many members do not understand what is being done by the Department of Agriculture in this respect. This is why I ask whether the minister could distribute this pamphlet to the members of the house.
Naturally there is need for co-operation between the department and its officials, and consumers generally across the country. I am simply rising to bring this to the attention of the house and to suggest that a particular effort be made to send this literature not only to consumers organizations, which normally are found just in the larger centres-you do 23033-3164
DEBATES	4989
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion not find them in the smaller towns or villages -but also to farmers institutes, women's institutes, all sorts of agricultural organizations at the local level, chambers of commerce, trade unions, co-operatives and other community organizations of that type.
I believe it is important that more people know about this legislation and understand it. We must realize that the wife of a trade union member is just as interested in knowing what is being done in this respect as is the wife of a farmer, or of a member of a chamber of commerce, or of a member of some other organization. For that reason I rise to bring it to the attention of hon. members, and once again to urge that a particular effort be made to inform the consuming public of the services now available from the Department of Agriculture.
I know there is co-operation between consumers and officials of the department, but not to the extent that could be possible. I know of one instance where a man went down Elgin street in Ottawa and saw some apples on display in a store. They were obviously what we call in B.C. jumbo packed. It was a normal grade of apple, but not a fancy grade. However, these apples had been taken out of the box and put in small piles, with a card reading, "Extra fancy B.C. apples."
In this case the man knew something about grading apples and immediately got in touch with the Department of Agriculture. Within an hour and a half officials of the department went to the store and stopped this practice, which was an attempt to sell low grade apples at a high price. I am not going to say any more about this tonight, but I do feel that this is a service that can be improved, not only to the advantage of the department but to that of all whom it is intended to serve.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have the opportunity of answering a question put by my fellow alumnus, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I am particularly happy that he has brought this important question to the attention of the house at this particular time.
One of my earlier experiences and my first opportunity to see western Canada was in 1937 when I had the duty of looking after a Canadian Department of Agriculture exhibit, following the class A circuit in western
May 10, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Canada. In that particular exhibit we had one section which was devoted to the consumer and which suggested that the consumer should always buy by grade. I recall quite vividly the sections of the exhibit which dealt with canned fruit, canned vegetables and so on, which were packed in various grades such as fancy quality and others. Then there was a section which dealt with the grades of eggs which were available to consumers at that particular time. So, my early experience is in keeping with the question which has been asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West.
I am particularly happy to be able to say tonight that the department has undertaken to prepare a compendium, if you like to call it that, of all the grades affecting products such as have been mentioned by the hon. member. This will be available in the near future and will be available for fairly liberal -fairly free distribution.-


Mr. Douglas:: Be careful.


Bruce Silas Beer: -to consumers and to members of this house. It will be available for wide distribution, and I think this is a publication we all look foward to having in our possession. I believe it will be most informative on the matter of grades of farm products and other products which are available to the consumer.



FINANCE-REDUCTION IN DEPRECIATION MOBILE EQUIPMENT

Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, on April 13, the Truckers Association of Quebec Inc. sent the following telegram to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp):
Urgent Stop Reduction ol depreciation rate on spare parts of automobile equipment from thirty to 20 per cent will seriously affect already weakened financial position of trucking industry Stop Earnestly request reconsider maintaining present 30 per cent depreciation rate for replacement truck, tractors and trailers Stop This is vital economic security factor Stop Announced budget provides no change in depreciation rate of competing railway and shipping interests.
(Signed) Camile Archambault Truckers Association of Quebec Inc.
In addition, the Canadian Trucking Association Inc. which, like our Parliament, represents every province in the country, advises its members in its Bulletin of April 15, 1966 that in spite of the desirable objective of the government to restrain the demand for the production of services to reduce

the pressure of inflation, the government has failed to solve the special problems of the trucking industry. The reduction of the depreciation rate on automobile equipment will increase the operating costs of some industries by raising taxes. The 11 per cent sales tax on tire recapping will also increase operating costs since manufacturers estimate that this change in the excise tax will increase cost from three to four dollars per recapped tire.
The federal government can surely not be accused of over-protecting the trucking industry, since the competitive railway companies have been enjoying since 1959 the bounteous gifts of that government.
It should be kept in mind that when the federal government affects the operations of the trucking industry, by the same token, it affects all the suppliers of that industry and I need not emphasize in this house the economic importance of that group. However, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that this industry represents a capital investment of over $1 billion in rolling stock and facilities, of which more than 90 per cent are controlled by Canadian interests. The industry directly employs over 125,000 people.
In 1964, I put on the order paper a notice of motion which was not discussed due to the time limit set for the discussion of private members' business. This notice of motion read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should not implement the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation, better known as the MacPherson Commission, which suggests, among other things, that railway companies should be free to set up a trucking system.
It is unthinkable that the federal government should subsidize an enterprise when the latter, thanks to those subsidies, enters into an unfair competition with a private enterprise which has all the required facilities to serve the country adequately.
The trucking industry has never asked Ottawa for special privileges. On the contrary, it kept on organizing its services to meet the ever increasing needs of Canadian shippers, and it contributed materially to the development of several regions of Canada. Wherever there are highways, the cost of which is partly paid by the trucking industry, there are trucks serving those areas.
[DOT] (10.10 p.m.)
In the United States and the United Kingdom, access of railways into the trucking field is prohibited, and the same should apply in Canada. Railway companies buying
May 10, 1966

trucking firms are surely not helping to solve the highway transportation problem in Canada, where a truly independent and competitive method of transportation by land must be maintained.
Parliament should set policies preventing the taking over of trucking firms by railway companies. Shippers should be able to choose between two really competitive land transportation methods. Shippers would thus be sure of getting better service. Besides, they can decide in favour of maritime or air transportation.
Our policy of grants to railways is really harmful to the trucking industry. Those grants make it possible to charge lower rates and undermine competition. They are the equivalent of a preferred treatment at the expense of free enterprise because they seriously endanger the growth of the trucking industry.
Of course there is no question of minimizing the importance of our railway system which is essential like all the other transportation systems to the economic development of our country.
Recently, the trucking association of Quebec Inc. submitted to the Quebec minister of transport and communication a brief which also concerns the federal government. In that brief, resolution 18 reads as follows:
The trucking firms must be protected against the railways having access to the field of road transport.
Whereas the trucking industry in the state of Quebec is operated now, as it is generally in Canada, by private enterprise and that it is essential to protect it against the subsidized competition of the railways;
Whereas the intrusion of the railways in the operation of road services would have serious repercussions as much for the users as for the professionals of the road;
Whereas in having access to road transportation, the railways compete ridiculously against each other and that this monopoly in piggy-back transport puts an end to any real competition;
Whereas the shipping public, the industrialists, the business people, the farmers, are not complaining about the quality of the trucking services now operated by private enterprise, without direct or
DEBATES	4991
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion indirect state grants; and that, on the contrary, important bodies such as the Quebec chambers of commerce have made known clearly that they favour private trucking in that respect;
Whereas it is necessary to give the public a choice between two separate transportation systems which really compete against each other;
Whereas the government of the province of Quebec in its brief to the MacPherson Royal Commission on Transport states in section 203 the following-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) for the excellent speech he has just made on the situation of the trucking industry. Naturally, we are very well aware of his desire to defend the rights of the Quebec Trucking Association and, as far as I am concerned, I would be inclined to share his opinion on several of the points he raised in his speech.
As for his reference to the telegram sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on April 13, 1966, by the Quebec Trucking Association Inc., with regard to the lowering of the rate of the capital cost allowance for certain assets acquired in the course of the next 18 months, the department is giving serious consideration to the representations made by the Trucking Association of the Province of Quebec which, by the way, is very alert and always ready to defend adequately its members' interests.
It goes without saying that after serious consideration of this problem, I think the possible solutions will be put before the house, upon consideration of budget resolutions, which should be brought before the house soon. The hon. member could raise the matter again at that time, and if the minister has reached a conclusion with regard to this aspect of the budget, the policy of the government will then be made known.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Wednesday, May 11, 1966