1966-05-11

PRIVILEGE


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege.
Yesterday's edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail on page 8 contained an article with the following headline: "Fulton felt Sevigny was security risk but stayed in cabinet with him 2 years". It contained also the following lead paragraph:
E. Davie Fulton acknowledged yesterday that he remained in the Diefenbaker cabinet with Pierre Sevigny for two years believing that Mr. Sevigny was a risk to the security of Canada.
It was only yesterday afternoon that I was able to compare the transcript of what I had actually said in evidence with the passage as quoted from the newspaper report. The headline quoted creates an entirely false and misleading conception of my position as outlined in the evidence I actually gave; and the lead paragraph is simply not true and is contrary to the position I took in my evidence.
Since the commission adjourned yesterday until Wednesday, May 18, this is my first opportunity to refute the impression created by the passages quoted. In my evidence, while I referred to the definition of a security risk, I also referred to the fact that in assessing the matter, account would have to be taken of the character of the person concerned, his loyalty to his country and the likelihood of his succumbing to blackmail.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I said in my evidence that in my view Mr. Sevigny was a man who would not yield to blackmail. I also said that after Mrs. Mun-singer left Canada in February, 1961 I received no indications from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of any continuing concern with respect to security, and that if I had I would have raised the matter again.
It should also be added that while Mrs. Munsinger was in Canada and after her association with Mr. Sevigny was known,
evidence given before the commission disclosed that the R.C.M.P. officer in charge of the surveillance reported to his superiors that in his judgment there was no reason to continue surveillance from a security point of view. In my evidence I repeated that in arriving at a decision on this point of security risk the Prime Minister would properly take into account the factors of Mr. Sevigny's character, loyalty to his country, war record and family reputation, and that in my view on the basis of all these considerations, including the absence of any breach of security before or after December, 1960, the judgment to keep Mr. Sevigny in the cabinet was vindicated.
In the light of my full evidence it will be seen that the conclusions reflected in the passage I have quoted from the newspaper simply do not reflect my position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I ask permission of the house to table a copy of the communique issued following the meeting of the law ministers of the Commonwealth, which I attended together with two officials of the Department of Justice as representatives of the Canadian government. I invite attention to the text of the communique that states:
The meeting considered that Commonwealth extradition arrangements should be based upon reciprocity and substantially uniform legislation incorporating certain features commonly found in extradition treaties, e.g. a list of returnable offences, the establishment of a prima facie case before return, and restrictions on the return of political offenders.
The meeting accordingly formulated a scheme setting out principles which could form the basis of legislation within the Commonwealth and recommended that effect should be given to the scheme in each Commonwealth country.
The ministers discussed reciprocal arrangements concerning the enforcement of maintenance orders within the Commonwealth, and the meeting also agreed to recommend to the Prime Ministers that a small legal section be added to the Commonwealth secretariat to

May 11. 1966
Communique Tabled
perform the functions of a legal liaison office among Commonwealth governments. The discussions were notable in demonstrating the community of feeling and purpose that exists within the Commonwealth.
Subsequent to the conference I met with the Home Secretary and other officials in the office of the Home Secretary for the purpose of discussing matters relating to penitentiaries, the correctional system and senior police training.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome the Solicitor General back to the house. He is one who has always been close to the law, and as a bencher of Grey's Inn I want to say that what I hear from the United Kingdom is that the Solicitor General performed his duties in a way that brought honour to our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one matter to which I should like to make reference. The Solicitor General did not allude to it during the course of his report. I refer to the question of the establishment of a Commonwealth court of appeal. This concept has received support from time to time among various Commonwealth countries.
However, having had some experience in this regard my own feeling-and I think it represents generally the attitude of the bench and bar within our country-is that the establishment of a Commonwealth court of appeal would not be in keeping with the relationship of the Commonwealth countries one to the other and would not be generally accepted.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to detain the house for more than a moment except to say that we are very glad to also welcome the Solicitor General back. We hope he has not exercised his vocal cords too much and that he will quickly recover the full use of his voice.
I just add this comment, that we believe this sort of conference indicates the value of a multiracial commonwealth; because it enables the Commonwealth, which is united by a respect for the law, through representatives of the law in various Commonwealth countries to receive the benefit of an exchange of opinions. I noticed, for example, that there was discussion of a Commonwealth court of appeal. It may well be that in this country we do not need any such court of appeal, having our own Supreme Court of Canada.

However, this sort of discussion and this type of institution may be useful in other parts of the Commonwealth, and we welcome the statement.
(Translation)


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Solicitor General is back in Canada. We trust his vast experience will have helped to enlighten the representatives of other countries who attended this recent meeting.
(English)


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I join in welcoming the Solicitor General back to our midst. We know he did a good job, and we might say that we missed him while he was away from us.
In supporting the remarks which have already been made, Mr. Speaker, I would just add that the evidence which has been placed before us today of the progress made at this meeting further substantiates the position within the Commonwealth of the two great heritages that we have, that is British parliamentary government and British justice. We trust, Mr. Speaker, that this conference may help in the preservation and extension of these two basic factors of our way of life to all parts of the Commonwealth.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What was the wording on Wolfe's monument in Quebec city which was destroyed by separatist elements?
2.	What is the wording on the new monument?
3.	If there is any change in the wording (a) who authorized the change (b) what was the reason for the change?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I am informed by the National Battlefields Commission that the answers to the question are as follows:
1.	Three plaques in English only which stated the following:
(a)	North Side
Here Died Wolfe Victorious September 13th 1759
May 11. 1966


GEORGE CRUICKSHANK-PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was George Cruickshank employed with the Department of Public Works, and if so, in what position and for what period of time?
2.	Was the position in question one of responsibility and, if so, how does his former position with the department compare with the type of
499S

May 11, 1968
Questions
work that would be demanded in the preparation of plans and specifications for the new federal building which is to be constructed in Amherst?
3.	What are the qualifications of George Cruick-shank as an architect that led to his selection for the position he held with the Department of Public Works?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. He was employed as an architect grade 7 from August 14, 1961 to February 15, 1962.
2.	His position was one of responsibility. It did not involve the design and preparation of plans and specifications for federal buildings, similar to the building to be constructed at Amherst.
3.	He had a diploma in architecture, Aberdeen University, Scotland, and he was a member of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and the Royal Institute of British Architects.


PREVAILING RATE WAGES, DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Smith: Have officials in the Department of National Defence and/or the Department of Labour found in any area of Canada that area wage rates are based on Department of National Defence prevailing rates for any class of trade and/or occupation rather than the reverse?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the Department of Labour as follows: no.


NEW BRUNSWICK-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FERRIES
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	Was a decision made to dispense with return fares on the C.N.R. N.B.-P.E.I. ferries and, if so, by whom?
2.	Is the fare structure on the C.N.R. N.B.-P.E.I. ferries being altered at this time and, if so (a) for what reason (b) when was that decision taken (c) was the Board of Transport Commissioners asked for a decision in this regard?
3.	How many automobiles were transported by the C.N.R. N.B.-P.E.I. ferries in 1965?
4.	How many passengers were transported by the C.N.R. N.B.-P.E.I. ferries in 1965?
5.	When was the last or previous change made in the fare structure of the C.N.R. N.B.-P.E.I. ferries?
6.	Was that change an increase or a decrease?
7.	What was the amount of the increase or decrease?
8.	What was the reason for the alteration in the fare structure on the C.N.R. N.B.-P.E.I. ferries at that time?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes, by the Minister of Transport.
2.	Yes, (a) to compensate in small part for the heavy increase in cost due to improved and more frequent services, (b) December 19, 1965, (c) ferry rates are not under the jurisdiction of the Board of Transport Commissioners.
3.	215,894.
4.	672,688.
5.	6, 7 and 8. In passenger fares, in 1958, the passenger rate was increased from 45 cents single and 80 cents return to 50 cents single and 90 cents return to improve the revenue position of the service. The last change in rates for automobiles was made in 1935 when the rate was reduced from $6 single to $2 single and $3 return. In 1941, the rates for trucks were lowered to the Wood Islands rate of 15 cents per foot single or 25 cents per foot return with a surcharge of 20 cents per 100 lbs. for freight carried. In 1947, all agricultural products were exempted from freight charges and in 1950 all freight charges were exempted to conform with Wood Islands ferry practice.


POSTAGE ON INCOME TAX RETURNS
Mr. Challerion: 1.	Does the Department of National Revenue require postage for Income Tax Returns and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Do other federal government departments require postage on incoming correspondence and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What was the number of Income Tax Returns submitted through the Post Office Department in 1965?
4.	Is consideration being given to allowing income tax returns to be sent through the mail postage free (O.H.M.S.)?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue and the Post Office Department as follows:
1.	Yes. Official interpretation of postal regulations is that only mail of a departmental character sent to or from the headquarters of federal government departments in Ottawa is entitled to free postage.
2.	Under the provisions of section 17 of the Post Office Act, correspondence, addressed to federal government departments at Ottawa, is acceptable for mailing free of ordinary postage charges. This free privilege applies only to the headquarters of such departments.
May 11, 196G

3.	6,904,000 T1 and T2 returns as at December 31, 1965.
4.	No.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, HODGSON, MAN.
Mr. Slefanson: Has the government any plans to build a post office at Hodgson, Manitoba, and, if so (a) has land been purchased (b) when will this project be proceeded with?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: The post office at Hodgson, Manitoba, is in the category of offices where the postmaster is normally responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment. There are no plans for the construction of a post office building at this location, at the present time.
Questions


AGREEMENT ON SCHOOL BUS PRICES
Mr. McLelland: Have the manufacturers of school buses in eastern Canada entered into an agreement concerning prices and, if so, has the attention of the government been brought to this matter?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed that the office of the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act has received no complaint about price fixing by the manufacturers of school buses in eastern Canada. I would suggest that if the hon. member or any other persons have any information that would indicate price fixing in this industry, they should bring it to the attention of the director in order that he may consider whether formal inquiry is warranted.


BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, FUNDY NATIONAL PARK ENTRANCE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,384-Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi): Supplementary
1.	Does the government intend to build a new bridge at the southeast entrance to Fundy national park at the village of Alma in Albert county, New Brunswick and, if so (a) has work started on this new bridge (b) what is the completion date?
2.	Will the existing bridge at this point be repaired for the coming summer season and, if so (a) when (b) have alternative routes been considered?
3.	Was there a loss in number of tourists and dollars owing to the bridge restriction last summer and, if so, what is this estimated loss?
Arthur Laing: 3. No.


INDUSTRIAL BANK LOANS
Mr. Woolliams: How much money was loaned by the Industrial Bank in 1964, 1965 and to date in 1966?


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Number of loan
approvals
Calendar year 1964	2,163
Calendar year 1965	2,251
3 months ended
March 31, 1966	522
Total
amount


$91,859,000 $105,464,000 $27,166,000 DREDGING PROGRAM, HALIFAX COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Has the government a program of dredging in Halifax county, Nova Scotia?
2,	If so, what harbours or other areas will be dredged and at what estimated costs for each project?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): 1 and 2. Dredging at jetty No. 1 H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, is planned. It is not customary to reveal the estimated costs before tenders are called.


BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, EAST FLORENCEVILLE, N.B.
Mr. Flemming: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to build a highway bridge this year across the St. John river at East Florenceville, New Brunswick, on the trans-Canada highway?
2.	If so (a) what is the estimated cost of same (b) what portion of the estimated cost does the federal government pay?
3.	Will the present trans-Canada highway bridge between Andover and Perth, in the county of Victoria, be abandoned?
4.	If so, what reimbursement will the federal government receive from the province of New Brunswick (a) total amount in dollars (b) percentage of total cost?


George James McIlraith: 1. It is the intention of the Department of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick to build such a bridge as a trans-Canada highway project.
2. (a) $1,930,000, (b) 90 per cent.
4998	COMMONS
Census Debate Requested
3.	No, but the bridge between Andover and Perth will no longer be on the designated route of the trans-Canada highway.
4.	(a) $442,315.38, (b) 50 per cent.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What is the purpose ol the population census and the farm census which will commence in Canada on June 1. 1966?
2.	What department will administer this census?
3.	Who appointed the following census commissioners for the county of Pictou, province of Nova Scotia-J. E. Gillis, Lourdes; Elwin Stewart, West River; and C. W. Muirhead, Linacy?
4.	How many census takers will be, or have been, appointed for the county of Pictou, and who has or will make the appointments?
5.	What Questions will be asked in taking the population census?
6.	What Questions will be asked in taking the farm census?
7.	What amount will be paid to each of the three commissioners?
8.	What amount will be paid to each of the local census takers?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL CENSUS
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 26, I should like


Mr. Speaker:: The member must wait until the motions for papers are disposed of.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise now because the standing orders stipulate this must be done after the questions rather than after the notices of motion. We have just disposed of the questions on the order paper.
I should like, therefore, to move the following motion under standing order 26:
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
The adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the serious irregularities committed in the appointment of the commissioners in charge of the 1966 national census.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member like to comment on the matter of urgency?
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
DEBATES	May II, 1966


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel the motion I moved today meets all the requirements for a request that the house adjourn for the purpose of discussing a definite matter.
First of all, I should like to read the standing order which applies in this case. It is standing order 26 in the last edition of the standing orders of the house, as it appeared in the Votes and Proceedings No. 14, on Friday, February 4, 1966:
Any ruling made by Mr. Speaker after listening to argument on the question of urgency shall not be subject to appeal,-
It should follow that the point to be made today is the urgent importance of the matter, so that this motion will be adopted.
First of all, I intend to state the problem, its seriousness and importance, then the importance of the debate and finally the pressing importance of such debate.
This is a serious problem, Mr. Speaker, because the national census will begin in Canada on June 1, and to this end the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, a Canadian government agency, has appointed commissioners to take the national census of Canada. In a letter from Hon. Robert Winters, Minister of Trade and Commerce, responsible for the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, to the hon. member for Kamouraska dated March 26, 1966, he wrote:
There are no competitions but representatives of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics interview the candidates and report to me before selecting them.
The list of the commissioners who have been appointed was recently published. It is the most beautiful official list of the Liberal organization in the province of Quebec.
For instance, in my riding, it is Paul La-brie, former federal Liberal candidate in Lapointe in 1965 and opponent of the incumbent. Patronage.
Another, in the riding of Lapointe: Edouard Bluteau, present provincial candidate for the Liberal party in the provincial elections of Quebec which will be held on June 5 next.
He was appointed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to take the census on June 1, while he is a provincial candidate for the elections of June 5.
The chief Liberal organizer in my riding, Paul Tremblay-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon.
member come to the question of urgency of this debate?
May 11, 1966


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if you will
allow me to state the basis of my case, I shall do so, in view of the fact that the rules require that I show the importance of the debate. Well, I am showing the importance of the problem and I should like to demonstrate the importance of the debate.
In the constituency of Iles-de-la-Madeleine you will recall the man who signed the affidavits to save the ministers, the one who lodged the complaints to jail the minister's opponents, Frank Decosse, of Fatima.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minisfer of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There is no relationship between Mr. Frank Decoste and other Messrs. Decoste.


David Réal Caouette: He is his
first cousin.


Maurice Sauvé: Besides, in the Magdalen Islands the representative of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics interviewed some people and the bureau itself selected the census director.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that proves that the debate is needed. We will find out the names of those who selected them.
In the riding of Roberval, the opponent of the present member was notary Villeneuve, who occupied a high post within the Liberal organization; and now the wife of notary Villeneuve is on the list of commissioners.


An hon. Member:: What does it matter?


Gilles Grégoire: The candidate running
against the present member in 1963 was a man called Garant and his wife is commissioner, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a list of 30 ridings in which 139 names were given. It is the choice list of the Liberal patronage and organization in the province of Quebec.
In the same letter dated March 24, 1966, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) said:
The commissioners will get $1,100-
-one thousand one hundred dollars-
-for the full job which might take two months or more.
One thousand one hundred dollars for two months' work and most of the people mentioned here are wives of professional people or Liberal patronage handlers. They do the work at night and that is a reward from the Liberal party.
Census Debate Requested


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Monfmor-ency):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is at the present time-


David Réal Caouette: Not the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Ovide Laflamme: I apologize, I mean the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who is giving a series of names of people and he does not know-


David Réal Caouette: Oh, oh.


Ovide Laflamme: -their competence. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the chief commissioner undoubtedly selected people who are of age and have some education.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no point of order. Once again I ask the hon. member for Lapointe to co-operate with me so that I will have an opportunity to give a ruling as soon as possible, because the hon. member cannot at this time discuss the matter itself.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: He may only enlighten the Chair and his colleagues on the urgency of the debate itself.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt whatsoever about the competence of those individuals, although I might in some cases, but what I wish to stress is that an administrative agency namely the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, which must be above politics, was used for shameless purposes of patronage-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: -vulgar patronage, patronage the likes of which should not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I now ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the matter of the urgency of the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I think I have proved my point, namely the seriousness of the problem, since I have managed to stir up the anger of the members of the Liberal party by throwing in their teeth some of their dirty patronage.


Maurice Sauvé: Oh, come off it.
May 11, 1966

Census Debate Requested


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to close, in an attempt to point out the gravity of the problem, by saying that no one has the right to use a government body for low political ends as the Liberals are now doing.
My second point concerns the importance of the debate. And I know what I have to prove in this regard, Mr. Speaker.
According to standing orders, the importance of the debate-


An hon. Member:: It is not important.


Gilles Grégoire: The importance of the debate, yes, because such a debate can throw some light, enlighten the house, and allow redress of the scandal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: -of the unnameable scandal we are now witnessing. The debate is important as an attempt to root out the evil the Liberal party is now committing.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I would ask the hon. member whether that is the reason he supports them every time we have a vote of non-confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, when in-


Maurice Sauvé: There is no connection.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in their hypocrisy, the Conservatives tried to prove that one was black and the other was white. I was not taken in, because they are all just as black one as the other.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member again restrict his remarks to the point I have just suggested?


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Speaker, what I must prove, under standing order 26, is the importance of the debate. The importance of the debate: it is written right here.
I say that the discussion is very important, because it could help remedy the situation.


An hon. Member:: It is too late.


Gilles Grégoire: And I should like to make a- I am told it is too late. I shall come to that

later. But for the moment, I should like to quote a precedent to stress the importance of the matter. During the-


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The matter now being raised by the member for Lapointe is no more in order than his statement to the effect that he would take an active part in the election campaign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have here the list of commissioners in Quebec East, which indicates that patronage in the riding of Quebec East-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet) has never done any patronage.


Gilles Grégoire: It has to do with patronage handlers, but I shall leave this subject and pursue my remarks, Mr. Speaker, on the importance of the debate. To support my argument concerning the importance of the debate, I should like to quote a precedent.
More than a year ago, when the question of urgency of debate was raised concerning drought in the province of Ontario-


David Réal Caouette: Including also the riding of Stormont.


Gilles Grégoire: -including also the riding of Stormont, as my colleague for Villeneuve just said, the question of urgency was accepted and, during the debate, discussions took place and decisions made. It was later established that the debate had given results, since steps had been taken to cure the disastrous effects of the drought in the province of Ontario.
That proves the importance of a debate such as this one to cope with the problem I pointed out.
Third, this debate is important now, Mr. Speaker, because to-day is May 11 and the census is beginning on June 1; if a decision is taken today, during the debate, to cancel the lists, give orders to have others made, the last 20 days will allow these things to be done: three days to notify the officials of the national employment offices to see to it that the commissioners are replaced; one day to prepare and send the required notices to recruit new commissioners; two days to enable those who are interested to send their applications-
May 11, 1966	COMMONS


An hon. Member:: Why replace them?


Gilles Grégoire: -two days for the examination of the new commissioners; one day to choose a new commissioner; two days to send him the necessary literature and two days enable him to learn his work and to prepare himself. That makes a total of 13 days out of 20 days. There are 3 Saturdays, 3 Sundays and one holiday, May 21, the Queen's birthday.
This means that if we do not discuss it this very day, tomorrow will be too late, for there will not be time to replace all the commissioners. It is important, it is urgent and it must be done. They must be replaced, not by people selected through patronage by the Liberal organization, but since we are in the middle of the summer-


Maurice Sauvé: What you are saying is false.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: You do not have to shout like that.


Maurice Sauvé: It is false, you do not know what you are talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that he has stated his case quite comprehensively. I can hardly imagine what new arguments he could bring in support of his proposal and I call on other members who may wish to do so, to comment on the urgency of the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Speaker; I have completed my remarks on this. I wanted to find a solution. I note that my remarks have been quite cogent and that it is now obvious a debate is necessary.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, in view of all the explanations just given by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) I would suggest that we postpone consideration of his motion until the day after tomorrow.
[English1


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little difficult to understand precisely the question sought to be raised.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: If I understood the rather lengthy argument advanced, it seemed to be a complaint that one of the census commissioners, having had a background of training that
DEBATES	5001
Census Debate Requested would give him a thorough knowledge of the constituency, was thereby disbarred from doing this job that requires a thorough knowledge of the constituency. I have the greatest doubt that the matter raised could form the subject matter of a motion under standing order 26.


Mr. Starr:: Why don't you appoint the Creditistes as a reward for voting for you?


George James McIlraith: In any event, the point I wish to raise now, and I will try to do it very briefly, is simply this. The type of motion that can be raised under standing order 26 must involve a matter that is of recent occurrence, and must be so urgent that the proceedings of the house should be halted so that it may be discussed. That is according to that part of citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 89, to be found at the bottom of the page.
As to the first point, about the matter being so urgent, the matter has been before the house for about one week now as will appear from question No. 1432 on today's order paper. There are other questions on this subject, indicating that it is not something that has just arisen today, suddenly.
The second point, to do with lack of urgency, is that there is other opportunity for discussing this. It is a matter that might better be discussed with the minister when his estimates are up for consideration. Those estimates, now before the committee, were referred to it on March 22. If this is a matter that the hon. member wishes to pursue, he might well pursue it there.
The subject matter the hon. member raises is not of a nature which should form the basis of a motion under standing order 26. Nor is there any urgency, within the meaning of the requirement for urgency of debate, under that order.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I rise to support the suggestion that this matter should be placed before the house as one of urgency, requiring immediate debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: About a week ago, say ten days ago, I questioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce on precisely this point. I respectfully suggest to hon. members opposite that we have reached a time in Canada when patronage of any sort is not a matter for cynical laughter, and that this house has a
May 11, 1966

Census Debate Requested duty to deal with every manifestation of patronage immediately it occurs.
I would draw to the attention of the house the fact that I have had correspondence from young students who are seeking jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member addressing himself to the question of urgency of debate?


David Lewis: Indeed I am, or in my opinion I am, and I hope I am right. I was saying that I have received letters from some students who were seeking jobs as census takers-[DOT] young Canadians who wanted to earn their university fees for next year. They were told they had to go to the Liberal organization in order to to get recommendations for the job, and when I raised objection to this through the newspapers in Toronto the song was changed; they had to go through the local member of parliament. I now have letters from people who are seeking recommendations for these jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Just let hon. members opposite hold their laughter. They do not need to demonstrate their cynicism about these things; we know it without this demonstration.
I have dictated letters to these people telling them I do not propose to recommend them for any jobs, and I have given them the names of the Liberal commissioners so that application may be made to them.
This kind of action should end now, because we have come to a state in Canada where this miserable type of patronage should not take place. I urge upon you, Mr. Speaker, that the question raised ought to be debated now.


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) have proven neither the urgency, nor the importance of the debate.
There cannot be any urgency unless there are irregularities. The commissioners were appointed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 5 of the Statistics Act. The minister only used the powers he has with respect to the appointment of the commissioners.

As for the importance of the debate, the question of the competence of the commissioners chosen was not raised. Therefore, it is neither urgent, nor important.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Slraih-cona):: There is one argument in support of the urgency of this debate which has not been raised. Since this matter involves the reputation of the government, I believe every member of the house would like to see it debated at once because it shows that despite this government's reputation for lousing things up it has done a beautiful job of patronage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would appreciate it if hon. members were to limit their comments to the question of procedure which is before the house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think we should waste no time-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: -in giving the government the opportunity to prove they can be efficient, even if it is in the area of political skulduggery alone.
Hon. John M. Turner (Minister without
Portfolio): In addition to the citation referred to by the Minister of Public Works I should like to refer Your Honour to page 90 of Beauchesne, where citation 100(3) states:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
I think it would be in the interests of the house that this question be discussed at some time when estimates are before us for consideration, or on a supply motion. The hon. member for York South, together with his seatmate, representing 20 years of government in Saskatchewan, might show us how this should be done.


David Lewis: It will not do any good, but we shall be glad to try.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, members of the government party may scream their heads off that the question is not urgent, that it is not important, that there has been no patronage and so on, I am of the opinion that this is a
May 11, 1966

most important and urgent question. As we stated yesterday on the telephone to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), who is responsible for the appointment of the commissioners, it would have been better to appoint students, university people, people who are capable, regardless of their political leanings, to carry out the 1966 census. The Liberals overruled all. When we claim that party favourites were appointed as commissioners-


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?
Is the hon. member aware that in my riding the census enumerators were appointed after consultation with the secretariat of Laval University?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the official list of those appointed by the minister. The following names are listed: Albert Quesnel, chief Liberal organizer in Rouyn-Noranda; Mr. Come Lapierre, candidate at the Liberal convention for the election of last November 11; Mr. James V. Hardy, of Bourlamaque; Mrs. Marcelle See-waldt, Mr. Romeo Smith, of Cadillac, the same thing again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve is now discussing the subject matter itself while we are considering a question of procedure dealing with the urgency of the debate under the rules of the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I understand that, under the rules, we might not have the right to name those people; however, we have the right to say that those people command $1,100 each, which represents $5,500 in one riding.
It does not matter that students belong to Liberal or Conservative families, but the students and not the patronage handlers should be in charge of that organization.
The urgency is so important and so valid that on March 24, in reply to the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), the minister said this:
The appointment of census officers also falls under my jurisdiction, but because of their great number, approximately 35,000, I will delegate that responsibility to each census commissioner-
That means that the Liberal patronage handlers in various ridings will now choose those who will work for the census.
Census Debate Requested


Mr. Speaker:: I feel it is my duty to intervene by reminding the hon. member that what is before us is just a matter of procedure, a matter which is very limited, namely if there is any urgency of debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe will kindly allow me to conclude my remarks.
I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe which are, in my opinion, somewhat outside the scope of the matter of urgency and importance, or pressing importance of the debate. It seems to me that we should try not to prolong the discussion. We have hardly touched on the substance of the matter during the last hour. To all practical purposes, it seems to me that we have had a debate. In any case, I will allow the hon. member for Villeneuve to conclude his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I would like to point out that standing order 26 relating to the debate uses the words "matter of urgent importance" and not the word "urgency".
I know that, in the English text, the word "urgency" is mentioned. But I submit that, in the French text, it is the word "importance" and that if we have two official languages in Canada, the French text is as valid as the English text. We are using the French text, and it is the matter of importance and not the matter of urgency. However, French is taken only as a language of convenience, a language of translation.


David Réal Caouette: All we want, and I believe it is urgent and important, we asked it before bringing up the matter in the house. We asked that changes be made, that the list of commissioners be cancelled and that appointments be made regardless of political considerations: we do not want political organizers appointed in those ridings. That is what we object to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member for Villeneuve, and others as well, that they are now discussing the subject matter rather than the urgency of the debate.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the matter is urgent and it is important to know, for instance, who suggested those names. That is
May 11, 1966

Census Debate Requested why we should discuss the matter fully today so that the minister might throw some light on the appointment of agents or commissioners for the 1966 national census. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to your sound judgment-I know your good sense-so that we might discuss this fundamental question, for it is important, and so that we might give our students the opportunity to earn that amount to enable them to continue their studies, instead of cutting up the pie, like the Liberals are now doing, through political patronage; that is intolerable in a country such as ours.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to add a few remarks on the importance and urgency of the debate to those of the members who have preceded me.
With regard to the importance of the debate, it is of capital, utmost importance for there are irregularities which prove patronage and favouritism. In the riding of Sherbrooke the commissioners are five federal Liberal organizers, one of whom is the brother of the Liberal candidate who was defeated in the last elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member for Sherbrooke that he must- and this is also for the guidance of other speakers-discuss the urgency of the debate.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, it would be a lot easier for us to make our views known, if the hon. members on this side of the house gave us a real opportunity, despite the inconvenience the matter may cause them, to express ourselves.
The importance and urgency of the debate must be shown. This matter is very urgent, for there are hardly 20 days left, as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) pointed out, for the re-appointment of objective and impartial commissioners, regardless of the choice of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, that is either through the newspapers or through objective and impartial public bodies, such as the senior chamber of commerce, the junior chamber of commerce or the national employment service, registering in my area many unemployed people of various education levels who would be in a position to earn $1,100. There is also the students association of the University of Sherbrooke. This is why it is urgent.


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Mount Royal: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the question of urgency is relative. The question raised by
[Mr. Caouette.l
the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is important and urgent, but only from the point of view of political partisanship, from the politicking point of view.
As was explained by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), the house will have an opportunity to discuss this problem when considering the estimates in question.
The political manoeuvring which is going on here is not what the people are expecting from us, I think.
There are important and urgent questions on the order paper. But, so far as this matter is concerned, the people are more interested in the passing of a piece of legislation for the Commonwealth than in wondering whether we will be helping friends of the party in power or of the opposition. This is an urgent question in a very minor field, and a few days difference will not change the ordinary procedure of the house.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in thirty seconds I can prove that there is no urgency to debate this matter, and to support my point I will quote a statement from a speech delivered on May 3, 1966 by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), as reported in Hansard, page 4648, second column:
You will have to admit that this is the final inconsistency and stupidity, to be forced to talk about scandals.
The hon. member wants to speak about a scandal. Is it any wonder then that confederation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Lapointe resume his seat?
I am asking hon. members to co-operate with the Chair so that the business of the house may be carried on in an orderly manner. During the past hour or so, hon. members have been discussing a strictly procedural point of order on which I hope they will very shortly allow the Chair to make a ruling.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct the statement made
May 11. 1966

by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who quoted a statement of mine.
I want to point out that what I said then was that I thought it was stupid to discuss a personal scandal. Today, we are discussing the scandal of squandering public moneys to the benefit of friends appointed in the constituency of Lotbiniere.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members know that, under the rules, the Speaker can stop any discussion on a point of order if, in his opinion, all aspects of the question have been dealt with.
As every party had the opportunity, through its representative, of expressing its views, I think it is my duty, under our Standing Orders, to rule on the matter.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an argument which has not been raised concerning the importance of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in the interest of the Chair to hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Megantic says it would be in the interest of the Chair to hear his argument. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) wishes to continue his remarks. The debate could obviously go on for some time.
I humbly submit that it would not be to the advantage of the house to continue the debate.
The hon. members, particularly the member for Lapointe who moved this motion under standing order 26, asked me to consider citation 100 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
(3) "Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
Paragraph (2) reads as follows:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance", for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved under Standing Order 26, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if not given immediate attention.
I cannot agree that public interest would suffer if the matter referred to was not given immediate attention in the house.
Motions for Papers


Raymond Langlois: It would, as far as provincial elections are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Some members pointed out that certain pieces of legislation are to be considered later on and they suggest that the discussion of that particular legislation is of a more urgent character than the motion now before the house. I believe such a suggestion to be reasonable.
It seems to me a motion such as the one presented by the hon. member for Lapointe is to be used only as a last resort. Only in extreme circumstances should it be moved and accepted. Only extraordinary circumstances warrant the suspension of the business of the house for the consideration of a question other than that on the agenda.
For those reasons, I do not believe I can accept the hon. member's motion.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notices of motions Nos. 117 and 125?
I ask that the remaining ones be allowed to stand.
[English1
SEAFARERS UNION CONSTITUTION Motion No. 117-Mr. Herridge:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any communications exchanged between the maritime trustees, or other organizations and other persons, and the minister, or any official thereof, of the Department of Labour, and for a copy of any constitution submitted to the minister for his perusal or comment, with respect to the Seafarers International Union.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, since this notice of motion was placed on the order paper I have made careful inquiries and have had an opportunity since then to discuss the matter with the hon. member in whose name it stands.
From my personal examination I am convinced that all the many documents, with possibly one or two insignificant exceptions, are privileged. I can understand, however, my hon. friend's concern and his desire to obtain a copy of the constitution of the S.I.U. of Canada. I have assured him that I will see that he gets a copy. If he has any comments to make or questions to ask regarding the constitution or any other matter after he gets it, I will be pleased to deal with them when

May 11, 1966
Motions for Papers
the estimates of my department come up for discussion.
On that understanding I have been assured that the hon. member will withdraw the motion.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter with the minister, and in view of his explanation as to the confidential nature of the correspondence and the potential consequences which may follow a revelation of the information received from the R.C.M.P., I seek the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the remarks that have been made, because of the interest that has been shown in this matter I think it would be better if this motion were presented.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there has been a request that the motion be dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


EFFECT OF U.S. ACT ON CANADIAN PRINTING INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 125-Mr. Knowles:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all letters or briefs, dated since April, 1963, addressed to the government of Canada or any minister or department thereof, by provincial governments or any associations, federations, institutes or societies, concerning the effects of the manufacturing clause of the United States Copyright Act on the printing industry in Canada, and a copy of the replies thereto.
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual reservations, that in respect of documents emanating from provincial governments consent must first be obtained and that any correspondence which might adversely affect the competitive position of persons or firms is regarded as confidential, the motion is acceptable.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to those reservations. The second one is quite in keeping with the terms of the motion. I am not asking for correspondence with individual firms but rather with associations of firms and other groups or organizations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be adopted subject to the reservations expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Mr. Nicholson.]
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to motion No. 121 which appears in the name of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). This motion was signed by him in my unavoidable absence but in essence it is my motion. Since it is my opinion that most, if not all, of the information requested is at hand I should like to know why the motion has not been allowed to proceed. Does the government intend to wait until it obtains the information before allowing the motion? I think this is a fair question to put, because after all this is to be an order of the house, not an order of the government.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The motion is in the name of another member.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Will he inquire from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to how it obtained certain evidence being considered by the Spence inquiry to ensure that it was not obtained by means of a telephone tap and an electronic listening device in the Montreal apartment of Mrs. Gerda Munsinger, both of which practices are illegal?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I must fall back on the answer which has been given in this house on many previous occasions by other ministers charged with the responsibility of answering in the House of Commons regarding the methods of investigation used by the R.C.M.P. It would not be in the public interest to disclose these methods of investigation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unparalleled and unjustifiable manner in which the inquisition is being carried out by Mr. Justice Spence, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister to produce any correspondence regarding the appointment of this judge, and to tell the house whether before the judge accepted the appointment the Chief Justice of Canada was consulted?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister personally whether he communicated with the judge
May 11, 1966

and told him that in certain interests

you can fill that part in on your side-he was wanted as commissioner?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my right hon. friend does not in any way wish to cast a reflection on the royal commissioner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I said that I was sure the right hon. gentleman, who is a distinguished member of this house, a former prime minister and a lawyer of great experience, would not wish to cast a reflection on the royal commissioner who was appointed by the government of Canada with the approval of this house. He is a member of the Supreme Court of Canada and-


John George Diefenbaker: He was not appointed with the approval of this house. This was just a narrow-minded appointment in so far as the terms of reference are concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I must take the view, whatever my right hon. friend may feel to be the provocation, and on that I am not clear, that I cannot sit in my place at this time and listen to the right hon. gentleman express himself in a manner that could be construed as a reflection on the royal commissioner. If that is what my right hon. friend has done, then I must take strong issue with him and suggest that this is not the course that should be followed in this instance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the answer. Did the minister ask the judge to accept this? Did he telephone him and say, "Now, this is something you could do for me"?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Minister of Justice; I am not the Prime Minister of Canada. I did not speak to the Minister of Justice. I did not speak to anyone, because it would have been outside my ministerial responsibilities. In any event, if I had, that would not be a matter to which my hon. friend would be entitled to refer in this way, because implied in this suggestion is a reflection on a judge who holds an honourable post-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in the final court of appeal of this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the answer. Did the minister ask this judge to act because there were certain interests at stake?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I ask.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, the minister has made a reply, and I think the matter should be allowed to stand there.


John George Diefenbaker: I know he did.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Has he personally looked into the question of whether the telephones of members of parliament are being tapped or interfered with by means of electronic listening devices? If so, will he provide a list of the names of members whose telephones are being so tapped or listened to by means of electronic devices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not acceptable in the way it was put by the hon. member because he is making an assertion.


Erik Nielsen: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker-


George James McIlraith: If you have a charge to make, make it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what you said a year ago.


Erik Nielsen: With the greatest respect to you, sir, I was not making any such allegation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I was seeking information from the Solicitor General and asking whether he had ascertained if telephones of members of parliament have been subjected to wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping devices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is of a general nature. It may be of extreme importance in the minds of hon. members but I do not think the question is so urgent that it should be asked at this very moment. It could very

May 11, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry easily be placed on the order paper. If the hon. member thinks it is very urgent, it could be discussed on the adjournment debate.


Erik Nielsen: Again, with the greatest respect, the urgency lies in the fact that no member dare use his telephone unless he gets this assurance from the Solicitor General.


George James McIlraith: There is the only man who did wiretapping around here.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Put a charge yourself.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Public Works just this moment uttered, loud enough for the Hansard reporter to hear, "There is the only man who wiretapped around here", and pointed to the Leader of the Opposition.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: That is conduct unbecoming a minister of the crown, and he should make a charge or keep quiet.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I will be very glad to explain the exact charge. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was prime minister of Canada, had this house tapped and the wiring extended to his own office-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: -to check proceedings that went on here. He admitted it himself and had the wiring removed when the matter was raised in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are a real Grit.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that when I was prime minister it was suggested that I might be able to follow the debates in the house while working in my office. Objection was taken to that and it was withdrawn.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the kind of wire tapping we are talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain to the house that this complaint was made by Senator Argue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is why he became a Senator.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of frequent references in the press, may I ask the minister whether there have been any discussions at any level between officials of the government of the United States and the government of Canada regarding the possibility of constructing anti-missile bases in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know of no such discussions, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If any discussions are held and agreement reached, can we have the minister's assurance that this matter will be referred to parliament rather than having an agreement signed with which parliament is only acquainted after the event?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It appears to me that the question is hypothetical.



NATIONAL CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether he proposes to call for an inquiry into the serious irregularities committed in connection with the appointment of commissioners for the 1966 national census which resulted in shameful patronage in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question as put by the hon. member is acceptable or in order; as a matter of fact, it is more in the way of a statement and should not be put in such a way. This question, in the way the hon. member put it, cannot be accepted. It is accompanied by a statement and no question should be put that way.


Gilles Grégoire: I feel so indignant that I add things which should not be added under the rules.
May 11. 1966

Does the Prime Minister intend to launch an inquiry into the irregularities committed in connection with the appointment of commissioners for the 1966 general census?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is no.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the minister tell us whether the government is interested in throwing some light on the matter or whether it prefers to hide everything under the carpet?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The government is always interested in the truth.


Auguste Choquette: Would the minister or his assistant tell the house whether the persons selected to take the census have passed an examination to ascertain whether they are qualified for the job?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is argumentative.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In my opinion it concerns an urgent matter which is neither partisan nor political. It has to do with the increasing uneasiness among dock workers in Quebec and Montreal because of the difficulties they experience for parking.
Could the minister, who paid an official visit to the Quebec harbour yesterday and who has witnessed the situation, inform the house of the steps he intends to take to settle this problem and prevent general work stoppages as those which happened recently.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was in
Quebec to visit the port, and there was a temporary stoppage of work in the middle of the day. My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, was in Quebec with me. We went to the grain elevator where a considerable addition to the elevator was to be opened and was opened. In the presence of the workmen we then agreed, together with the port manager, to hear their grievances,
Inquiries of the Ministry and it was our understanding that the three people delegated for that purpose were quite satisfied with the measures which were to be taken to meet the immediate situation.
I regret to have to say that I understand we were not as successful as we had hoped to be, and that the men are still out. I also understand that in Montreal this morning there was a discussion between the leaders of the union and the harbour authorities; that the arrangement which was put to the men was not acceptable and the strike, if it is to be called a strike, is still going on. I also understand that some men are out at Three Rivers or Trois-Rivieres.
This is a very grave situation indeed. I welcome the opportunity, sir, to underline the gravity of this situation at a time when we have an unprecedented quantity of traffic moving through the St. Lawrence ports, including wheat; perhaps I could almost go so far as to say above all, wheat; both wheat for commercial export and wheat for relief. I sincerely hope that everything will be done by everyone who can play any part to bring this dispute to an end as quickly as possible.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the minister make a statement that the question of parking facilities for the convenience of the employees of the port will be looked into? I believe such action could alleviate the present situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one who has not seen the situation personally should not offer an opinion on a matter of this kind. However, I am going to take the risk of saying that I do not believe parking facilities are the main question at all. I think if the question between the union and the employers could be settled this matter would be settled quite quickly and, as I said, we would have had no difficulty in Quebec yesterday. I believe there is a mixture of the two things, and I have asked the harbours board to do everything possible within reason to see that the men are satisfied. However, I think hon. members will realize that we cannot permit parking in areas where work is supposed to be going on and goods are supposed to be moved. If I may be permitted to give an example, it was agreed at Quebec that there was a particular area where at certain times ships were unloading and at that time parking would not be permitted, but it would be permitted, as it was more convenient for the men, when there were no ships coming in.

May 11, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
I am hoping that with a little more flexibility on both sides this question could be settled, but it is not the main question. What I hope is that both the employers and the union will get down to the business of making an agreement and get on with the work in the interest of the country.


Georges-J. Valade: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister deny responsibility for applying some sort of set of rules to settle this situation or does he leave it entirely to the port authorities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a matter of great national urgency, and even though it is not strictly according to the rules perhaps you will permit me to say that this is not a dispute between the government as an employer and its employees. The longshoremen are employed by private employers. The Minister of Labour is doing everything he can in this matter. He has appointed a conciliation board with an excellent chairman; I believe the other members are capable, but I do know that the chairman is excellent. Every effort is being made by the Department of Labour and the government to get the two parties to reach agreement.
tTranslation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Is the minister not of the opinion that this conflict in the Montreal harbour is, in fact, a fight to the finish between two rival unions which make both workers and employers suffer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member makes an argument. His question is not in order.
[English1


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I should go into the background.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have ruled that the question is out of order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement yesterday that His Majesty King Faisal of Saudi Arabia will be paying a state visit to the United States next month, has the government invited and, if not, is it considering inviting the king to visit Canada at the same time?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the government has not given consideration to this matter. I am grateful to my hon. friend, however, for putting the question.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works which arises out of the shortage of parking space on the hill. Would the minister inform the house if he issued a special permit yesterday to the member for Lapointe to park his luxury yacht on parliament hill?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): No, Mr. Speaker, but I admired the yacht very much.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement by Mr. Ouimet yesterday that he had it on the highest authority that Mr. Keate is acting as a conciliator, would the minister inform the house precisely what aspects of the "Seven Days" dispute Mr. Keate has been instructed or asked to conciliate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a statement as to the functions and prescribed duties of Mr. Keate. As this matter is not within my ministerial function I would prefer to look at what the Prime Minister said and deal with the question in the light of my understanding of both the question and the answer.
May 11, 1966


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When the Acting Prime Minister is looking into what has already been said, would he also be good enough to acquaint himself with precisely what authority has been given to Mr. Keate; whether he has been asked to look into the dismissal of Watson and LaPierre and whether an order in council has been prepared or is being prepared appointing him to what position?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I would refer my hon. friend to the answer made to this and other questions, I believe, on Monday last.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian Watson (Chaieauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance of which I have given notice. It relates to the report on federal-provincial fiscal relations prepared by the Canadian Tax Foundation for the tax structure committee. Will the minister advise the house whether the policies outlined in this report constitute government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have very serious doubts that this question is so urgent that it should be answered now. The urgency is not apparent to me. However, if the minister and others have no objection, I will permit the question.


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is of some urgency. I have here the booklet referred to and it does contain statements upon which I ought to comment in order to clarify the position as quickly as possible. If you will permit me, I should like to give a short answer. If not, I will be very happy to give the information outside the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the minister that the question does not appear to be the type of question which should be asked at this time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister inform the board of trans-nort commissioners of the grave concern of
Inquiries oj the Ministry the city of Woodstock, Ont. with respect to the serious curtailment of passenger service on the Canadian National Railways between the cities of London, Woodstock and Toronto which has just taken place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, sir, if the hon. gentleman himself would perhaps bring the matter to the attention of the board, which is a court. He could perhaps give it more details than I could.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister consulted the proposed minister of manpower with regard to the placement in other industries of those displaced from their jobs in the house building industry as the result of a lack of mortgage funds?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is of a general nature and should not be asked at this time.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that the lobster season in area 6B opens in two short days, and in view of the fact representations have been made to the minister with regard to a change in the schedule for the opening date, may I ask the minister if he is in a position today to provide any information on the subject?
Ho.n. H. J. Robichaud (Minisier of Fisheries): Yes, Mr. Speaker. In so far as district 6B and the adjoining district 6A are concerned, the hour for leaving the shore with lobster fishing gear will be advanced from 11 a.m. as it now stands to 7 a.m. standard time or 8 a.m. daylight saving time.


Robert Muir: On behalf of the fishermen of the area I wish to thank the minister for his good judgment and this prompt and wise decision.

May 11. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA



WINNIPEG-REPORT OF INQUIRY RESPECTING MAINTENANCE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which deals with the investigations that have been conducted into the removal of the overhaul base at Winnipeg. I understand the Thompson commission report has been in his hands for about two months. Would he advise the house when he intends to make this report public by tabling it in the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's
understanding is a misunderstanding. The report has not yet been received by the governor in council. I hope it will be quite soon. I intend to read it with avid interest the moment I get it. As soon as possible thereafter I shall indicate any action the government feels should be taken consequent upon it.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Justice?
Is the minister in a position to confirm or deny the rumour that he will resign from the cabinet very shortly?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question regarding manufacturers endangering the health of children by not prescribing the dosage of drugs. He said he would take the question as notice. I wonder whether he has an answer ready yet.
Kon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act provide that drugs that are made for the use of children have the dosage specified. My officers, after considering the question, feel that this matter is looked after within the present regulations because it is not regarded as necessary to specify the dosage of drugs not

recommended for children. This is the only case in which it is not done except where it is suggested that the dosage be prescribed by the physician.



RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT FROM CHINESE BOMB TESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of reports that the radioactive fall-out from recent bomb tests in China is four times as heavy as from former tests, and that this fall-out is expected to descend on North America within a day or two, can the minister indicate whether it is considered this will create a hazard in Canada?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of this question I should like to take it as notice.



MEDICARE-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement the minister has made several times recently in speeches he has given outside of the house to the effect that he is confident that a federal medicare scheme will be in operation by the target date of July 1, 1967, can he say what steps he has taken to make sure this target date will be met?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Every possible step, Mr. Speaker, including the preparation of legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask if that legislation will be presented at this session of parliament?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Prime Minister stated prior to the Easter recess that it was his expectation the medicare legislation would be on the order paper after the Easter recess, and the intention is to proceed at this session.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Affairs regarding the consultations today between the Prime Minister and the Secretary General of the United Nations. Have these conversations anything to do with the situation in Viet Nam or are they to be confined to the Rhodesian problem?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had made arrangements to see the Secretary General of the United Nations, and while I have every reason to believe these two matters will be discussed I think the main purpose had to do with problems in the United Nations itself.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Justice received from the hon. member for Yukon the names of those federal officials who, according to the hon. member as reported in today's Globe and Mail, are involved in fraudulent bankruptcies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that question should be placed on the order paper or discussed at ten o'clock.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I suggest the question is of the utmost urgency, because if there are such individuals they ought to be investigated.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can always discuss it on the adjournment debate.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 10, 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.
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, consideration of Bill C-151 gives me the opportunity to say a few words regarding this legislation to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.
Rural Development
We will remember that this legislation deals with ARDA and that ARDA legislation was initiated by the Conservatives. It is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who made a name for himself across Canada by introducing this ARDA legislation which was passed on June 21, 1961. Ever since, this legislation has been known in every part of the country for its many benefits and the hopes it gave our farmers.
No need to read very carefully the speeches made when this legislation was introduced to realize quickly that those who today advocate it, who proclaim from the housetops that this legislation is going to meet the aspirations of our farmers, were the very same to censure and ridicule it. According to them, at the time, that legislation could not bring any practical results.
It is amusing to see that today they will try their best to implement legislation that the Conservative party is entitled to claim as is own.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will certainly meet the approval of everyone in the House of Commons and particularly of the political supporters of the Conservative party. The needs of our rural economy are urgent and numerous.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It was appropriate that the Minister of Forestry should decide to give our farmers all the attention they deserve.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian farmer is not concerned with the creation of various committees which might consider all the fields of our farming economy. Our farmers are hoping for constructive measures. Through the implementation of Bill C-151 we will certainly have done something constructive for the improvement of our rural economy in a more or less distant future.
This bill provides for an expenditure of $50 million. However, I doubt that this amount distributed among ten provinces, will be adequate to solve this serious problem faced by our rural economy. I think that we should provide an even greater amount to foster this cause, since it is a cause upon which our rural economy is based and which plays such a significant part in the overall economy of our country.
There is another aspect which it might be wise to study specifically: that of jurisdiction in so far as the federal and provincial governments are concerned respectively. It seems the provinces are given a little too much

May 11. 1966
Rural Development
authority in the matter. This measure being of federal inspiration, it should be directed, generally and efficiently, by the federal government.
I have been prompted to bring up the matter by an article published in he Devoir on June 7, 1964, in which the Quebec minister of agriculture blamed the Minister of Forestry for doing something which, it seems to me the responsible federal minister should not be blamed. In his criticism, Mr. Courcy is reported by the June 7, 1964 Le Devoir as saying:
Consequently, If Quebec, continued Mr. Courcy, considers it untimely and impossible to implement immediately a research program on rural development, it certainly does not behoove the present Minister of Forestry, Hon. Maurice Sauve, to comment publicly on Quebec's decision, and to thus intrude in our affairs.
I feel it would be advantageous to delineate clearly what jurisdiction falls to each of the two administrations, so that discussions and misunderstandings such as the one I have just reported may not recur in the future.
There is also, in this legislation, a section providing for the setting up of an advisory board. On reading this section, it becomes obvious that only ministers or public servants of the federal government will be called upon to hold office on this advisory board.
It seems to me it would be wise to take advantage of the knowledge of representatives of the agricultural people and to secure their assistance in a successful war against rural poverty, in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, for 50 years now there has been a continuous decline in the importance of the agricultural contribution to the general economy of the province of Quebec.
During those 50 years, farm labour decreased proportionately from 30 to 10 per cent of the total labour force.
In 1957, agriculture in Quebec, for instance, produced 5.4 per cent of the net product. In 1951, 230,000 Canadians earned a living in agriculture, roughly 16 per cent of the total national labour force. In 1961, the number of farm workers had slumped to 142,000, that is approximately 8 per cent of the total Canadian labour force. From 1939 to 1960, in spite of the fact that farm labour decreased by about 50 per cent, the Canadian farmer had produced twice as much.
This ,pieans that agriculture in Canada is being completely transformed, and that it would be timely to give it all the attention
[Mr. Ricard.l
required, so that those talents that are indispensable to the success of agriculture in Quebec, as well as elsewhere in Canada, might not be lost.
It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that country life has a tendency to make our young people shy away from the farm.
Our youth migrates increasingly to the towns. Of course, in the country, hours are longer and living conditions are more difficult than in the city; so, young people are discouraged by the fact that their parents cannot help them much to settle on farms.
Therefore, the credit given to the farming community, which is one of the best creditors one can find, should not be reduced but increased so as to allow young people to settle on farms, for if we let family farms disappear we will undoubtedly find ourselves in a difficult situation one day.
Farming, like any other profession, can be learned. It is learned more easily and more rationally in the company of one's parents, brothers and sisters. There will always be a place for family farms.
The trend today is towards larger farms and farming is considered as some sort of ever expanding business. But I am convinced there will always be room for the family farm. A man does not need a large farm to make a living for himself and his family.
I should like here to tell you of a personal experience which occurred in my riding. In the parish of Saint-Dominique, there is a strip of black soil which was practically untilled some 20 years ago. Every summer, drought fires would often start on this land, an easy prey to them, and thick, bitter smoke would rise, spreading even to the town of Saint-Hyacinthe.
Immigrants arrived in the country shortly after the war and bought these lands for ridiculously low prices. They worked them scientifically and made them so productive that those who sold them now wish they owned them.
Mr. Speaker, this is to show you that the important thing is not so much the size of the land as the intelligence and practical sense of the farmer who uses scientific methods to make his land productive.
Every day during the season there are dozens of workers in the parish harvesting the crops and sending on to the great centres the produce of these lands considered unproductive only a few years ago.
May 11, 1966

Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I should simply like to point out the great urgency of giving every consideration to the problems of rural life. The farmer is now squeezed between a high cost of living and the cost price, while the sales price of his products has remained almost unchanged in the last few years. The cost of living is rising continually and the farmer is forced to make one loan after another to meet his obligations.
This is not a normal state of affairs and, sooner or later, unless the necessary remedies are found, the farmer will tire and make demonstrations as he has done in the past. We should remember the march on Quebec last year or the year before and the blocking of roads by the farmers in order to understand what this usually peaceful class can do when it decides to take matters into its own hands.
Study groups are springing up everywhere. The Catholic Farmers Union is on the alert. The farmers are ready to follow their leaders and to expose their views whenever it is deemed proper and advisable.
Unless the federal government assumes its responsibilities and creates conditions which will allow the farmers to continue feeding the nation, we will have to ask ourselves whether we have really done what we should. Our duty is to conceive legislation which is general in scope and which will give the farmer his due, that is a fair share of the national revenue.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, having spoken at great length on the resolution preceding the bill I simply rise now to express my support for the spirit, principle and purposes of the bill which is actually, shall I say, another brick in the foundation laid by the former government and in particular by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) when he introduced the ARDA legislation whose principles are found in this bill. A lot of experience has been gained since that time.
The debate on this bill has been a demonstration of democracy in action. The bill was introduced by a forward looking cabinet minister who has ideas. It has been supported by a Progressive Conservative member who is the scion of a very famous manufacturing family. I refer to the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees). It has been wholeheartedly backed by a backwoods socialist rancher, the hon. member for Kootenay West.
Rural Development
I am very pleased to see the unanimity of agreement on the principle behind this bill which has received the support of those who live in near-castles and of one who is content to end his days in a log cabin. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it has received wide support in this house.
I rise to say briefly that I support this measure first of all because it reflects as is felt on all sides of the house, an appreciation of rural life and its value to Canadian society. I am quite sure that many who have spoken on the bill have spoken from a background of experience sometimes gained in early youth.
Let me say that I support the bill, first, because within its scope it will assure a continually adequate supply of efficiently produced food and fibre to meet our national requirements and our responsibilities to less fortunate people.
Second, it aims to foster conditions which will promote living standards for farmers and rural people comparable with those of workers in other occupations. I point out that the concept of the bill is somewhat more expanded than the original ARDA concept. The bill, as I understand it, will provide for the establishment of rural communities, an increase in small industries and operations of this type.
Third, as I read the bill it will assist in the maintenance of the economic farm unit and the continuance of healthy and productive rural communities which historically have provided a healthy, human injection into urban life.
Fourth, I support the measure because it will assure the conservation and wise management of our basic soil, forest and water resources, within its limited field of action.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we all freely admit that this is experimental legislation which will require determined application by the government, the co-operation of the provincial governments, and the participation of large numbers of Canadians through the various organizations that they support. While this bill provides for an expenditure of only $50 million, this figure can be quickly increased when the work undertaken under this legislation proves itself successful, proves its popularity and is endorsed by the people it is intended to serve.
I think I said that the bill provides for experimental legislation. I am rather conservative in many respects, you know, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 11, 1966
Rural Development
Speaker. I never like coloured socks and things of that sort. I am quite conservative where finance is concerned. I always want to know that two and two make four. I think it was very wise not to launch into a crash program but rather to proceed cautiously and, on the basis of the experience we are able to gain from year to year in the various regions of Canada, solve some of the problems. For instance, the problems that we might find in Quebec are quite different from the problems in Ontario or the problems in the prairie provinces or even the problems related to the regions I have the honour to represent, which are in the garden of Eden. The minister will have much less difficulty in applying the terms of this act to that area.
I think it was wise to limit the amount of money to be expended at this time. I believe that the idea that the money supply can be expanded very rapidly as the principle of the legislation is proven is correct. In addition to having the support of all hon. members in the house, the bill has the support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, farmers' unions, fruit growers organizations, farmers' and women's institutes and other community groups, particularly those rural community groups which are interested in co-operating with the government and with the groups directly concerned in making a success of this legislation.
I want to conclude on a personal note, Mr. Speaker. I rarely do that. As president of Canadian Tree Farmers Association I wish to quote from the minutes of the annual meeting which was held in Ottawa on Saturday, March 26, this year:
On the recommendation of Mr. John Carley, chairman of the Ontario branch of the C.F.T.A., the members approved a resolution, that an advisory board to ARDA and similar programs he established, consisting of representatives from all farm associations and organizations, interested in what ARDA, and related programs are trying to do.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This was endorsed unanimously. Representatives of our organization are meeting with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and with other groups in Quebec.
I can assure the minister that he has the good will and support of the Canadian Tree Farmers Association with respect to rural development in Canada. I trust every effort will be made to secure public interest and participation in this program by means of information provided by the department itself

through government publications, through the press and particularly through those papers and periodicals which are concerned with the maintenance and improvement of rural life in Canada.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-151 because the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act has become a sound establishment in our way of life and the $50 million stipulated in the legislation is a reasonable sum to allocate for the purposes of this measure.
Action in this field is the brain-child of a man of vision in a Conservative government and has caught on rapidly since its inception in 1961. It is particularly applicable to the area which I represent as we have an abundance of marginal land. Our whole economy has suffered from lack of industry. The Georgian Bay area has now been designated after two years of almost continual appeals to the government for justified consideration. With the benefits of designation and the proper application of ARDA the Georgian Bay area could become a most desirable place in which to live. We have all the other desirable characteristics such as good beaches, plentiful camping sites, fine scenery, good hunting and fishing.
I support this bill because I believe it to be progressive legislation. It will provide the proper atmosphere for a vast scope of possibilities essential to the improvement of rural income and the restoration of many natural resources so vital to the accomplishment of the desired result. The benefits it can render to the whole nation are almost unlimited.
The rejuvenation of rural areas will help simplify educational problems and other aspects of communities which are blighted when deterioration has taken its toll. I suggest that a thorough survey of the whole country be conducted so that those areas which should benefit will not be neglected. I endorse the idea presented by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) when he suggested that well publicized meetings could be held in areas in need of attention. At these meetings speakers would be available to explain in detail all the ramifications of ARDA. More personal interest would surely be forthcoming and this would contribute to a better result.
In my constituency of Grey North and the surrounding areas we have some fine farms and progressive people. We also have many
May 11. 1966

marginal and submarginal farms which do not make sound economic units. Many of these farms are being vacated and sold to holders of larger units. However, others who have perhaps spent their lives on these farms, as did their parents before them, are reluctant to leave. Anything which would supplement their incomes so that they could continue to live on these farms would be acceptable. With these people in mind I will make some suggestions which I think will be helpful.
The government could assist by soil testing and other research necessary to provide a sound basis for any of these operations. Financial assistance will be a necessity in some of these fields of endeavour. I am thinking now of enterprises which could be satisfactorily adopted by family units. We have many areas suitable for blueberry production on which the Department of Agriculture has up to date information. Other low-lying areas could be utilized for the production of cranberries. Marked success has been achieved by several in this field. This could also be said about blueberry growing, especially in Newfoundland where this is a million dollar industry.
I had an opportunity on a recent visit to the southern part of New Jersey to talk with a man who had a blueberry plantation with four acres under production. This area was unsuitable for other agriculture as it was low-lying and sandy. However, it appeared ideal for the raising of blueberries, and this man was able to make an annual income of $10,000. He grew special types of cultured blueberries and no doubt had the knowledge required to propagate them. Nevertheless, I believe there are many similar areas in this country which would be suitable for such an operation.
Game farming is relatively new and offers excellent opportunities. Pheasant and other game birds are raised to supply the ever-increasing number of hunt clubs. A few game farms offer sportsmen the opportunity of hunting pheasant and other game birds on a per day or per bird basis. These birds are produced on the farm and released when stock on the preserve is in need of replenishment. Many more such farms will be required to supply the thousands of sportsmen who would like to hunt where game is available.
While I am on the subject of catering to sportsmen I would like to mention fish farming as another means of bolstering the rural
Rural Development
economy. We have thousands of sports fishermen searching the country for streams, ponds or lakes which might yield some reward for their hours of angling. Many farmers own excellent locations for the development of fish farms. I might add that thousands of fish farms are being operated profitably in the United States. We do have some such farms operating successfully, and these derive most of their revenue from supplying large hotels and restaurants with speckled and rainbow trout. Many more people could be absorbed in this industry.
Fur farming has made a worth-while contribution to rural life in Canada over the past 50 or more years. The production of mink is the major operation in this field. Canada was the originator of this industry but today, with a world production of 20 million mink pelts, Canada provides only one and a half million. Some impetus will be registered in this industry no doubt as the result of an American rancher selling black mink skins at the New York auction on May 4 last for $1,100 each.
This country imported over $25 million worth of fur in 1965. This is a perturbing fact when we consider we are traditionally a fur producing country. For instance, we imported over $2 million worth of muskrat fur which could have been produced in our own marshes and lakes. ARDA, through the provisions of the measure before us, can create the proper environment by way of water conservation and resource management to remedy this situation and add substantially to rural incomes.
An organization which should be encouraged is a group of farm people who have banded together for the purpose of promotion of an enterprise known as "Farm Vacations". The idea has now spread to several provinces and each year more farmers will identify themselves with the enterprise and share and expand its possibilities. These farmers supply accommodation in their homes to urban families seeking an opportunity to enjoy rural life. This sort of holiday is becoming very popular because whole families can now enjoy a splendid vacation at reasonable rates in an environment which is healthy and appealing to children.
Many farms throughout the country possess spacious homes which provide ideal circumstances for the promotion of farm vacations. Of course, these people are quick to provide other attractions of which there is a large variety. Farm vacations open an avenue by

May 11, 1966
Rural Development
which farm people may secure a larger share of the tourist dollar. A sugar bush can be maintained on rough areas which are unfit for agriculture and, properly managed, can be the source of extra revenue to the family farm.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
These sidelines which I have enumerated could be promoted on family units over a wide area of the country. Some of the projects would lend themselves also to specialization. I draw attention to them in the hope that provincial governments or agencies thereof, through the provisions in this bill, might promote them among the rural people, 20 per cent of whom now operate farms which yield less than $1,200 a year to their operators.
It has been mentioned that marginal and submarginal farms could be converted to forest or tree farms. The Christmas tree farm is the only part of this program that would make a practical operation for individuals. Other reforestation of any magnitude is a long-range program and would of necessity be the responsibility of large pulp and paper companies, the provincial and federal governments, or all three working together. This bill provides for such action which should be one of the projects for immediate consideration and expansion.
Reforestation of large areas which have been timbered is taken care of to some extent by nature but these areas, if properly managed and if proper trees are introduced, would in the years ahead be much more productive. This holds true in my part of the province where we had many fine stands of hardwood but these areas are now cluttered up with tree tops and brush. They are of little value as pasture land and reforestation is the only hope of putting such properties back into useful production. Since we have such large areas denuded by timber exploitation and erosion, our water levels have dropped so that many wells go dry for several months of the year. Through the ARDA program and the provisions of this bill we have some hope of rectifying the situation, and I feel sure this can be accomplished with an accelerated reforestation program.
I would suggest an immediate survey be made of the facilities available throughout the country for the production of seedlings. If more accommodation is required to supply the ouantities needed, steps should be taken in co-operation with the provincial government to get these establishments under way

promptly. Reforestation, it seems to me, offers the best means to the result which we hope will be accomplished when the principles of ARDA are applied which is, to state it briefly, to promote conservation in all elements and create better circumstances for rural people in the unsatisfactory income brackets. The benefits of reforestation would affect our whole economy. We have much secondary industry which is dependent on forest products. Wood has never been replaced as man's most valuable servant. Instead, thousands of new uses have been found for it and old uses have been continually improved.
Most of western Ontario is vitally concerned with the matter of water. Cities are exploiting the areas adjacent to them and rural people in these areas are having trouble keeping a constant supply of water. Reforestation in the proper places can do much to relieve the situation. In the county of Grey there is the highest point of land in Ontario, 1,735 feet above sea level. This is the great watershed of a large portion of western Ontario. This great ridge encompassing approximately 40,000 acres should be completely reforested. In so doing results would be forthcoming and in a comparatively short time the Grand, the Humber, and the Credit Rivers which flow south, the Saugeen and the Sauble which flow west, and all the streams and rivers flowing north into Georgian Bay, could be restored to their natural flow with the assurance that spring floods would be at a minimum. The same program could be instituted at the headwaters of all western Ontario rivers or in any other province where such conditions exist.
Without a doubt the day is not far off when this program will be an absolute necessity. I would commend it for early consideration under this legislation with the co-operation of the provincial government. These 40,000 acres of which I speak could also serve the purpose of a national park and game sanctuary. Under the authority of this bill more suitable areas should now be designated for national parks while choice virgin timbered locations are still available. Fire and exploitation have lost to our people some ideal territory for this purpose. More game sanctuaries are required if we are to maintain wild life populations. We have thousands more joining the ranks of our hunters each year, and sport magazines continually report the scarcity of game in widespread areas. This is particularly true of the whitetail or red deer. Submarginal land or wasteland could be converted to suitable
May 11, 1966

game sanctuaries. Our local conservation authorities are to be commended for the remarkable contribution they have made already toward restoring our natural resources. ARDA provides legislation that will extend the help and direction the authorities have hoped for and of which they will not hesitate to take advantage.
This government, Mr. Speaker, should give some thought to introducing legislation in respect of the future settlement of all new areas in our country so that many of the obstacles we are now legislating to correct would be avoided. Surrounded by a wealth of natural resources that seem inexhaustible, the pioneer in any area naturally shows more energy in using what is at hand to keep himself fed, warm, clothed and in business, than foresight in preserving any of it. I believe all the land we have that is suitable should be kept for the production of food and especially wheat. This is a commodity that can be stored for lengthy periods. It is used for food the world over. It is not difficult to handle or transport. It could be our most potent weapon for maintaining peace. It could save millions of lives. It could save our own if great catastrophe overtook us. Our great western plains are reputed to be the bread basket of the world and, as such, they should continue. More of our wheat should go to those now starving. This will not hurt our market because these people are not in a position to buy. However, such humanitarian treatment could win them over politically now and for mutual economic advantage later. I believe there is much truth in a statement once made by the late President Kennedy when he said: "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it can never save the few who are rich."
Perhaps too I should bring to the attention of the house a quotation from Scripture which applies at this time and which comes to us through the prophet Isaiah.
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations:	and thou shalt be
called. The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the minister will review the suggestions and directions which have been brought to his attention by several members. I am sure they will be of assistance to him in bringing into fruition the visions we have for this great nation.
Rural Development
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words first to congratulate the government and the minister on the very commendable action they took by introducing this beneficial piece of legislation.
Indeed, since he took up his duties, the present Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) has shown quite remarkable initiative and energy, in addition to his determination in dealing earnestly with the true problem which affects the farm people.
The resolution now under discussion undoubtedly reflects his intentions and his fruitful action.
As a matter of fact, the bill under study comes under a very specific program of which three definite objects are now being materialized. The thing is, first, to promote the welfare of underdeveloped areas; second, to speed up industrialization of rural areas; and, third, to check underemployment and promote employment in agricultural areas.
During my brief remarks, I should like to express the hope that when implemented, this piece of legislation, will tend to eliminate the pockets of poverty which sometimes occur within prosperous areas.
I do not wish to make unfavourable comments about the pilot area set up and established in Mont-Joli. But the following procedure has often been followed in the past. A so-called underdeveloped area was looked after while small communities where people lived in dire poverty and destitution were being overlooked in areas alleged to be rich and prosperous.
I am thinking, for instance, of the riding of Lotbiniere which is essentially rural and which I have the honour to represent. In certain parts, there are farms which are not only economic, but exceptionally prosperous and where the land is very fertile. But close by are communities and small villages, called settlements, which are deprived of the minimum well-being all people should enjoy.
As a result, here is the wish I should like to formulate during consideration of this bill: That we cope not only with these areas but also with the small localities scattered among the prosperous areas, localities to which absolutely no attention is paid because they are thought to be prosperous, considering they are situated within general prosperous areas.
5020

May 11. 1966
Rural Development
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the following warning. The electoral map which was hotly discussed in the house some time ago will soon be changed. The new boundaries will be in force at the next election which means that the farmer is in danger of losing his voice. Representatives of rural constituencies will gradually disappear with the new electoral map. I do not mean to question the necessity of the new boundaries which will affect every constituency in the country, but I observe one thing and, as a result, I am giving the necessary warning. It is that the farmer is in danger of losing his mouthpiece; his voice is in danger of being stilled precisely because the new electoral map will make urban constituencies out of the greatest majority of constituencies represented in parliament. Rural constituencies are condemned to elimination and, as a result, the voice of the farmer is in danger of being neglected and unheard.
That is why such legislation is so important, so that members, even though they represent largely urban ridings, will continue to be actively and efficiently concerned with the farmers.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on Bill C-151 I should like to preface my remarks by stating that as a member representing a constituency which lies in the semi-arid area of east central Alberta I have watched the progress of the ARDA program since its inception in 1961. The new conception of ARDA which has come into effect since 1963 has been of interest to me and my constituents. We have looked upon this program as one which could mean much to us in the years ahead. Since 1963 it has been redirected from a war on underdeveloped resources to a war on poverty. However, as someone once said, this is not a war on poverty; it is an exercise in shadowboxing.
If under this new bill it is proposed to redirect aid provided through ARDA toward the government's war on poverty one must ask how it coincides with other government legislation. We have been told that a new agency will be set up under this new legislation to buy out small, uneconomic farm units and enlarge them into larger economic units which can be operated efficiently. I hope that in at least some cases the enlarged units will be sold back to individual farmers.

In essence the operation of such an agency will put the government into the business of purchasing real estate and operating farms; What effect will this have on the price of land, which is already skyrocketing to a point that cannot be justified on the basis of the potential value of production? What effect will this have on agriculture generally?
Members of political parties have been travelling across this country for years proclaiming that we must maintain the family farm; yet we find ourselves faced with a bill which would establish what might be termed state farms. It is very interesting to note in this regard that we in Canada have operated more efficiently and outproduced the Soviet Union; yet the Soviet Union has been operating a system of state farms. One could carry on comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems of production and come to no other conclusion than the one I have drawn, that in spite of the problems we have in our system it is better and more efficient than the state farm system.
The proposed legislation is put forward under the guise of making war on poverty by aiding small uneconomic farm units. Let us consider that proposition for a moment. I do not deny that there are a number of small farms in Canada with low incomes but the proposed method of assistance is not the only way this situation can be changed. I should like to suggest a few alternatives.
In those areas of Canada where uneconomic farm units exist educational courses could be provided. A farmer who finds himself operating an uneconomic unit has two avenues open to him. He can acquire a better education through one means or another, through grants, if necessary, or by taking advantage of educational programs introduced by the federal and provincial governments in order that he may know how to produce more efficiently, or he can borrow money to enlarge his unit and intensify his production. As an example of what I have in mind, one does not need virgin land with heavy black soil to produce hogs, beef or poultry efficiently. The farmer can intensify his production without enlarging his farm unit to any great extent. I suggest these are methods which can be followed in our efforts to eradicate the poverty pockets existing in Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This legislation introduces a new approach, one in which the government singles out areas in Canada and says that because areas
May 11, 1966



A,	B and C contain a substantial number of low income groups something must be done about them. The government says, "We must move in with federal government funds", the taxpayers' money, "and take over the operations in these communities." I would much rather see ARDA move into undeveloped resource areas and develop the resources so the people in these areas could attain a standard of living comparable with that of the rest of Canada. In addition, greater use would be made of Canada's resources. Are we going to move into private members' hour, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes. Perhaps the hon. member would like to call it five o'clock.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fine debate yesterday and today on this subject, I would suggest that to provide continuity we continue until six o'clock or thereabouts to see what we can do with this legislation. In this way we will not break our train of thought.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the suggestion of my colleague but would add that there should be agreement that we will complete this bill before six o'clock.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, my notice of motion would be the first item dealt with in private members' hour but I certainly agree with the suggestion that has been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are quite agreeable to suspending private members' hour today for this purpose.


Michael Starr: I want to stress the one point I added as a rider, that we all agree to and co-operate in getting this legislation through before six o'clock; otherwise there would be no point in dispensing with private members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to be quite sure what the hon. member for Ontario is saying. Does he mean just second reading of the bill or does he include consideration of the bill in committee?


Michael Starr: Consideration of the bill in committee and right through third reading.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it unfair to ask for this kind of decision. I would certainly agree that we continue the debate in the normal course and if it is not finished tonight it will obviously have to be concluded at some other time. But I think it would be 23033-318!
Rural Development
very foolish to agree to concluding the discussion of this bill and giving it third reading when we are still at the second reading, stage.


Michael Starr: Then I must say that I think we would be encroaching upon private members' hour for no particular reason except to provide an extra hour's discussion of this bill that could be provided tomorrow. During the session we have 40 hours for the consideration of private members' business and we have been encroaching upon that period. Unless we do as I suggested I see no point in suspending private members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Objection always comes from the same corner.	[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could not the proposition be separated into its two parts? Could we not see whether there is unanimous consent to waiving the hour for private members' business and then deal with the other matter at six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to dispense with private members' hour and continue with the debate on second reading of Bill No. C-151?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to continue my remarks. Before the interruption I was saying what this legislation will do and how it will redirect ARDA's thinking. In fact it is my belief that it will devour ARDA's thinking. In other words, when ARDA was first introduced it was my impression and the impression of all hon. members in the house that it would be used to develop Canada's undeveloped resources so that Canadians might be better able to provide for themselves. But since 1963 ARDA has moved toward this supposed war on poverty, and I believe the intent of Bill No. C-151 has consumed ARDA's thinking since 1963. If it is passed too readily and adopted unanimously I am afraid

May 11. 1966
Rural Development
it will consume ARDA's thinking in the years ahead.
In this regard we must ask ourselves what is best for Canadians. Is it some assistance, some welfare measure, which will eradicate the poverty pockets in Canada, or is it some measure that will develop the undeveloped resources across this counry and allow Canadians to provide for themselves? It is my firm belief that Canadians want the opportunity to provide for themselves and do not want the government buying their land and saying: Go into the city; we will educate you there and then you can fend for yourselves. This might suit a lot of people but it is my belief that farmers are farmers for a number of specific reasons. One is that they love the freedom of farming. Second, they love the outdoor work. Neither of these desires can be met by city employment. If this legislation is passed and projected into the future it will take peoople off the farms and put them in city employment where they will lose the freedom they cherish and their desire to work outdoors away from the smog and fog of city life will not be met.
Therefore we must consider this legislation very carefully. I am in favour of making every effort to eradicate poverty pockets in Canada if it is the intention of the government to help the small farmer to farm in these poverty pockets. Twenty or thirty years ago the farmer was sustained to a large extent by his egg cheque, his poultry cheque, and in some parts of Canada by the pulpwood he could cut during the winter. In one province premiums of over $10 per hog are paid. These premiums are in effect a subsidy. As a farmer myself I am not against subsidies. In fact, I am as much for subsidies as the next fellow. But in effect a subsidy of $10 is paid to the farmer for every hog he raises. This payment is made in a province of Canada where in rural areas the farm income is perhaps the largest in the country.
Therefore I would ask, Mr. Speaker, how does this legislation correspond with other policies of the government? Recently the government announced a price of $4 a hundred for milk. Whom is this supposed to help sustain? The answer is, the small farmer. What will this program cost? It will cost something like $10 million a year. I am not opposed to it; I think it is a good idea. But on the one hand you are sustaining the small farmer and on the other you are trying to buy him out and force him off the land.
[Mr. Homer (Acadia) .1
We are told that a feed grain agency is to be set up in eastern Canada. This will allow the small farmer to buy grain at a price he can afford and will enable him to carry out his feeding or farming operation, whatever the case may be. With regard to the feed grain policy, in the province of Ontario, for example, something like 80 per cent of the production on agricultural land is produced by 30 per cent of the farmers, another 30 per cent of farmers produce 17 per cent and another 30 per cent the remaining 3 per cent. Taking that province as an example I say that the feed grain agency is not going to maintain or sustain the 30 per cent producing 80 per cent of the production. What the feed grain policy may do is to improve the assistance to the 30 per cent who are producing 3 per cent of the production. So I say to the minister that before he catapults the government of Canada into state farming and state agriculture he should review the over-all agricultural policies to see whether or not the intent of this legislation is carried out in other policies.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Who would be most affected by the feed grain policy, for example, or the freight assistance on feed grain coming from western Canada? The answer is, the large farmers. This may be good from the viewpoint of this legislation, but what I am trying to point out here is that there is no continuity in government legislation. On the one hand, in many cases we are sustaining the small farmer; on the other hand, we feel that we must buy him out and move the government into state farming. This is exactly what this piece of legislation does.
We are told that $50 million will be provided under agreements with the provinces. The agency is prepared to spend this $50 million in the next five years in buying up small farms. I suppose if I were 70 years old and had no dependants I would be the first one to approach the agency for it to buy my small farm. I suppose many farmers will greet this legislation with the view that if an agency is prepared to buy their land they are prepared to sell. But I would like to know how far this will catapult the government of Canada into state agriculture. In other words, the funny thing about legislation is that once it is on the statute books the money involved very rarely diminishes. We have $50 million for five years. From my experience in this house
May 11, 1966

I say that when the five years have passed by $100 million will be appropriated for the next five years and more land will be purchased.
As can be seen in the Canada Year Book, the percentage of land owned by farmers in Canada has increased from what it was in the 20's and 30's. In other words today most farmers are farming land they own; a far greater percentage are farming land they own than was the case in the 20's and 30's. Will that trend continue if we pass this legislation and endorse it wholeheartedly? As I said before, it is my experience in this house that once legislation is on the statute books the money involved rarely diminishes. We have $50 million appropriated today; five years from now it will be $100 million and later another $100 million. More money is appropriated because more pockets of poverty exist, and away we go. Maybe nobody really knows where it ends.
I hope that when this piece of legislation passes the minister responsible for ARDA will not let it take up all of his time or all the time and energy of the department. I hope he will continue the original intention of ARDA to find pockets or areas in Canada where vast resources remain undeveloped. The whole central part of Alberta might well be said to be rich in soil containing the most valuable resources in Canada. However, it is also very weak in the development of that soil because today it has a very sparse population per square mile. In other words, we have a vast potential which could be developed under ARDA, and many other areas in Canada could also be developed. Resources could be developed so that intensification of population could be achieved rather than go into areas where income is low and take the people off the farms and move them into cities. Let us take the low income people in the cities, many of whom desire to go back to farming, and develop the agricultural land throughout Canada. In many cases those in the low income group in the cities desire to go back into agriculture and they should be given an opportunity to do so.
It is a popular belief, inspired by many newspaper articles on agriculture, that the small farmer must go. Every professor in every university will say that the small farmer must go. In many cases the small farmer does not want to go; he wants to remain a small farmer because he likes farming. He does not want the burden of debt. He does not want financial worries; he only wants to
Rural Development
remain on his farm and earn his living. In the Kootenays, in Acadia, in Quebec or in any other part of Canada we must give him the right to remain small if he so desires. We cannot suddenly say to him through government legislation: You are uneconomic and because your neighbour wants to sell you must sell; we will force you to take up another line of occupation and move elsewhere. We in this country who share his freedom must guard against the ever-expanding system of state farms which this legislation may well bring about.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
(Translation)


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I had expressed my intention to make a contribution to the debate on Bill C-151, which I strongly support, but so as not to delay its passage, I shall summarize my remarks in one or two minutes.
Yesterday, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), who is responsible for rural development, mentioned the purposes of this new legislation in his very detailed statement. He said among other things, that three areas, one in Manitoba, one in eastern Quebec and one in New Brunswick, would benefit from this new legislation which, with ARDA, will step up the war against poverty in rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of adding another area, that of western Quebec, it could adjust very well to this new legislation. I refer to the Rouge river valley, of which the department has had a study made by a company directly concerned with rural development. Its 2,000-page report covers that 2,500 square mile area which has a population of 25,000 and includes 31 municipalities.
Here, I also want to mention the Little Nation valley, the Lievre valley and the Gatineau valley.
Another preliminary report in the hands of ARDA was prepared by the Canadian Welfare Council concerning poverty in rural areas and deals with three provincial counties, Papineau, Gatineau and Pontiac.
I would have liked to add further remarks in this regard for the regions I have just mentioned, but I think the Minister of Forestry could use the power conferred upon him by section 4 of Bill C-152 to make a study.
Therefore, I suggest to him, Mr. Speaker, that he make a study of the four western Quebec valleys I have mentioned, with a

May 11, 1966
Rural Development
view to making available to them the advantages of ARDA or those of the new Bill C-152.
[English1


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few points which need emphasizing in connection with this legislation. First of all, I want to know from the minister if in arranging these agreements with the provinces there is any thought of expropriating land. I want to know the answer to that question before I vote in favour of this legislation. I want it clearly understood that there is going to be no attempt to expropriate land owned by the so-called small operators. In so far as this program is concerned, it is true the small farms do present a problem. When I refer to "small farms" I am referring to farms comprising half a section of land or in some areas even a quarter section. There are no criteria that the Minister of Forestry (Mr Sauve) can produce, or anyone else for that matter, to show that all these so-called small farms are uneconomic. The person operating such a farm may wish to live in the country and may have a supplementary income. In those instances the farm is operated to very good advantage.
One of the objectives of this measure might be to expropriate land in order to assemble a unit. Any such attempt would be going contrary to the interests of the small operator and against the wishes of those interested in agriculture. It would meet with serious objections from the farmers themselves and from all those who have a lot of confidence in the ARDA legislation. Like the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), I feel that if we develop our resources under ARDA we will automatically begin to eliminate poverty. You cannot look at one without the other. If you take an area that has extensive resources and develop those resources, you are going to create greater employment for the farmers of that particular area. On the other hand, if you set out to operate your programs only in those areas where there is poverty you are going to be just sweeping in the corners in so far as solving the problems this act was designed to solve is concerned.
In other words, you must look at the resources first and rely upon a certain amount of internal migration. The outcome of this will be that the resources will be developed and employment will be supplied. I have a feeling that the minister, as a result of his surroundings and his understanding of
(Mr. Clermont.]
these problems, has given too much emphasis to the question of poverty. We all want to eliminate poverty. I am certain it can be eliminated if the resources of our great dominion are developed. The first consideration, therefore, should be the development of resources. This should be the touchstone. It was the touchstone when ARDA was first implemented, and that should not be changed in order to give consideration to the question of poverty.
Poverty is an important problem, and by all means we want to eliminate it. However, this can only be done if we take the natural resources and combine them in terms of units which will support the population in the area concerned. The citizens with low incomes are now to be the touchstone of this particular measure, as I read it. I am wondering whether the minister, in addition to the answer I have requested about the expropriation of land, can give to the house the orientation he intends to adopt with regard to the agreements with the provinces.
Can the minister say that the steps which the provinces will take will be to develop resources rather than to eliminate pockets of poverty? As I have said, we want the pockets of poverty eliminated but we do want an approach that will develop the resources of our nation and not only the mineral resources but those that have to do with the farming industry.
While these resources should be developed, I want to say too that the Minister of Forestry, who is going to be the minister in charge of this program, should include Indian reserves in the program. I have some 6,000 or 8,000 Indians in my riding. I want a program started on these Indian reserves. These are places where the people have low incomes. They have their Indian reserve lands, and I am certain that any program that could be developed with the help of the federal government would be welcomed by them. Since they are natives of our dominion they should not be overlooked, but no mention is made of them in this legislation. In other words, here is another measure which seeks to correct poverty but does not mention Indian reserves. These reserves are the areas in which you will find the greatest poverty in this great dominion of ours.
I say again that I would not be in favour of this legislation unless it is the intention of the minister to direct some of his attention to the solution of the problem of poverty through
May 11, 1966

the proper utilization of resources and the adoption of programs for these Indian reserves.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the comments I feel impelled to make in connection with this bill are not lengthy, let me assure you, but so far as agriculture is concerned I feel that the bill is an important one. It has a good many ramifications which I think will be of general benefit to people making a partial living on a small farm and who devote some other portion of their time to working in a nearby urban centre.
I think it is proper to pay some tribute to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) in relation to this whole idea and the previous legislation which set up ARDA. I also feel I can properly say that I think we are fortunate, inasmuch as we on this side of the house, do not seem to be able to take the duties of administration entirely upon our shoulders, in that the present minister will, I am sure, do a most creditable job both on his behalf and on behalf of the country.
I believe we must consider the social aspect of the maintenance of the small farm. It has always been my feeling that a special situation exists in relation to maintaining the farmer in a small community. He is the person who contributes to the upkeep of the local church and the local school. He is the person who, in general terms, is the foundation of the rural communities which I think are tremendously important to this country.
I realize that in this day and age there is a definite trend toward the larger farming unit. I appreciate this is due to the mechanization of farming which involves the purchase of very expensive machinery and can only be undertaken by a man in possession of a large acreage of land. As a consequence the trend is away from the small farm.
However, I maintain that this legislation can be used to encourage the small farmer to stay on the farm. We who represent rural communities know that all you need do to find many abandoned farms is to go across the country. These farms are abandoned in many cases owing to the fact that the farmer found it difficult to maintain his family.
I have heard it said that such land should be used to grow trees instead of crops. In my part of the country many of the abandoned farms are now sought after by large food
Rural Development
processing plants such as those in my particular part of New Brunswick. This is because the soil in regions isolated from the general activities of everyday life is practically free from all disease. As a consequence such land is sought after by food processing plants. I find that in my part of New Brunswick this is becoming more and more the case. To my own knowledge these plants are moving away from the thickly settled areas in an attempt to obtain land which has a certain freedom from disease in order to produce crops for which freedom from disease is most important.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to the minister that he should not take as gospel that every acre of cleared land in what might be called back settlements must of necessity be used for tree growing. The soil should be carefully examined and analysed. I do not pretend to be a practical farmer because I am not. But I do know that soil in certain places has characteristics which lend themselves to the growing of certain crops provided that first of all the land is examined by agriculturalists and a report issued.
If I were going to make a suggestion to the minister I would say that before any large scale change in land use is made in any particular community the soil should be carefully analysed to ascertain its suitability for growing various kinds of crops. I might favour tree growing because this happens to be my particular business. I am glad, that the Minister of Forestry is in charge of this legislation inasmuch as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, because of circumstances, is unable to look after it. Speaking in broad, general terms I think it is a good thing to consider tree growing as an alternative to crops.
If I had time I could go into the whole history of the growing of Christmas trees, an activity which has been developed in parts of New Brunswick as well as parts of Nova Scotia. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart), knows that the growing of Christmas trees is becoming quite a business there.
I was a little disturbed at the speech made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) because I am one of those-and I make no apologies for this-who is a sincere believer in the principle of individual initiative and the encouragement of people to look after themselves, in other words, private enterprise. I believe in private enterprise because it develops individuals. That is the way the talents given to us by the Almighty are developed to

May 11, 1966
Rural Development
their greatest possible extent. Private enterprise gives people a chance to develop their talents so that they will not require the government to be paternal toward them to the extent that they do not need to worry.
In this connection I should like to quote the assurance, to some extent at least, of the minister in his speech yesterday, when he said as reported at page 4940 of Hansard:
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.
In the next column these words appear:
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.
I do not think we can find too much fault with that statement, but I should like to inform the minister that he will achieve much greater satisfaction and results from the whole program if he will consider a slight amendment to the clause of the bill which deals with the setting up of the boards. It is proposed to set up boards consisting of ten members who will be drawn from various departments in Ottawa. I suggest to the minister that he consider as candidates for the boards representatives from municipalities in which projects are located.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If the minister is going to accomplish anything in the nature of improvements in order to eliminate poverty to some degree, I think it would be beneficial to use local people on these advisory boards. Their use would be of benefit to the provincial governments which do not come as close to the people as do the representatives of the municipalities. Therefore, if it were possible to make a slight amendment in order that the municipalities could be represented on the boards, I am sure that matters of local interest and local need would be brought to the attention of the boards to a much greater extent than if they were made up of those not familiar with local conditions or with the needs of the people in general.
I agree with the words of the hon. member for Acadia when he said that we must give the small farmer the right to remain small. I do not think we should consider that because an individual is doing something on a smaller basis than somebody else, he should be brushed aside as though he is not important. I think that combinations of smaller people are more important generally to the economy

of the country than the large operators no matter what may be the particular sphere of economics in which they are engaged. In other words, I think it is better to have ten small farmers earning $3,000 each in a community than to have one large farmer earning $30,000. I think that the ten farmers earning $3,000 each are of more benefit to the community as a whole than one farmer with a gross income of $30,000.
Here I believe we get to the root of the problem. It has to do with the individual. We are here for the purpose of legislating for the benefit of individuals regardless of where they may be.
As the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said, everybody seems to be in favour of this legislation. There is universal approval in the chamber, I think, because everyone sees here an attempt to deal with the problem and everyone wants the problem dealt with.
May I make some suggestions to the minister in the hope that they may be of some benefit to him as he proceeds with his duties in administering the act. I hope that the act when passed will have the effect of ameliorating the problems of poverty in low income communities. I am sure we all hope that this will result from the legislation before us at the present time.
Having expressed my views concerning the individual, I want to say that I believe it is better to give the individual an opportunity to do things for himself than to give the impression that you are going to do everything for him. Enabling the individual to better himself should be the aim, the object and the objective of the legislation.
Having made my point, I do not propose to take any more time of the house. I am sure we will all await with great interest the activities to be carried on under the act. We want to see it in operation. May I assure the minister that to the extent I may be able to be of assistance to him he may consider my services are at his disposal at all times.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister is in his seat at the present time. I am sorry that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) is not here. I should like to pay a special tribute to the minister and to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for the gentlemanlike way in which they began this debate yesterday afternoon. That sort of thing is refreshing in this house and I am sure that all those on the
May 11, 1966



back benches approve wholeheartedly. They set an example that other members have followed. I should like to congratulate all members who have spoken in the debate because it has been a very worth-while discussion.
Speaking of Renfrew county, I should like to say that we have a very active ARDA committee which is part of Renfrew county council. The committee has done excellent work to date, has been most active and at this time I should like to pay my tribute to its members.
The 1966 Renfrew county budget for ARDA projects provides for a gross expenditure of a little over $206,000, $26,000 of which will be county money. ARDA, over the years since its inception, has paid for several feasibility and engineering studies that have been made in the county on different projects.
Possibly there is a special case to be made out for the county. Hon. members will recall that in the days when timber was being cut for the British navy Renfrew county was one of the areas in Canada that saw its hills stripped of virgin pine. In many instances the areas affected have not survived that action. Today reforestation under the ARDA program plays a major part in Renfrew county. The county spends in the neighbourhood of $20,000 a year for reforestation in joint ARDA projects.
Another thing accomplished under ARDA has been the dredging of sections of the Muskrat river and the construction of a dam. The total project cost was approximately $113,000. At this time I will not go into other projects.
However, I should like to mention something else which involved much local initiative on the part of the people in various areas of Renfrew county, namely, the maple syrup project. One farmer had the idea that he should make a survey of the area for purposes of maple syrup production. He found that there were over one million maple trees in the area. ARDA has approved a considerable grant of money to the people interested for the development of this industry. These people are to be congratulated for their initiative.
I should like to emphasize strongly before I sit down that I feel ARDA should supply funds to promote education in poverty stricken rural areas. In many instances where there is rural poverty there are poor educational facilities. I am thinking not only of
Rural Development
elementary education. At some time in the future I hope that funds may be provided through ARDA to local areas or counties with rural poverty in order to build agricultural schools to give basic agricultural training to the young people in those areas, thereby helping to train them to be community leaders. This would also give them ideas for building up their areas and would prepare them to take the initiative in bringing about improvements locally. I do not think there need be any conflict with provincial jurisdiction over education. We often hear the saying: Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. This money could be given to the provinces with the single proviso that it be used for educational purposes. There would be no interference with provincial jurisdiction in any way.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I should like to leave this thought with the house because I feel that one of the ways to eradicate local poverty in Canada is by helping people to help themselves. This could certainly be done if better educational facilities were provided in some areas.
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-
Lennox): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on this bill. A bill as wide in its application as the one we are now considering certainly deserves full and constructive debate.
The minister has said that 500,000 families or two million Canadians are living in rural poverty. I should like to point out that this has only been the case lately since the advent of the Liberal government and the high cost of living which has accompanied their term of office. The minister also mentioned the low standard of living of rural people. I do not think he has expressed the position altogether fairly and I must reply by saying that the standard of living of rural people is generally better in a rural setting than the abject and deplorable poverty of many thousands of our people who live in other than rural areas.
The broad, general principles of this bill constitute a step in the right direction and we interpret them as a concerted effort on the part of the government and parliament to rescue our rural areas and a wide section of the agricultural industry from despair and oblivion.
I pointed out to the house on March 31 the need for care when enacting legislation of this kind, the need to preserve the private enterprise capability of our farmers. I wish

May 11, 1966
Rural Development
it to be noted that I advised the government not to go into the real estate business through buying smaller lots and farms, improving and developing them into economic units and then selling them back to the farmers. After a considerable period spent by people in such a socialistic government-sponsored upheaval, as I have just indicated, I ask the question: Which farmers would be the purchasers?
One can readily visualize the course of events. A certain area would be inspected by an advance corps of committees and inspectors. Some small holders would be willing to sell to the government. Others, rightfully, would be adamant in not wishing to sell. The government would then have the painful and embarrassing experience of having to resort to expropriation. Many decisions would go to arbitration or to court, a process which would vastly increase the cost of the land to the government.
Once a governmental economic unit had been so expensively thrown together further expenses would follow including the fencing of the unit, the erection of suitable buildings, the tearing down of unsuitable buildings where necessary, the provision of suitable water supplies for livestock and human consumption, the installation of hydro where provision is not already made, and the setting up of the power facilities needed for modern farming. All these things involve considerable expense.
Money would be needed for the improvement and building of roads in many cases where township councils could not extend existing roads in the absence of guarantees. All these subtotals, Mr. Speaker, make up the grand total representing the price the government would have to ask of the first prospective purchaser. I say again, as I said on March 31: Give the farmers the credit and the benefits of the Canadian Farm Loan Act and let them do their own developing. Let them create their own economic units. Let them improve their own solvency. Almost without exception, anything any government has ever done in the line of construction and
development has cost far more than the same work done by private enterprise.
Let farmers do their own developing and carry out their own improvements with the help of specific grants made available for certain required improvements. They could collect these grants after the improvement had been inspected and the cost authorized for payment.
I have here a clipping from the Napanee Beaver of May 4, 1966, reporting a meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture held in Toronto. The heading is: "Rural Redevelopment Must Start With People, Federation Told". It reads in part as follows:
Fieldman Rae Cunningham and "AG Rept" Garnet Mills, who were present at the monthly meeting on Tuesday, April 26, in the County Memorial Building at Napanee reviewed recent conferences held in Toronto and Guelph and stated that the conclusion reached is that rural redevelopment must start with people who are willing to participate in a self-help program of retraining to meet the needs of a changing world.
May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the business of the house tomorrow will be the same order of business as we have been considering today. We will continue with item No. 5 on the order paper, Bill No. C-151, followed by second reading of Bill C-146, an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act. Then we would take second reading of Bill C-147, an act to amend the Yukon Act, followed by the estimates of the Departments of Forestry, Labour, Post Office and Industry, not necessarily in that order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In order to keep the record straight, may I ask whether I am expressing the will of the house if I say that the private members' hour suspended this day is to be taken on some other day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 12, 1966