1967-03-22

CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members will be interested to know that on March 14 concurrent resolutions were introduced in the United States Senate and House of Representatives that the United States Congress extend its congratulations to the parliament of Canada on the occasion of the centennial of Confederation.
The resolutions were introduced in their respective chambers by two great friends of Canada who have long been associated with the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, Senator George D. Aiken of Vermont and Congressman Cornelius J. Gallagher of New Jersey. Senator Aiken and Congressman Gallagher, it should be noted, will once again be the co-chairmen of the United States delegation to the tenth meeting of the Canada-United States group when it meets in Canada next May 10 to 14.
The resolutions were referred on March 14 to the appropriate committees of Congress for due consideration. They have now been reported back and adopted unanimously. The text is as follows:
Whereas the year 1967 marks the centennial of the confederation of Canada; and
Whereas the century of Canadian confederation has been marked by close ties of friendship and association between Canada and the United States; and
Whereas relations have been strengthened through the annual meetings of the legislators of Canada and of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress of the United States extends its congratulations and its best wishes to the parliament of Canada on the occasion of the centennial of the confederation of Canada and in affirmation of the affection and friendship of the people of the United States for the people of Canada.
I shall be pleased to convey to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate a message of appreciation on behalf of all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the standing committee on national defence.


Mr. Lambert:: That is presented very much on division, Mr. Speaker.

Twenty fourth report of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs-Mr. Gray.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INCOME TAX


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table an order in council, P.C. 1967-533 of March 21, in English and in French, amending the regulations under the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table those documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: In the budget last March it was announced that a regulation under the Income Tax Act had been passed to provide that capital assets of certain classes acquired in the period after the date of the budget but before October 1 of this year would be subject to deferred capital cost allowances. This action was intended to serve as a restraint upon capital expenditures at a time when these were increasing at excessive levels.
The present order in council which I am tabling changes from October 1 to April 1 of this year the date at which this period comes to an end. Consequently property acquired after March 31 will not be subject to the deferred capital cost allowances provided for in the regulation last year.
It had been my intention to announce this change in capital cost allowances in speaking on second reading of Bill C-280 because the reason for terminating this period of deferred

March 22, 1967
Dairy Support Policy
capital cost allowances is the same as the reason for introducing that short bill. Now that consideration of the bill has been deferred until after the recess it is important that there be an immediate announcement here in parliament of the action in regard to capital cost allowances. It will be possible to discuss this action as well as that in respect of the refundable tax when parliament is able to consider Bill C-280, which is an amendment to the Income Tax Act.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In the budget last year it was stated that this temporary reduction in capital cost allowances, like the refundable tax, could be terminated on short notice should economic circumstances change. At present the economic circumstances and short term prospects do not appear to require any such restraint upon capital expenditures.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I failed to notice that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands wishes to comment on the statement made by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I was waiting, Your Honour, in case someone from the official opposition wished to comment. I have not had time in which to consider all the implications of this statement, but I suggest to the Minister of Finance that this is another of the rather haphazard ad hoc amendments to our fiscal structure which he seems to have been practising constantly. It is my hope that before contemplating any other such changes he will refer to the recent report of the Carter commission on taxation, where these problems are dealt with in a coherent manner. I hope there will be no more of these sudden changes without reference to the whole framework of fiscal policy.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to inform the house of the support which will be provided by the government to dairy farmers in the 1967-68 support year.


I apologize to my French speaking colleagues: I do not know if the French translation system is working right now. Thank you.

As I am sure hon. members will recall, there is an important structural change in dairy support which will be effective on April
1.	While in past years the management of the program has been the responsibility of the agricultural stabilization board, effective the first of next month the newly formed Canadian Dairy Commission will assume this responsibility. Working with provincial marketing boards this commission has broad powers designed to permit it to develop an industry best suited to Canada's needs.
During the current support year the agricultural stabilization board has provided a subsidy at the rate of 85 cents per hundredweight on manufacturing milk testing 3.5 per cent and an equivalent amount on cream. The estimated cost of this program is $90 million. For the forthcoming year a total of $120 million will be made available to the commission for subsidy payments. This is an increase of 33 J per cent in the level of government aid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: This sum will permit of an increase in the subsidy rate to dairy farmers to $1.21 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk testing 3.5 per cent and an equivalent rate on cream. While total returns to producers from subsidy and the market will depend upon the action of provincial boards and agencies in establishing minimum paying prices, I am informed by the commission that the combination of subsidy and price supports will provide for a total milk price in the order of $4.75 f.o.b. the factory for manufacturing milk testing 3.5 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: It should be noted that the commission will deduct such sums as they deem necessary for export cost in the same manner as the 10 cents hold back was handled last year by the agricultural stabilization board.
Complete details on the program of the commission will be announced by that body shortly. I can say, however, that it will embody individual subsidy eligibility quotas designed to bring about adjustments aimed at
March 22, 1967

increasing the over-all efficiency of the industry. This, I believe, is a useful step toward the long term goal of the government and the commission to put the industry on a sound basis whereby farmers will obtain a just return for their production with an ever-increasing share coming from the market place.
I should also note that this level of support includes provision for the agreement I reached with the ministers of agriculture of the two major milk producing provinces, Ontario and Quebec, that the federal support, effective April 1, will be increased by the equivalent of 25 cents per hundredweight of milk, subject to the provinces withdrawing from the direct subsidization of manufacturing milk and cream other than in exceptional circumstances. At the same time, since fluid milk is generally accepted as being a provincial responsibility, the federal government will leave the field of fluid milk shippers to the provinces in order to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent (Onl)):: Mr. Speaker, this so-called dairy policy announced by the minister today, after his government has been five years in office, will provide very little comfort to the dairy industry of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Harold Warren Danforth: When we look through the excellent verbiage that has been presented us today what do we find, Mr. Speaker? We find there has been no solution to any of the problems facing the dairy industry. Instead there is an increase in government subsidization, by direct payment to the industry.


An hon. Member:: Are you against it?


Harold Warren Danforth: If the government is not aware of it all I can say is that every segment of the agricultural industry knows that subsidies are not a cure. They are just a medicine and don't solve anything. The government appreciates as well as the opposition that this does not meet the needs of the dairy industry, and that the dairy industry will be back again within 12 months for an increased subsidy made necessary by increased expenditures.
The dairy industry made a proposition to the government and outlined the need for a minimum f.o.b. price of $5.10 per hundredweight in order to operate for the season. What we have today is simply $4.75, with 10 23033-905
Dairy Support Policy
cents deducted for export, which leaves $4.65 for the farmers instead of the $5.10 that they need.
I have been asked if I am against this policy. The real test of the policy announced today will be proven in the next year if we find a drastic change as the result of this and other government policies, with too many creameries closing up, too many small dairies being gobbled up, too many valuable herds being dispersed, and too many young men leaving the industry because there is no money in it.
These are the problems which must be solved, and I contend that this weak announcement of increased subsidies will not solve one single problem of the dairy industry. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government would have been much better advised to follow the lead set by the ministers of agriculture in the two largest dairy producing areas and try to work out a single control of the dairy industry, placing in the hands of the national dairy commission the power to disperse the very small surplus supplies we have in dairying today.
Anyone connected with the dairy industry knows that the surpluses each year vary from one commodity to another, and if our small surpluses were disposed of in external markets the dairy industry would be in a much stronger position to support itself. This is what the dairy industry wants. This is what the consumer wants, not a continuous policy of support each year for the industry from the coffers of the people of this country. The dairy policy announced today by the minister solves no dairy problem. It just gives the government a chance to buy 12 months in time.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, it would be an exaggeration to say that the policy put forward by the minister serves no useful purpose. I do not wish to exaggerate the case. The fact remains, however, that while the new policy which has been announced does indicate a measure of increased support and assistance for those engaged in the dairy industry, it really is an improvement of minor degree. I do not think there should be too much dispute on that point.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The minister's statement contains some calculations and figures which are quite difficult to reconcile. The statement indicates that the increase will bring the level of support to $1.21 per hundredweight. When one compares that with the level of support which has been

March 22, 1967
Dairy Support Policy
paid during the last year it seems quite clear that the increase is only in the order of 36 cents or 37 cents per hundredweight, and really does not come out to an increase of 33J per cent as the minister contends.
Representatives and spokesmen of the dairy producers in this country have taken the trouble and the time during the past few weeks to present a solid case to members of this house showing clearly that the present state of the dairy industry is such that unless some substantial policy action is taken by this government there will be a steady deterioration in the industry in the next short while. The number of dairy producers who are willing and able to remain in the industry which produces this vital food commodity is being reduced rather significantly and rapidly. It is only because of the increased productivity per unit that we are able to maintain the level of milk production we have maintained in the past few years.
These are very disquieting times in the agricultural industry as a whole and in the dairy industry in particular. As has been said by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), we could have hoped, the people could have hoped, and the dairy producers could have hoped for some more substantial policy announcement on the part of this government and this minister.
While I am on my feet I should like to pose two questions to the minister which really should be asked because there is no indication in the statement in this regard. What intention does the government have with regard to the two features in last year's program which were widely criticized within the dairy industry; that is to say, the provision that the price support shall be paid only on that amount of fluid milk which is in excess of 120 per cent of the quota. I see no reference to that in the policy statement. This has been a very serious shortcoming in this past year's program and is something which should be rectified.
Second, I see no indication in the statement with regard to the negative differential which cream shippers have been receiving in the past year by way of price support. Unless the minister and the government are prepared to take remedial action in these two instances, then this new policy statement is even worse than the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) and I say it is.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the policy the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) has just stated may seem
[Mr. Schreyer.l
generous for some, but it does not at all gratify the hopes of the farmers or dairy producers in Ontario or in Quebec, and even across Canada.
Yesterday we had the opportunity of meeting hundreds of farmers from all over Quebec who were able to state their claims with great logic and common sense which claims are based on facts and real needs in the field of agriculture.
Yesterday the hon. Minister of Agriculture, as well as the members from the province of Quebec, met the representatives of the CFU. The latter asked the minister and the government to grant subsidies or some kind of discount to enable the farmers to get $5 per hundredweight of manufacturing milk, and an extra 10 cents for export costs.
Now, we find that the minister, in his statement, or in the announcement of his dairy policy, offers, in co-operation, or within plans, as he says here:

-I am informed by the commission that the combination of subsidy and price supports will provide for a total milk price in the order of $4.75, f.o.b. the factory-

He says this:

It should be noted that the commission will deduct such sums as they deem necessary for export cost in the same manner as the 10 cent holdback was handled last year by the agricultural stabilization board.

This means, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers will get $4.65 f.o.b. factory, and that is not sure. That is far from the $5.10 asked by the farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I find it completely illogical that the minister, as well as the government and hon. members, especially those from Quebec, should welcome such a policy with regard to the farmers and the dairy producers who make up the most important sector of the Canadian economy. No one seems to mind when millions of dollars are granted for all kinds of things, but it is another matter when it comes to giving satisfaction to all those who make up the most important and useful class in society.
For the farmers, it is felt that $90 million is a huge amount and this year:

For the forthcoming year a total of $120 million will be made available to the commission for subsidy payments.
March 22, 1867



This only means an additional $30 million over last year. Farmers are not getting a fair deal and this policy should have been applied last year.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The government is one year late. The farmers will not be pleased with that dairy policy, and rightly so. They will also be right in blaming their members of parliament who met them several times in the last month or so, and were asked to support their request for $5 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk.
Mr. Speaker, I warn the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) that we are going to do our utmost to see to it that farmers, dairy producers receive a higher subsidy, a better price support than the one the minister now offers them. We feel that there is miserliness in this treatment of farmers, when there is so much generosity shown those who benefit from the labour of farmers.
Yesterday the farmers reminded the minister that a tractor costing $1,200 or $1,400 about ten years ago now sells for $5,000. The farmers' average income is about $2,000 or $2,200 whereas in any industry the average income these days is almost $5,000. It is imperative that farmers command a greater concern of the government and I say that the Minister of Agriculture and the government are not now being fair to the Canadian milk producers particularly to those of the two more populated provinces, Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: Mr. Speaker, I think the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture again points up the need for a conference of all concerned on the whole question of farm income, such as has been requested by the federation of agriculture. The announcement today presents, as usual, a bare minimum of assistance with no related action concerning costs or prices. As usual we see the agricultural problem of this country tackled industry by industry year by year, so that we have a continual crisis.
The measures will, of course, be of some assistance. They will apply more particularly to Ontario and Quebec than to my own province of British Columbia, where the main dairy industry is concerned with fluid milk although there is manufacturing in the Fraser valley. The clear demarcation of involvement
Questions
as between the federal and provincial governments is I think one area that is welcomed in the announcement, because any progress in clearly defining responsibility in this field is appreciated.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-58 (from the Senate), respecting interprovincial and international teleferries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a
second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this is a very little bill that was passed in the other place. I wonder whether there might be time at the end of the afternoon for the house to consider it and for it to receive royal assent. I ask that this be done if possible, because I believe some plans depend on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house or later this day.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Reid: 1.	Has the Board of Broadcast Governors received any policy directives from the federal government respecting educational television (ETV) and, if so (a) when were they issued (b) by whom were they issued, and (c) what action has the B.B.G. taken on these directives?
2.	What specific research has the B.B.G. itself undertaken or caused to be undertaken respecting ETV in Canada?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows:
The Board of Broadcast Governors was asked by the cabinet, toward the end of December 1966, to take steps within the authority of the present legislation to develop plans leading to the introduction of educational television throughout the country, and to get in touch with the provinces immediately interested.

March 22, 1967
Questions
The B.B.G., within the limits of its jurisdiction, had already been in touch with some of the provincial governments. These contacts are now proceeding to enable the B.B.G. to complete the task given to it by the cabinet.


EMPLOYMENT BY CANADA ON INTERNATIONAL CONTROL COMMISSION
Mr. Ryan: How many persons are (a) directly and indirectly employed by Canada for the three international commissions in Indo-China and their inspection teams (b) directly or indirectly employed by Canada domestically and in any other parts of the world, other than Indo-China, by reason of Canada's representation on the said three international commissions?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: (a) There are a total of 95 persons (66 Canadian military personnel and 29 Canadian civilians) directly employed in the work of the Canadian delegations to the three international commissions in IndoChina. No personnel are indirectly (i.e. locally) employed by Canada in Indo-China.
(b) In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, the number of directly or indirectly employed personnel in
Penitentiary Institutions	1960	1961	1962Newfoundland	25	34	46Dorchester	662	713	750St. Vincent de Paul	1635	1453	1304Federal Training Centre	431	407	458Leclerc	-	304	374Cowansville	-	-	-Kingston	989	939	981Collin's Bay	456	453	591Joyceville	217	397	440Prison for Women	124	124	126Manitoba	417	427	505Saskatchewan	640	732	778British Columbia	748	755	803Matsqui	-	-	-All Institutions	6344	6738	7156
Canada or other parts of the world is nil. In the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa, two foreign service officers are engaged full time in dealing with matters flowing from Canada's participation in the three IndoChina commissions. In addition, both in Ottawa and at Canadian diplomatic posts in countries which have a particular interest in the problems of Indo-China, other officers devote varying proportions of their time, depending on circumstances, to dealing with questions relating to or flowing from Canadian membership in the commissions.


PERSONS SERVING PENITENTIARY SENTENCES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many persons were serving penitentiary sentences in each penitentiary in Canada during each year from 1960 to 1966 inclusive?
2.	Of those persons serving penitentiary sentences, how many were (a) Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act (b) of Indian ancestry, in each penitentiary during each year 1960 to 1966 inclusive?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.
The number of persons serving penitentiary sentences in each penitentiary in Canada as of March 31st in each year from 1960 to 1966 inclusive was:
31	31
March December
1963	1964	1965	1966	196630	30	26	41	9720	795	748	713	7351037	1153	1170	1167	1131405	420	419	411	258549	586	623	635	561-	-	-	33	149877	865	861	896	863665	678	664	642	632501	548	498	526	515111	121	114	118	84531	589	574	572	462803	789	804	776	693979	1077	1017	852	852-	-	-	62	M-133 F- 247219	7651	7518	7444	71012.	Penitentiary service records of persons a clear distinction to be made in every case serving penitentiary sentences during the between those who were (a) Indians within years 1960 to 1966 inclusive do not enable the meaning of the Indian Act (b) of Indian 
March 22, 1967

ancestry or (c) of non-Indian ancestry. It is known, however, that there were persons of Indian origin in penitentiaries on January 31, 1965, as follows: Dorchester 8; Manitoba 133; Saskatchewan 101; British Columbia 83.


APPEALS TO INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Langlois (Meganfic): 1.	Has the tax appeal board ever had any members who were not lawyers?
2.	If so, In each case (a) In what year (b) who were these members (c) what was their occupation in each case before being appointed to the board?
3.	How is a member of the tax appeal board appointed to hear any particular appeal?
4.	With reference to section 88(2) of the Income Tax Act, does the chairman or the board appoint members for the hearing and determination of appeals, by means of a resolution, or by any other method?
5.	During the past ten years were any appeals heard by more than one member at a time and, if so, how many, and for what reasons?
6.	How many times has section 88(3) of the Income Tax Act been applied in the hearing of an appeal, during the past ten years?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	A member is appointed to hear appeals by the chairman under the provisions of section 88(2) of the Income Tax Act.
4.	By direction of the chairman.
5.	Yes, 120; to provide experience to new members or because of the complexity of the appeal if, in the opinion of the chairman, it so warranted. This latter means has only been used on two occasions in the last ten years.
6.	32.


TAX APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Godin: 1.	How does parliament control or supervise the activities of the tax appeal board?
2.	During the past ten years (a) who were the members of the tax appeal board (b) how many of these spoke (i) French (ii) English (iii) how many were bilingual?
3.	How many chairmen of the board have there been whose mother-tongue was (a) French (b) English?
4.	How many vice-chairmen of the board have there been whose mother-tongue was (a) French (b) English?
5.	During the past ten years, how many decisions by the tax appeal board were made in (a) French (b) English (c>
both languages?
Questions
6.	When making a decision, what criteria are used by the board in choosing the appropriate language?
7.	Can an appellant choose the language in which the decision will be handed down?
8.	Does the tax appeal board report to the government on its activities and, if so, in what way?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Parliament does not control or supervise the activities of the tax appeal board, which by section 91(3) of the Income Tax Act is a court of record.
2.	(a) F. Monet, Q.C.; C. L. Snyder, Q.C.; R. S. W. Fordham, Q.C.; W. S. Fisher, Q.C.; M. Boisvert, Q.C.; J. Panneton, Q.C.; J. D. C. Boland; J. O. Weldon, Q.C.; R. St-Onge; W. O. Davis, Q.C. (b) (i) 5 (ii) 10 (iii) 5.
3.	(a) 1; (b) 2.
4.	(a) 1; (b) 2.
5.	(a) 248; (b) 1,752; (c) None.
The figures given are for judgments with written reasons only.
6.	The language in which the appeal is filed and/or heard.
7.	Yes. (See 6.)
8.	No.


CONTRACT FOR MAIL COLLECTION, QUEBEC
Mr. Caoueile: 1.	Who holds the contract for collecting mail from letter boxes in Lauzon, Levis, Saint-David and Saint-Romuald?
2.	Were tenders called?
3.	If so (a) what is the name of each of the tenders (b) what amount was quoted by each (c) to whom was the contract awarded?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. Service is being performed by Mr. Jean-Baptiste Carrier under a temporary agreement.
2.	Tenders were called for a combined urban service at Levis which would include street letter box collections, parcel post delivery and special delivery items. These tenders were due the 8th June 1966.
3.	(a) and (b). Jean-Baptiste Carrier, 706 Commerciale, St-David, 13J cents per item; Oscar Couture, 13 L'Abbaye, St-Romuald, 13J cents per item; Boulanger & Freres (Germain and Roger Boulanger), 71 Ste-Dominique, Bienville (Levis), 18 cents per item; Paul-Emile Gosselin, 7 Ste-Anne, Lauzon, 22 cents per item; Late tenders: Gaston Guay, 66 Samson, Levis, 32 cents per item; Adeodat

March 22, 1987
Questions
Cliche, 300A Woolfe, Levis, 20 cents per item; (c) Contract was not awarded. New tenders are being called for a contract to become effective 1st July 1967.


ASSISTANCE TO INDIAN FAMILIES. YUKON
Mr. Nielsen: Over the 12 month period preceding the recent deaths of Silas Alfred, Mary Alfred, Emily Alfred and David Alfred at Minto in the Yukon Territory, what monthly assistance was given to each by the Indian affairs branch in terms of, money, food, clothing, medical attention or other aid?
3.	Are the following community development officers, who were on staff as of February 8, 1967, working on Indian reservations or in an administrative capacity with the department and, if so, in what cities are they working: Miss M. M. Gillis, W. McFarlane, Miss F. Y. Osborne, Miss M. M. Stott, G. C. Crockett, K. D. Uppal, A. Spence, T. R. Kelly, W. J. Wacko, R. J. C. Ford?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	Name
R. G. Helbecque	*1
M. Coquet	*2
G. T. Gambill	*1
I. Beaulieu	*2
Date of Separation December 30, 1966 November 5, 1966 January 15, 1967 November 16, 1966


Arthur Laing: Silas and Mary Alfred, as a married couple, were eligible to receive assistance together as a unit in the event of Silas's being unable to meet their joint needs. They were not on regular assistance. In the period in question they received one order for food in the amount of $70 in November, 1966.
Emily Alfred, listed in departmental records as Emily Charlie received $45 every month for food prior to and throughout the period in question. This was issued in the form of an agency cheque. She also received a clothing order in March, 1966 amounting to $31.
David Alfred, listed in departmental records as David Charlie, was not a member of the Silas Alfred household. He lived with his grandmother and shared in assistance issued to her household. By agency cheque she was issued $85 each month for food for the period December, 1965 to June, 1966; $70 each month for the period July, 1966 to December, 1966 and $80 in January, 1967.
Medical services to Indians are a matter which falls within the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Indian affairs branch has no record of any aid given.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS, INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
*1-Although the reply to question No. 2,177 did not appear in the House of Commons Debates until February 8, 1967, the department's reply was forwarded to the Secretary of State Department on December 21, 1966 which is previous to the separation date of Messrs. Helbecque and Gambill.
*2-Official documentation from the area personnel officers covering the separation of Messrs. Coquet and Beaulieu had not been recorded at headquarters prior to submitting the reply to question No. 2,177.
2.	G. Rouleau, Quebec, P.Q.; E. G. Russell, Lethbridge, Alberta; C. Thompson, Ahousat, B.C.
3.	Yes, with the exception of Mr. K. D. Uppal who has been promoted to the position of regional supervisor of social programs for the province of Saskatchewan with an effective date of February 1, 1967. The others are working in the cities shown below: Miss M. M. Gillis, Amherst, N.S.; Mr. W. McFarlane, Toronto, Ontario; Miss F. Y. Osborne, Toronto, Ontario; Miss M. M. Stott, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. G. C. Crockett, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. A. Spence, Regina, Saskatchewan; Mr. T. R. Kelly, Edmonton, Alberta; Mr. W. J. Wacko, Edmonton, Alberta; Mr. R. J. C. Ford, Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Arising out of the answer to question No. 2,177, answered on February 8, 1967, when did the following community development officers, who are listed as being on staff as of February 8, 1967, leave employment with the department, either through resignation or dismissal: R. G. Helbecque; M. Coquet; G. T. Gambill; I. Beaulieu?
2.	Where are the following community development officers, listed as working for the department as of February 8, 1967, employed: G. Rouleau, E. G. Russell, C. Thompson?


INFORMATION TO IMMIGRANTS RESPECTING ENGLISH AND FRENCH LANGUAGES
Mr. Allard: In the 34 cities abroad in which the Department of Manpower and Immigration maintains recruiting offices, do the 435 employees, either from Canada or employed locally (a) supply prospective immigrants with publicity printed in both official languages of Canada (b) inform prospective immigrants that English and French are the two official languages of Canada?
March 22, 1967


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) Publicity material prepared by the Department of Manpower and Immigration is printed in English and French and a number of other languages. Wherever possible these publications are supplied to prospective immigrants in their own language. If publications are not available in the native language they are provided in either French or English, (b) Yes.


PAY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS
Mr. Brand: What are the reasons for the vast differences in basic and increment pay between a captain medical officer and a captain dental officer in the first three years of service?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: To establish rates of pay for newly graduated dental and medical officers in the rank of captain on October 1, 1966, comparison was made with the starting rates in effect for dental and medical officers 1 employed in the public service. The differences in these rates of pay are therefore the direct consequence of the corresponding salary scales in the public service.


GUESTS AT VIMY RIDGE OBSERVANCE
Mr. Mclnfosh: Who have been invited as guests of the government to participate in the ceremonies honouring the fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge (a) at the Ottawa service, giving name and present address (b) at the Vimy service, giving the name, rank, original unit and present address?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Velerans Affairs):: The invited guests of the government to participate in the ceremonies honouring the fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge, at the Ottawa service and at the Vimy service, are as follows: (a) a survivor of each of the battalions and of the supporting arms and services which participated in the battle, (b) a representative of the Royal Canadian Legion and another from the National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada, (c) certain other distinguished persons including members of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Supreme Court, who participated in the battle, (d) the chairman of the standing committee on veterans affairs is being invited to attend the Vimy ceremony.
Questions
Survivors of the battle of Vimy Ridge are being selected by the commanding officers and colonel commandants of the present day regiments and corps which perpetuate those which fought at Vimy Ridge. Not all of the nominations have been received and their service in the battle of Vimy Ridge verified, therefore, it is not possible to provide at this time the nominal rolls requested.


RETURNING OFFICER, VILLENEUVE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	Is Mr. Clement Fontaine of Val-d'Or returning officer for the constituency of Villeneuve?
2.	If not (a) since what date, and (b) for what specific reasons was he relieved of his functions?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: Yes, Mr. Clement Fontaine of Val-d'Or is the present returning officer for the constituency of Villeneuve.


ALTERATIONS IN CONFEDERATION BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Are alterations and improvements being undertaken in the Confederation building and, if so, what are they?
2.	What is the purpose of such alterations and improvements ?
3.	Will any additional space be provided and, if so, how many square feet?
4.	What is the estimated cost of such alterations and improvements?
5.	When will they be completed?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Alterations and improvements are planned for this building. They consist of: General renovations of the space to be vacated by the Department of Agriculture with some minor partition changes; lighting improvement generally; installation of an improved Are alarm system; relocation of present library.
2.	Consolidation of Treasury Board and Department of Finance within the Confederation building.
3.	No.
4.	It is not customary to reveal the estimated cost before tenders are called.
5.	Fall of 1967.

March 22, 1967
Orders for Returns
APPEARANCE BY HOUSE MEMBERS ON PRO- SALARY LEVELS, MANPOWER SERVICES AND GRAM "FRONT PAGE CHALLENGE"	UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	Have any ministers of the present cabinet appeared on the C.B.C. T.V. program "Front Page Challenge" since January 1, 1967 and, if so, which ministers and on what dates did each appear?
2.	Have any members of parliament belonging to (a) the Progressive Conservative party (b) the N.D.P. (c) the Social Credit or Creditiste party, appeared on the said program since January 1, 1967 and, if so, which members?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. has informed me that in addition to my own appearance on "Front Page Challenge" on February 13, the only other appearances on the program by any member of this house to date in 1967 were those of the Prime Minister on January 2 and of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on March 13.


TENDERS FOR FEDERAL BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: On what date will tenders be called for the new federal building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?


George James McIlraith: No date has been set.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Harkness: 1.	For the period from the appointment of the present Minister of Agriculture until November 30, 1966, what trips has the minister taken on government business and at the taxpayers' expense?
2.	In each case (a) where was the trip to (b) what was the purpose of it (c) what was the cost (d) was a government plane used?
Return tabled.


COMMUNICATIONS RESPECTING EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION
Mr. Reid: Has the federal government or any of its agencies, including the C.B.C. or the Board of Broadcast Governors, had any communications with the various provinces concerning educational television (E.T.V.) and, if so (a) with what provinces (b) who initiated the correspondence (c) what is the content of this correspondence?
Return tabled.

Question No. 2,428-Mr. Reid:
1.	What are the criteria used by the Public Service Commission in establishing the salary levels for various classifications of the Canada manpower services and the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	Were the recommendations of the Gill report used in determining the salary levels of Unemployment Insurance Commission staff and, if not (a) for what reason (b) what report, if any, was used?
3.	What are the salary levels for the various staff classifications of the Canada manpower services and the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
4.	If there are differences, what are the reasons for these differences?
5.	What impact has the difference in salary scale on the calculation of superannuation for employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
Return tabled.


COSTS OF REPRESENTATION ON INDO-CHINA CONTROL COMMISSIONS
Mr. Ryan: What have been the total all inclusive costs of Canada's representation on each of the three international commissions in Indo-China, in each full fiscal year, since the Geneva agreements were entered into, and what amounts of such costs has Canada borne in each case?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 219 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motion stand.



STATEMENTS AT ROUYN-NORANDA BY MILITIA OFFICER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 219-Mr. McIntosh:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence to or from the Minister of National Defence in connection with the statements allegedly made by Major Stanley H. Nudds, militia officer in Rouyn-Noranda on November 11, 1966.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to make a
March 22, 1967

motion, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), for the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the announcement of a dairy policy which does not permit producers of manufacturing milk to make a decent income from the sale thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Considering the notice of motion of the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), I think it is my duty to inform him that the first item of business this afternoon is consideration of interim supply. As the hon. member will have the opportunity to discuss the subject matter of his motion during that debate, I do not think he can convince the Chair to change the order of business for this afternoon.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, whose responsibility it is to deal with matters concerning C.M.H.C., I would ask whoever is acting as prime minister whether before we adjourn a statement will be made on behalf of C.M.H.C. setting out the basis upon which some $20 million was advanced by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1965 to one of the Sinclair Stevens' companies. This announcement has been made by the president of York Trust and Savings Company, who said the money was advanced because the company was in financial difficulties. I should like a statement to be made as to the basis on which such an advance was made, and whether advances like this are available to other companies that find themselves in financial difficulties.
Hon. Robert Winters (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



CO-OPERATIVES INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State, since I have been trying for some three years to obtain assurances that 23033-906
Inquiries of the Ministry the co-operatives act is being prepared and since the Prime Minister said on December 16 last, as reported at page 11224 of Hansard:
The government hopes to be able to consider the draft bill shortly. After that consideration I will be able to make an announcement to the house as to when it could be introduced.
I want to ask the Secretary of State whether, if the draft bill is ready, it has been submitted to the cabinet and how soon she expects to present it to the house.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell my hon. friend that the responsibility for that matter, amongst others, was placed in the hands of the Registrar General of Canada on October 1.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I then direct a question to the Registrar General and ask him what progress is being made in the matter of the national co-operatives legislation.


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of fhe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand that in the circumstances I should take the question as notice so as to give him the most appropriate answer.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porfneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the hon. Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board.
I have here a form entitled "Formal demand on third parties". That form was used by the Department of Revenue for the garnishee of $15 from the salary of a worker to whom the department had refused, in 1966, deduction of an expense account for 1965. Can the minister tell us if that worker could have spared himself that garnishee by stating that he supported Mr. Bourgault of the R.I.N.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the

March 22, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the government's acceptance of the amendment to clause 75 (2) (g) of the Bank Act, now known as the yo-yo clause, after the declaration of the Minister of Finance some time ago that that clause in the bill constituted a principle, is actually a derogation from that principle.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is a yo-yo question.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister which will require only a short explanation. For the last two weeks I have endeavoured to press my best judgment upon the Minister of Agriculture. Now I will ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he would use his good offices to remove that city slicker from office, because there are other Irishmen aspiring for the job.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acling Prime Minisler: Mr. Speaker, I think you would agree that this kind of an observation from a beloved gentleman who is about to retire from this house is hardly appropriate as his last speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Is this the hon. member's last speech?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to assure Your Honour and every other hon. member and friend in the house that this is not my last speech.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether the Canadian government has officially recognized the commonwealth country of Sierra Leone?


NORTH VIET NAM-TRIP BY C.B.C. TELEVISION CREW
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government on the appointment of Mr. Charles Ritchie as high commissioner to the United Kingdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell us whether his department has made arrangements for obtaining visas for the members of the C.B.C. television camera crew who are on board a ship en route from Hong Kong to Haiphong in North Viet Nam, accompanying the delivery of medical and other supplies from Canada to North Viet Nam; and is this expensive trip being made at the suggestion of the government?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of the question is no. May I say with regard to the other part of the hon. member's question concerning visas for other countries that of course they have to be accorded by the appropriate country.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister suggesting that the Department of External Affairs has made no arrangements for that trip to North Viet Nam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is argumentative.


GHANA-PROVISION OF ADVISERS TO PROMOTE TOBACCO PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has he sent or is he planning to send technical advisers to Ghana to promote increased production of tobacco in that country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: the new dairy policy which would change the amount of the fluid milk surplus eligible for price support?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think this statement speaks for itself. By virtue of the agreement which was reached last summer with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec we have agreed to assume the responsibility of price support for the manufacturing milk industry. In the coming year we will let the provinces deal with the matter of fluid milk so as to avoid mixed jurisdiction.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Welaskiwin):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the price of $4.75 per hundredweight for all manufacturing milk a guaranteed price under the new dairy policy, or is it conditional on certain other factors?
The second part of my question is whether under the new policy the milk distributing shippers will not be selling a large percentage of their milk for a price well under $4 per hundredweight, as has been the practice in the past year. My question refers to provinces other than Ontario and Quebec, with which the minister said agreements have been made.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, price fixing mechanisms are a provincial responsibility. In the opinion of the Canadian Dairy Commission the price support program should maintain the level of $4.75, but price fixing to ensure this level comes within the authority of the provinces.


Harry Andrew Moore: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize that although-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking an argumentative question when he prefaces it in this way.


Harry Andrew Moore: May I rephrase it then, Mr. Speaker. Is the surplus milk not sold as manufacturing milk rather than fluid milk? I am referring to the 20 per cent surplus milk.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture, and ask him whether he read the brief submitted by the Federation of Dairy Producers of 23033-9061
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada asking for a subsidy not only for the hundredweight of milk but also for the sale of manufactured products, namely butter, powdered milk and casein.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as put is not acceptable.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of order, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin asked a question regarding the price received by producers of milk in western Canada, and wanted to know what the price would be. I feel sure Your Honour did not fully apprehend the nature of the question, which with great deference is one that requires to be answered. The situation today is such that in parts of the country producers of milk are getting only $4 per hundredweight instead of something more.


Mr. Speaker:: The question by the Leader of the Opposition, I must say, is asked in the same way as the one asked by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, and is certainly argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: I was speaking of his question, Mr. Speaker. Would Your Honour allow the hon. member for Wetaskiwin to ask a question for the purpose of getting information in respect to something the western farmer wants to know about?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition knows I can refuse him nothing. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


Harry Andrew Moore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know whether the minister is aware that the 20 per cent milk referred to is sold as manufacturing milk and therefore is under federal jurisdiction in the matter of subsidies. For this milk the farmers are receiving at the present time less than $4 per hundredweight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have gone as far as I can. I have allowed the hon. member to ask his question again, but I am still convinced that as asked it is argumentative.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is there anything in the new policy to reduce the differential in payments as between shippers of cream and shippers of manufacturing milk?

March 22, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, cream shippers under the new program, as under the old, are treated in exactly the same manner as shippers of whole milk are treated.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as the minister responsible for administering Logexpo. Can some action be taken to prevent unreasonable increases in rent in the Ottawa area at the time of Expo?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is a matter within provincial jurisdiction, but I will refer it to the Ontario government and ask them whether they are contemplating any action.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which I direct to the Acting Prime Minister, is based on the report and recommendations which were tabled yesterday by the justice and legal affairs committee concerning highway automobile deaths and injuries. Because the motor vehicle industry is now finalizing its plans for 1968 models, will the minister assure the house that the government will seriously consider the recommendations contained in this report without delay, so that action can be taken in time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is much too general in nature, and I suggest to the hon. member that it cannot be asked at this time.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, this is a specific question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: My specific question, which is extremely urgent and which I will reword, is this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: I will ask it when there are a few less interruptions from the trained seals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Heward Grafftey: My question is this. Yesterday the justice and legal affairs committee made specific recommendations on highway automobile deaths and injuries. The motor vehicle industry is now completing its plans for 1968 models. Because of this, will the government give serious consideration to this report so that action can be taken in time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must maintain my opinion which I expressed earlier.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the trawler Cape Spry of 191 tons was stolen last week by one man, and the 84 foot trawler Hansen was stolen last night by two men and is now at sea, has the Minister of Transport given any thought to establishing special regulations which will prevent a reoccurrence of these thefts and provide some protection to trawler owners?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as these acts took place within territorial waters I would not want to invade the jurisdiction of the attorney general of Nova Scotia.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. It is evident that the one man show which was put on by one of the cabinet ministers has had a serious effect on our east coast fishermen. Will the minister use his good offices to see that this bad example is not followed in the future?


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he tell us whether it is true that his department intends to hold shortly a surprise referendum among the Eskimos of northern Quebec on their right to self-determination and to decide who is going to have jurisdiction on them, the federal government or the Quebec government?
March 22, 19S7


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-ton.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was ready to answer the question; he was merely waiting for the end of the translation.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the impression I had.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I will put my question to the Minister of Public Works-


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask for the hon. member's co-operation. I have already recognized the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Clancy) and I shall come back to the point of order immediately after.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I will put my question to the Minister of Public Works on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), on a point of order.
[T ranslation\


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is the following: I saw the minister rise. I would like to ask him the same question again, so that he may answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Did the minister intend to reply to the question?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, in 1964 certain negotiations were entered into between ourselves and the appropriate minister of the province of Quebec in respect to turning over certain functions in Nouveau Quebec. These negotiations have continued among ourselves and no change will be made until consultation is made with the Eskimo people themselves. It might be that within a matter of two or three months I shall have something to report to the house.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us
Inquiries of the Ministry whether a group of Protestant ministers from New Quebec has exerted any pressure for the holding of a referendum in the next few days, alleging that Eskimos at this time and under special circumstances, would choose federal jurisdiction?


Arthur Laing: I know nothing about this, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask the minister if he could tell the house whether the agricultural stabilization board has yet come to a decision about assistance to the Prince Edward Island potato industry this spring.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, an announcement was made this morning concerning assistance to producers who have a surplus of potatoes at the present time. I believe this assistance is to a maximum of about $1,200 per producer, which compensates them for the loss of up to 1,000 barrels a head.


SALE IN CANADA OF GOODS CONFISCATED IN CUBA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce offered to answer a question I had put to him concerning the importation into Canada of seized Cuban goods. I wonder whether he is in a position to answer today.
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Yes, Mr. Speaker. This question concerned the auctioning of goods imported into Canada from Cuba. In so far as the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned this is not an illegal transaction and therefore there is no basis for stopping it. At the same time, I must say that this is not a significant item and is not apt to be a continuing item of commerce.


James Russell Keays: A supplementary question.
Surely the minister is aware that these goods which are entering Canada are "blood" goods, and the government should give extra consideration to limiting them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

March 22. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry EXPO '67


COMPLAINTS RESPECTING REQUESTS FOR ACCOMMODATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian Watson (Chaieauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning Logexpo. In view of recent reports that there have been serious delays at Logexpo in replying to accommodation inquiries received from the United States, will the minister assure the house that Logexpo has informed, or will immediately inform, all major United States tourist agencies, automobile clubs and air lines that it can now process without delay all inquiries it receives?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. The work of Logexpo has improved tremendously during the past few weeks. It is receiving over 30,000 requests per week, and these are increasing. However, we will now get out a notice of the kind mentioned by the hon. member and inform all concerned.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Aflairs. Is the Department of External Affairs making the arangements for the visit of General de Gaulle to Quebec city and Expo '67 next June, or are these ararnge-ments being made by the government of the province of Quebec?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that visits to Canada by heads of state or heads of government are made as the result of consultations with the government of the country to be visited. There have been informal discussions between the government of Canada, through myself, and the French ambassador in Ottawa with regard to this visit, but the details have not yet been finalized.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for what he has said, but he did not answer the question. Is the government of Quebec not making the arrangements for the visit of General de Gaulle?


Mr.   Marfin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend has not understood me he must understand that I cannot give him understanding. I stated clearly that the arrangements were being made by the government of Canada. This does not of course preclude arrangements for heads of state or heads of government to visit other parts of Canada. I should think it would be the most natural thing in the world, if and when General de Gaulle decides to visit Canada, that among the places he would visit would be the province of Quebec where is found a majority of those speaking the French language. I might express the hope too that so distinguished a man as the head of the government of France would also find it desirable to visit other sections of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker, I have had a good half hour of exercise rising and sitting down. My question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister consider sending the relevant sections of the science secretariat special study No. 1 on the upper atmosphere and space program for Canada, dealing with Canadian participation in space satellite communications, to the committee on transport and communications for study?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since one hon. member has been asking about one committee perhaps I might reply to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River about a matter that I think is rather urgent, this new and revolutionary method of communication by satellite. As we need to know a lot more about this subject in order to form intelligent judgments about this important matter I think it would be very desirable to refer it in some appropriate way to a parliamentary committee. I shall endeavour to make a suggestion to my colleagues to make this possible immediately after Easter.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since
March 22, 1967

the minister seems to want to send this matter to the committee on transport and communications will he also refer to that committee the survey on icebreaking in the St. Lawrence, another subject about which we need to know much more?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to do that once we have dealt with satellites and Air Canada, about which the hon. member asked yesterday.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to referring the matter of satellites to the committee on transport and communications would the government not think it wise to refer this matter also to the broadcasting committee, which also has a great interest in this subject?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not mention the committee on transport and communications. I thank the hon. member for interpreting my mind. The government would have to consider the nature of the reference. The appropriate committee would probably depend on the nature of the reference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Transport, since he is making the commendable move of sending the question of communication satellites to the committee on transport and communications-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -or to the broadcasting committee, to use his good offices with his colleague the Minister of Industry, not to discontinue payments to the HARP project until such time as this matter has been finally settled. Otherwise the HARP project may fall by the wayside and the opportunity of dealing adequately with communications satellites may be lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have noted the hon. gentleman's representations.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not consider the present application of the Bell Telephone Company for an amendment to the legislation governing it as a suitable vehicle to bring this matter to the attention of the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should think that is a debate, sir.
Sup p ly-A griculture


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport. Could he see whether he could not hurry along the answer to my question on the order paper so that my colleagues may not tear my questions apart and I may get the answers and be able to put a further question to the government on the procedures that they expect to follow in regard to this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I have sorted out the hon. gentleman's question I shall try to answer it.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government yet made a decision with respect to the recommendation of the standing committee on health and welfare that the subject of birth control be removed from the Criminal Code of Canada? May we expect legislation on this matter during the present session?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall have to take that question as notice.



MAIN ESTIMATES, 1967-68 MOTION FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

['Later today.\nProgress reported.']
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like the permission of the house to revert to motions to move a motion with respect to the estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: That the message of His Excellency together with main estimates, 1967-68, presented to the house on Monday, March 13, 1967, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
17g. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $94,387,000.
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I think we should be remiss in our duty if these supplementary estimates carried without serious words of caution being uttered to the government about the grave situation the agricultural industry finds itself in today. Taking a broad look at the agricultural picture we see many farm papers in western Canada calling for a conference of the agricultural leaders of this country. A conference is urged in order that an agricultural policy may be designed. This is what the farm papers are saying. Strange as it may seem, we have been studying the agriculture estimates in this parliament year after year and the government has been in office for three full years, yet farm papers are asking for a conference to design an agricultural policy. This should appear strange to anyone who is concerned about agriculture.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
A new Minister of Agriculture took office in 1965. One would have expected a definite statement from him with regard to agricultural policy. But none has been forthcoming. He has travelled across the country, particularly to western Canada where he condemned the railways for not moving grain fast enough. But when the opposition urged the government to consider the problems of the grain farmers during the passage of the controversial transport bill the minister did not take part in the debate. He was not even in the house at that time.
A major debate has just taken place on the Bank Act. Three weeks ago the minister went out west and instead of concerning himself about agricultural policy he condemned the banks generally and said they had failed the farmers. This is not quite true. I can honestly say that in the last 20 years the banks have been reasonably good friends of the farmers, though they could have done better. The Bank Act which we passed last night could have been changed so as to improve the farmers' position. Instead of laying down a firm policy which would cover the broad spectrum of agriculture, the minister went out west and condemned the banks. A better course would have been to take part in the debate on the Bank Act, to point out areas in which the banks have failed to help the farming industry, and to seek to improve the bill. But the minister did not take part in the debate. Recently he condemned the businessmen. He would be better engaged if he would lay down the broad outlines of a general policy.

We realize he has tried to bring about an improvement in the dairy industry. Continuing a policy which we had laid down for the establishment of a dairy council for all Canada, he arranged a $4 price for milk. It did not work. We have seen farmers putting cavalcades of tractors on the roads in protest against the milk price which the minister announced. He went out west two or three months ago to speak in Winnipeg at a conference of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He stated without equivocation that there should be no further subsidies given to the dairy industry. Yet today we have heard the announcement of a further subsidy. This is not a policy which will uplift the industry as a whole.
For some time Canada has been obliged to import butter from New Zealand. Can we stand here as legislators and say we have provided a whole market for our dairy products and an incentive to our farmers to produce the butter to supply our needs? How can the minister say he has brought any benefit yet to the dairy industry when for the first time in 20 years we are obliged to import butter?
We are importing some $800 million worth of agricultural products which could be grown in Canada. If an agricultural conference were held, as has been suggested, certain segments of these imports could be designated as capable of being provided by our own industry here in Canada.
I believe it is about a year and a half ago that the Minister of Agriculture told us 40 per cent of our farms today were providing a good standard of living, 30 per cent were on the verge of making the grade and the other 30 per cent were too small to make a profit and might as well quit. Is this the position he wants Canadian farmers to accept, that 30 per cent of them might as well quit? Is he saying that he has given up hope for them and does not intend to provide them with an incentive to stay in business? I hope not. As the leader and spokesman for the industry the minister must be prepared to lead. Where some farmers feel there is no hope he must provide them with hope. He must give them an incentive and, if necessary, see that they receive adequate prices to enable them to stay in business.
There is no reason why an agricultural land like ours should be importing $800 million worth of agricultural products which can be grown right here in Canada. All we need is
March 22, 19G7

an incentive to produce these products ourselves. For example, when has it ever been stated definitely that sugar beets are a necessity and should be grown here in order to stabilize sugar prices? We cannot allow ourselves to depend entirely on Cuba. In a good year prices will go down but after a bad year prices will skyrocket, as happened recently. I am using this as an example. In the sugar beet industry we should ensure through deficiency payments that 20 per cent of the market is satisfied by the home-grown product. I do not have up to date figures in front of me, but the minister might be able to announce that 25 per cent of the sugar needed by the home market would be home grown.
Over the years 6,000 acres of marginal land in Ontario have fallen into disuse, land which four or five years ago produced fruits and vegetables. Today we are importing these products. Why? Why are we so anxious to get rid of 30 per cent of our farmers? Let us have some leadership. Let us have an agricultural conference which will confirm that the various regions of our country can produce the commodities we Canadians want. It might be argued that all tariffs should be abolished and that we should buy the food we need from the West Indies and from the United States. If this line of thought is carried to its logical conclusion we might just as well sit on our fannies and let the United States feed us. They can do it; they have surpluses. But throughout its history Canada has grown on the basis of its agriculture and it is up to the Minister of Agriculture to lay down a policy which will maintain in this country a strong and independent farming industry.
We know that today beef prices are down, pork prices are down, wheat prices are down. It is all very well for the minister to say he is hoping for an increase in the international wheat price. So far no increase has been achieved. About a year and a half ago the minister stated his belief that the world price should be raised 25 cents. So far nothing has happened. It is all very well for economists to tell us that by 1980 Canada will have to double the number of its cattle. This will not help today, tomorrow or next year. Farmers today are not particularly interested in what will happen in 1980. They want a dollar in their pockets today or tomorrow and if they do not get it they will go out of business. It is the duty of the minister to lay down policy, not to say that 40 per cent of our farmers are making good, that 30 per cent are on the verge and that the other 30 per cent should
Supply-Agriculture
give up. What kind of leadership is this? What kind of incentive is this?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
About a year ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture, "Are you aware of the acute hardship which the agricultural industry faces in hiring help"? He replied, "This is a problem but we are introducing unemployment insurance in the agricultural industry." I said this was not going to help. I told him I had noticed that in middle European countries and even in Great Britain there was a surplus of labour. I asked him to make a special effort to bring farm labour to Canada. At a meeting of the agricultural committee he replied that this was a very interesting thought but he had not really considered it.
I then asked the minister, "Will you consider it? Will you have the immigration authorities go over there and make a special effort? Will you have them advertise the need for farm help in Canada and the possibilities in agriculture?" It is still possible for any immigrant who wants to work in agriculture to come here and later own his own land. That is still possible in western Canada, and I believe it is still possible all across Canada.
Some time ago I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if some effort would be made in this regard. He said no. The Minister of Agriculture said no. Where is the Minister of Agriculture going? What is he doing? This is what farmers all across Canada are asking. Farm papers continually ask, "What is he doing? Why is he not laying down some policy for agriculture?" It is an amazing thing that a minister who professes to be so concerned about the industry is not in the chamber to see his supplementary estimates pass.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Usually the final supplementary estimates are carried by the Minister of Finance or by the President of the Treasury Board. All ministers involved have not been required to be in the house. This has been the general practice and I object to my hon. friend referring to the absence of this particular minister.


John George Diefenbaker: It is contemptuous of parliament.


Edgar John Benson: You did the same thing when you were in office.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The farming people of today will judge his interest in the industry by his failure to attend.

March 22, 1967
Supply-A griculture


Edgar John Benson: He is here far more often than you are.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of
Agriculture goes across Canada telling the farmers that the railroads have failed the farming industry and that the banks have failed the farming industry. Then he goes to Toronto and says that businessmen do not understand the farming industry. He has to do more than talk to convince the farmers that he is really concerned about them.
What has the minister done for the agricultural industry since taking office? Not one solid piece of legislation has come before the house under his sponsorship. By order in council he has announced the formation of a dairy council. That is all, and it still remains to be seen whether that council will do something for the dairy industry. It was founded some nine months ago and established a price of $4 per hundredweight for milk. But that did not work because last summer we saw farm tractors parading on all the highways in eastern Canada.
Today the minister has offered milk producers a bigger slice of the carrot. But is this enough? It is not enough for him to say that he appointed a body to inquire into the farm machinery industry. Will this mean a lowering of farm machinery prices? That is very doubtful. In fact Professor Barber says it is not likely.
It is all very well for the Minister of National Revenue to stand up and say that the Minister of Agriculture does not have to be in the house. Certainly he does not have to be here, but if he wants to convince the farmers that he is concerned about their welfare he should be in the house taking part in this debate and laying down policy. If the minister cannot devise a policy he should call an agricultural conference, something which farm leaders have been seeking. They have told him, "If you cannot form a policy and nail down what Canada should be doing in agriculture, let us help you. We will be at the conference. We will assist you." I hope the minister takes their advice and heeds their warning because never before have we had a minister of agriculture so long in office with the whole industry still asking him, "What is your policy"?


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks as a sequel to those of the member for Acadia. Anyone who has an intimate awareness of what is going on in the

farming industry must admit that very disturbing trends are at work, which have accelerated within the past few years. The Minister of Agriculture has been in office for 18 months and hon. members have a right to expect a greater degree of tangible action by him. Up to now he has succeeded in projecting an image as a sort of Canadian Will Rogers, the image of a man who is aware of the problems that face the farming population. I do not question that he has this awareness, and so it is not too much to expect that by now he should have been able to place some legislation before the house which would show that the government was determined to grapple directly with the major problem of the agricultural industry.
The major problem is still the cost-price relationship and the indices showing the cost-price relationship are readily available. I believe the truth will come out ultimately that during the government's term of office problems within the agricultual industry have increased and its deterioration has accelerated. For example, let us consider the situation with respect to milk production. If it were not for the increased productivity per unit in milk production there would be a very alarming picture simply because the number of people prepared to remain in the dairy industry is decreasing with each passing year.
I wish to make particular reference to cream shippers. Butter supplies in Canada show a pretty clear pattern and one of the reasons why that pattern is at work is that the government's dairy policy actually militates against the cream shipper. I have heard it said, although I suppose it cannot be proven, that the government's policy is a deliberate attempt to ease people out of cream production, reduce the number of creameries and thereby add impetus to the trend toward consolidation of manufacturing plants in larger centres. This kind of policy militates against those smaller dairy producers who are the ones to feel most heavily the cost-price squeeze.
On a number of occasions and again today the Minister of Agriculture was given an opportunity to indicate whether or not the government was going to do anything to get rid of the negative differential in the price support received by the cream shippers. In reply to a question he said there was no differential. But the fact remains that almost every spokesman for the dairy industry has stated without equivocation to members on both
March 22. 1967

sides of the house that the present price support policy results in a negative differential to cream shippers. How can the minister make such a bald-faced statement contrary to the statement made by the organized dairy producers?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The minister was also asked whether there was any intention to change the basis upon which price support shall be paid on fluid milk surpluses in excess of 120 per cent of the quota. He replied that since this involved fluid milk it was a matter for provincial concern. Yet as the hon. member for Wetaskiwin attempted to point out, almost all surplus fluid milk goes into manufacturing and as a consequence is manufacturing milk when it is in excess of the fluid quota and therefore is properly a matter for concern on the part of the federal Department of Agriculture.
Surely members opposite and the minister are aware that the policy in respect of the payment of price support on fluid surpluses is not very practical at all because it is based only on that amount of surplus which is in excess of 120 per cent of the quota. The end result is that during most months of the year shippers of fluid milk receive support which is marginal and fractional. Certainly it does not amount to anything significant.
With regard to the general agricultural picture, surely the minister and his colleagues must be aware that, despite the unprecedented yields, the net income position of agricultural producers has not improved; in fact it has worsened. Gross income has increased and attempts are being made to point that out. What is not pointed out so consistently is that while gross income has increased so also has the operating expense, the cost of production, and the result is a net income picture which has shown a deterioration in the course of the past few years. What do we get from this government in response to that problem? We see an attitude of indolent nonchalance. The government takes the position that somehow they must depend on the natural market forces. The government refuses to take action in the face of the steadily deteriorating position which faces our agricultural industry.
The result of all this has been a steady exodus from rural areas and farming operations with the result that today, if one looks closely at the situation, one will find that the average age of active farm operators has increased statistically. Behind these statistics, of course, is a very poignant human story. In my own area of eastern Manitoba I have seen
Supp ly-A griculture
conditions develop whereby at the present time the number of farmers below the age of 55 in my home municipality is less than a dozen. One must ask what will happen a few years from now. How will the big transfer of land and production effort from one generation to the next take place? The young people, in the face of the present agricultural income position, are not anxious to take over. Even if the income position were somewhat better than it is, the changing habits of living and working have resulted in many people turning their backs on farming as a possible vocation. It seems evident, therefore, that in order to counteract this kind of development there must be a very substantial improvement in the farm net earnings position.
If I an repeating myself for the fourth or fifth time I do not make any apology because I believe that in respect of this problem there has been absolutely no indication of any concrete or significant action on the part of this government. The minister, of course, as I said earlier, has succeeded in projecting an image of himself as a man of the soil or a kind of Canadian Will Rogers, sort of rurally oriented. He has travelled throughout Canada, particularly western Canada and, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Acadia, has taken swipes at the Canadian Pacific Railway and the banking institutions. If I may use a colloquial expression, he has raised hell with the banks because he alleges that they have not been generous enough in the granting of credit to farmers. Surely the minister is not of the opinion that the farming population of western Canada or anywhere else in Canada is 30 years behind the times and still thinks that it is the banking institutions which are the cause of their present difficulties. Credit is one thing which agriculture has received without too much difficulty within the last few years.
Many persons, as well as myself, have come to the conclusion that the problem is not so much one of agricultural credit as a problem of net income or capital formation. One cannot have capital formation without net income. No matter how much the restrictions on the granting of credit are eased, this will not get at the basic root of the problem unless something is done about the cost-price relationship. In that connection I suppose it is germane to mention that the position taken by the minister in respect of farm machinery prices was quite cute. I use that term advisedly. He let it be understood throughout the country and in the house that he was

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
somewhat chagrined about the pricing policies and practices of the farm machinery manufacturers, so much so that he wrote several letters to them in which he indicated his displeasure. When asked to produce these letters, however, he backed down. He gave some indication to members of the committee that he had received an undertaking from the farm machinery manufacturers that they would not increase their prices during the period when the machinery investigation commission was carrying out its study. He said that during this period they would not increase their prices by more than an average of 3 or 4 per cent. What was not indicated was the nature of this average of 3 or 4 per cent. Is it to be a weighted average?
There is quite a difference between the absolute cost of a tractor and cultivator, and a surflex discer. An increase of 5 per cent in tractor prices and 3 per cent in discer prices is not, for example, a 4 per cent true average. Is the minister talking about an average of the price increases for machinery which has the same relationship as the relationship in using one rabbit and one horse in making a stew? We really have not had an opportunity to question the minister more closely in this regard. It should be pointed out, however, that it is becoming more and more difficult with each passing year to fool the agricultural producers of this country. Now, after the minister has been in office for 18 months and after this government has been in office for four years, reasonable people are saying that it is time some substantial, significant, concrete and tangible action was indicated by this administration. Certainly, if it were only a matter of six months, eight months or one year, the argument could logically be advanced that it takes time to marshall all the facts in order to have a proper base on which to determine policy. But that time has passed and now we should have action. We should have action, as has been clearly indicated already by the hon. member for Acadia and I hope by myself, because the cost price relationship and the net income position have been steadily worsening despite unprecedented yields and increases in productivity.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Where are we going? I am sure the phenomenon of the ever-increasing average age of people on farms in this country is evident in all counties and municipalities across the land, not just in my own province.
It has been my pleasure to have this opportunity to join with other members on this side

to indicate to the government that it has a very serious responsibility which cannot be sloughed off simply by adopting the attitude that because of changing technology and patterns of production a continuing exodus of people from farm lands is inevitable. To what degree should we allow this to happen? If one projects the present trend for perhaps 15 years or two decades one will come to the conclusion that within that time there will only be about 2 per cent of the population on farms. This will likely mean we will have an agricultural industry dominated by vertically integrated, factory type, giant operations and by a few landed aristocrats. Is it our desire to see history repeat itself in this way?
We must also consider the problems in relation to the number of families living on farms with substandard levels of income. I do not oppose the ARDA program but it alone should not be used as a means of coping with the problem of low farm income, and to do so is absurd. ARDA is and will be very useful in dealing with rural poverty as found on small marginal farms, but it is absurd to try to use ARDA to deal with low net income problems facing operators of medium or statistical average even. These people are finding it very difficult to operate at a profit under present economic conditions.
Let me say in conclusion and without apology that up to now the government has displayed an attitude in respect of agricultural problems which can only be described as one of nonchalance, and there can be no excuse for that.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few minutes of the time allocated for consideration of the first item of the supplementary estimates (G), namely agriculture, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is the announcement of a dairy policy which does not enable producers of manufacturing milk to derive an adequate income from the sale thereof.
WT.en I introduced that motion on the orders of the day earlier, I had hoped to discuss that matter in the presence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) but I noticed, as pointed out by the spokesman of the Progressive Conservative party a moment ago, that we are forced to discuss matters as important as agriculture and production of manufacturing milk, in the absence of the minister.
March 22, 1967

I know the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) can pilot supplementary estimates, but the fact remains that the Minister of Agriculture is not here to listen to the views of hon. members on the problems of the Canadian dairy industry, particularly in the province of Quebec.
In the last three speeches from the throne, we were told or we have read that the government proposed to give special attention to the agricultural problem, but we have come to realize that the agricultural policy of the government is applied with a dropper. As a matter of fact, only yesterday, many farmers from all parts of the province of Quebec came here, to parliament-some of them had a long journey and even travelled overnight-to meet the Minister of Agriculture and Quebec members of parliament.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred to welcome those farmers, those of my riding as well as the others, as visitors, as tourists, in short, as people on holiday. However, to have their rights respected or, at least, to make special representations to the minister, they had to make rather great sacrifices and even to go to some expense. If the Minister of Agriculture and the government had assumed their responsibilities and established a really fair agricultural policy, those people would not have had to come to parliament to demand their rights. They came here, Mr. Chairman, because the situation is urgent, because the situation is alarming.
According to the December 1966 issue of the News Bulletin of the Department of Agriculture, the number of milch-cows, in 1966, reached its lowest level in 46 years. The farmers are getting rid of their herds because they do not pay enough, because they do not bring in the profits the farmers are entitled to.
According to the article, and I quote:
On June 1, there were an estimated 2,279,000 milch-cows on the farm, that is 86,000 less than last year and 6 per cent fewer than in 1961.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the alarming aspects or our farm policy with regard to dairy farming. Farmers and dairy producers are justified in being alarmed at such a situation.
The same publication says, a little further on, that:
-the production of manufactured butter has decreased for the fourth consecutive year.
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, not so very long ago, Canada produced so much butter that there was a shortage of storage space. I remember that a few years ago, in 1962, 1963 or a little later, a butter warehouse burnt down in Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu. At that time, the Minister of Agriculture was asked whether Canada and the government would incur a loss on account of that fire. He replied that since it would no longer be necessary to pay storage costs following the fire, it would be so much money saved.
This means then that only a few years ago, the dairy industry did not lag while to-day, for the fourth year in a row, there is a deficit in production, that is to say that less butter is being produced than is being consumed, even with the increased population. In fact, this year, 2,250,000 pounds of butter had to be imported for our consumption.
Mr. Chairman, this is another alarming point of our farm policy and that is why approximately 8,000 farmers were on parliament hill yesterday to demand a fair agricultural policy to allow the necessary profits to which they are entitled, because no one can be expected to continue producing at a loss.
A former minister of agriculture has already said that we should find an incentive other than that of gain to encourage people to produce more. Thousands of Canadians must make a profit in order to continue to produce. How can so many people not understand such an important fact? Since producers cannot make a living, they sell their dairy cattle and abandon their farms, and when they cannot find work in the manufacturing industry or in the services, they become unemployed.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture and several of his colleagues in the cabinet seem to think that farming has become economically worthwhile in Canada. Yet we know that parishes in agricultural regions are emptying, and that young people no longer want to continue farming well-organized and highly productive farmlands.
Now if there is no one to take over in farming, it is because the operation is not profitable. That is why rural parishes are being abandoned and the land goes to waste. On the other hand, should the farming occupation be a profitable one, we would see the unemployed and labourers leave their cities to take over the farms. Those people would be ready to fight so as to buy land, to

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
make money, but the opposite situation prevails. Farmers desert the land and head for the cities, where they try to earn a living.
That is the present situation. Therefore, I believe that it is up to the government to bring forward, in the dairy industry, a policy which will enable producers to answer the needs of the Canadian consumer.
That is why I blame the hon. Minister of Agriculture for the timid and limited announcement he made earlier and for trying to lead the dairy producers to believe that they would receive $4.75 per hundredweight when, once all the deductions are made they will not get more than $4.10. The hon. minister tells us that the subsidy he offers, that is $1.21 per hundredweight, when the Federation of Dairy Producers asked for at least $1.40, will allow the dairy producers to get $4.75 per hundredweight. But he adds that 10 cents per hundredweight have to be taken away for export charges. And he adds that the Quebec and Ontario governments, which used to grant 25 cents per hundredweight, will stop as of April 1.
If we know that it costs at least 7 cents per pound to make butter, to process the cream into butter, we arrive at $4.10 per hundredweight of manufacturing milk.
Mr. Chairman, that is what the dairy producers asked for last year. The government is one year behind with its dairy policy. That is the reason why the farmers cannot make a profit and ask constantly for a minimum price of $5 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk.
During the question period, the hon. minister said that under the authority of the provincial governments, the farmers had the duty to negotiate the price of their products.
I shall point out to the hon. minister that the Federation of Dairy Producers not only asked for the subsidy per hundredweight of milk produced but also for a support price for butter, powdered milk as well as cheese and casein. In other words, if their request were granted, the farmers could get $5 per hundredweight for their dairy production. Then, they could make a profit and it could become relatively interesting to be a farmer, a dairy producer and to have herds.
And then, instead of decreasing, our production of consumer goods-which is so important for us-would increase and be sufficient for our national consumption.
We must remember, Mr. Chairman, that when the war was declared in 1939, we had
[Mr. Laprise.l
just got to the end of a depression that had lasted ten years at least. At that time, when it was impossible to sell agricultural products, the farmers were deserting and disorganizing their farms. And when war was declared, we found that we did not have the means of production. So we started immediately to reorganize our farms, to ask the farmers to reorganize in order to produce more, because it was necessary to feed our soldiers and the workers employed in the munitions factories. It was also necessary to feed a great part of England, and yet we noticed that our agricultural production was lagging, that we could not meet the demand.
So, we were behind at that time. If the same situation is allowed to continue, how do we know that tomorrow we will not be facing the same problems as in 1939? And then, we will again be lagging behind. Dairy producers were asking for a minimum of $150 million to be able to get $5 per hundredweight of fluid milk. It is easy to foresee now that farmers and dairy producers will not obtain the price they are asking for. I do want to point out that the dairy producers did not make their request unprepared. I have here, from the editorial page of La Terre de Chez Nous of February 15, 1967, an article written by Jean-Marc Kirouac, which says:
The Dairy Farmers of Canada, grouping associations of dairy producers from all Canadian provinces, developed, in the last weeks of January, their dairy policy for 1967-68 and for some years to come.
Thus you see, Mr. Chairman, that the dairy farmers do not study their problems from day to day, they take steps beforehand. And that is the art of governing which the present government should practice. And the article adds:
It seems to us that the main concern of the Dairy Farmers of Canada was to make a serious study based on precise information of all the main problems which face the dairy industry in Canada and to prepare a complete dairy policy whose immediate and long term effects were to give new life and stability to the Canadian dairy industry.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the objective which the government should keep in mind in order to set up and implement a full dairy policy that will immediately and in the long run give new life and stability to the dairy industry in Canada. That is what we need Mr. Chairman, that is what the farmers and the consumers need, because that drop in the dairy production is felt in other consumption sectors and has something to do with the
March 22, 1967

high cost of living at the present time. And the president of the C.F.U., Mr. Lionel Sorel, mentioned it yesterday. We are now witnessing a fast increase in the price of beef in Canada and that is due to the fact that the dairy farmers are getting rid of their dairy herds. Since fewer heads of dairy cattle, calves or young livestock are offered for consumption, this shortage of animals for slaughter makes the price go up.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene)- I know he is not in the house but I see his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Beer)-explanations on this item of the supplementary estimates, amounting to $97,395,602 and what he intends to do with it exactly. Will it be used to pay grants, help Canadian farmers, pay employees or something else? Furthermore, I notice in the estimates for 1967-68 an increase in item 20 of the Department of Agriculture, amounting to $103 million. I would like to know what will be the use of the supplementary estimates requested today and the increase which will be requested in the 1967-68 estimates?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, we are now on vote 17g and I will be pleased to explain to the hon. member votes 17g and 20g. Under vote 17g we see the figure of $89,967,000 which includes subsidies on dairy products amounting to $81,624,000. I should point out to hon. members that this sum will be increased as a result of the increase in the federal government subsidy announced by the Minister of Agriculture from the guaranteed price of $4.10 per hundredweight to $4.75. In the succeeding year it will go up to $112 million.
The estimated cost for the various stabilization programs is $7,483,000 for sugar beets, $726,000 for wool, $22,000 for eggs and $112,000 for pork, canned cuts and hams. These arise out of the deficits of the Agricultural Stabilization Board which are traditionally recouped by this house at the end of the year. The additional $5,663,000 is to cover the net operating loss of the Agricultural Products Board up to March 31, 1967.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his explanations which might serve to enlighten us on certain points.
Supply-Agriculture
When I saw the blue book for 1968, I was most happy to note an increase of $103 million under vote 20, under the heading "Grants, contributions and subsidies".


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: It costs $112 millions.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis, the policy announced by the minister today on the dairy industry is clearly inadequate, since the price announced is lower than that requested by the dairy producers, if allowance is made for all the deductions the minister mentioned in his statement.
As the officials of the processing plant Societe cooperative agricole of Sainte-Rose-de-Poularies pointed out, they barely make $3.18 per hundredweight of milk processed into butter and casein, and that, without taking into account the cost of processing, a minimum of 7 cents per pound of butter. Considering all that, the producers or the processing plants are unable to pay, even with the direct subsidy, an amount that could come to $5 per hundredweight. They could not do it last year and they will not be able to do it this year either, unless there is an increase in the price support concerning butter, casein, powdered milk, cheese and other products.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the agriculture policy announced by the minister is insufficient. Even if there is an increase, it still falls short, by far, of what the farmers were entitled to expect or what they called for. There is no doubt that we shall soon hear about that from the agricultural representatives, who are grouped today into a federation of more than 50,000 members in the province of Quebec only. Mr. Chairman,
50,000	dairy producers, that is becoming important. Considering what is being produced nowadays, in some of the states of our neighbours to the south, in the field of dairy production, it is to be feared that the same thing will happen here, and this is exactly what is to be prevented.


Mr. Choquette:: Mr. Chairman, a few brief remarks in order to answer the comments made by the hon. member who just resumed his seat. It is not in an aggressive way, but rather objectively, in order to help restore the facts, if possible.
There is doubt that the hon. member spoke exactly as a member of the opposition would, and if the members on this side happened to be sitting across the way, they would

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
probably do as the hon. member has just done: They would deplore the inadequacy of government policies. It is good strategy, let us admit it. It is almost an accepted practice in the house to proceed in this way. Nevertheless, sitting on the government side, I do not feel it is inappropriate to set things in the proper perspective and to state that the policies the government intends to apply starting next April 1, represents a significant improvement and are surely such as to raise the standard of living of the farming community.
I agree with the hon. member that the farmers are entitled to a better fate. If anyone understands, surely it is the members sitting on this side of the house, particularly since we have in our caucus no less than a real farmer, no less than a member of the C.F.U. who never fails to enlighten government policy through his own knowledge. I am referring to the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) who, since taking his seat in this house, has made a contribution which deserves to be mentioned. He is a farmer himself, and when agriculture is being discussed, I feel he must know what is going on and he is surely in a position to inform the authorities, since he has lived, in fact he has been prominent, in a farming community.
I would not like to be overly partisan, but I simply want to note that since we have been in power, we have always looked upon the requirements of the Catholic Farmers Union with the utmost respect and, I would say, with the utmost efficiency. At different times, it so happened that farmers in their briefs called for a Canadian Dairy Board. Legislation to that end has been passed by the present government.
It happened that the Catholic Farmers Union, in its briefs to government authorities, asked for the establishment of a Livestock Feed Board for eastern farmers. The present government implemented such legislation.
It happened that farmers complained about the poverty in several rural areas. That is why, in order to comply with the farmers' requests, the government implemented a piece of legislation setting up a Rural Development Fund of approximately $50 million.
It also happened that Quebec farmers complained that they could not take advantage of the Crop Insurance Act. The Liberal government amended that Act, thus enabling the Quebec government to implement its own crop insurance program. It has been announced that the provincial minister of agriculture, Mr. Vincent, has introduced the

bill in the Quebec legislature and through the future co-operation of the federal and provincial governments, the Quebec farmers will be able to take advantage of the Crop Insurance Act.
Therefore, it is unfair, Mr. Chairman, to deplore constantly the lack of government policies. It does not seem very fair to deny that the government is considering the matter earnestly and that it is sincerely trying to improve the farmers' lot.
Of course, the opposition always feels it is not enough. They are never satisfied, they are always asking more, but while the government is responsible for the administration it must also bring down a budget.
I would have liked the previous speaker to tell us where to find more money for farmers. They are getting an additional amount of $30 million this year. Is there a specific figure which he could quote and perhaps tell us where to reduce expenditures, why they should be reduced and how we could reduce them in such and such department, in order to give more?


An hon. Member:: Let him cut down the national defence estimates.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, let the hon. member rise and tell us which items should be taken away, and how this can be done; then, his proposal could be considered.
However, no mention is made, for instance, of the fact that, this year, the government will spend $30 million more for the farmers, which is certainly a marked improvement. The hon. member cannot deny this. If the government were not concerned with the farmers, it would not bother to spend more, to earmark an amount which is quite considerable to assist the farmers. Such policy will help maintain an average price of $4.65 per hundredweight of milk with a fat content of 3.5 per cent. To this price of $4.65, the export subsidy of 10 cents must be added. However, it is perhaps too soon to criticize the dairy policy, like the hon. member has done, since the Canadian Dairy Commission has not yet made known its support price policy.
It is only in the light of the announcement made by the minister this afternoon, and in the light of the Canadian Dairy Commission policy which will be known soon, that we will be able to appreciate the actual repercussions and effects of this new dairy policy.
In spite of everything, I therefore suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we must give credit to
March 22, 1967

the hon. Minister of Agriculture for having the great merit of thinking and taking action on behalf of the farmers, for his really effective efforts, so that milk producers may receive for their product a better price than they received before.
Something else is worth mentioning. When we came into power, in 1963, as the Conservatives gave way to the Liberal government, the price of milk was $2.66 per hundredweight. Today, in 1967, it has reached $4.65 per hundredweight; that is certainly an appreciable increase which we cannot but notice and, in my opinion, without indulging in flattery, the merits of the government and the Minister of Agriculture who made worthwhile efforts, deserve to be mentioned.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Harry Andrew Moore: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity of saying a few words about the plight of the dairy farmers across Canada. I do not feel that the new policy which has been announced will really solve many problems. The increase in the amount of subsidy paid this year compared with last year will cover only some of the increase that can be expected because of rising production and living costs.
The hon. member who preceded me stated that the farmers can be assured of a price of $4.75 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk. With this I take issue because nothing has been said about how much is going to be taken off this price, as happened last year, for seeking export markets, and there is really no guarantee at all of $4.75. It is just a hoped for price that will vary across Canada, as was the case last year.
The minister referred to an agreement entered into with the ministers of agriculture for Ontario and Quebec, but I should like to ask about the other provinces. Certainly the policy did not take into account the recommendations, which I have read, made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Most of the thousands of farmers who have ceased operations during the last few years were dairy farmers, which shows that our dairy policy has not solved the problems. The hon. member for Springfield dealt with the discrepancy between the returns to cream shippers and the returns to milk shippers. This in itself is a serious problem. Where do the herds go when dairy farm operations are discontinued? Many of the cattle, especially the better bred, go to the United States and are taken out of production so far as Canada is concerned.
Supply-Agriculture
Speaking of milk shipments 20 per cent over quota, on which no subsidy is paid, may I put this into figures. Let me take a shipper with a quota of 1,000 pounds who ships 1,200 pounds of milk a day. Let us suppose he receives $5 per hundredweight for the first
1,000	pounds and only $3 per hundredweight for the next 200 pounds. This averages out to $4.60 which is less than the $4.75 suggested by the hon. member. And we must also remember that this farmer's costs are higher.
I wonder whether the minister and other members of the house have any idea of the costs of distribution of milk shippers. Do they know what a bulk cooling tank costs? Usually they cost more than $4,000 installed. Do they realize the cost of barn cleaners, silos, equipment needed for harvesting winter feed, the cost of maintaining a high-producing herd, and all the incidental costs of labour, if the farmer is fortunate enough to be able to hire any labour?
The method of paying this subsidy may seem to be a small consideration but over the last year it has become a bone of contention and I hope that this year there will be an improvement. I have received hundreds of letters from constituents who have either missed a payment or have received no payment at all, or have received one payment and missed the next, and so on. I know this sort of thing can happen in any scheme of this kind, but it should certainly not happen on the scale it has. After a year I am still receiving pleas from dairymen in my area asking me to please find out what has happened to their subsidy. I know that neither the minister nor the department is trying to hold up this money and would not think of doing so. They know it has to be paid and they are glad to pay it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
But the method of payment is awkward. Surely it should have been straightened out by now. I hope that this year there will not be any trouble with these payments. We should ask ourselves this question: Do we want corporations controlling our agricultural land? If this comes about, and it will unless we do something about it, then we can expect a real increase in the price of food to the consumer.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, there is a general feeling abroad in Canada that because western Canada had a magnificent crop last year all our agricultural problems have been

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
solved. I want to dispel that idea immediately. There are many spotty districts in northeastern Alberta particularly where crops have been almost non-existent. This has occurred in streaks. It is as though a hail storm had gone through the area, with one farmer obtaining a magnificent crop and another only half a mile away being hailed out, in addition to all the other unfortunate things that can happen to farmers. Northeastern Alberta has been badly hit. Prairie farm assistance inspectors used to be familiar with the districts they worked in and the local problems and they gave relief to the farmers. That has changed. P.F.A. inspections are faulty when the inspectors come from outside the province. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will give this matter his personal attention. The region to which I refer is a designated area.
I suppose that the Minister of Agriculture faces problems with respect to increasing industry in that area, as does the Minister of Industry. I hope that in 1967 these two departments will get together, end interdepartmental competition and let the right hand know what the left hand is doing. Inasmuch as the area is a designated one for industry and a depressed one for agriculture in some places, I ask the ministers involved to get together and work out plans. I know it is difficult for the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Agriculture, both of whom are not from the west, to discuss problems with the representatives of the great prairie area. If they do not wish to accept the recommendations of our own agricultural committee, and we have a fine one, I suggest that they talk to members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and to members of the Alberta Farmers Union, to name two organizations, to find out what the pressing needs of agriculture are in the west.
One way that western farmers can improve their lot, particularly if they have small family farms, is by developing secondary industries in the agricultural field. I can tell the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry that the bottleneck in developing secondary agricultural industries is capital. To set up any reasonable industry today takes research, technological know-how and risk capital. The farmers cannot find risk capital. They have not the ability to raise a sum in the neighborhood of $30,000. I suggest that the Minister of Industry get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture to try to work out some formula to meet this need. Perhaps there could be hearings before a government

official of some kind to determine what the local people need. Perhaps they need a rape-seed factory to produce edible oil, perhaps a desiccating factory for alfalfa products, which is a burgeoning industry in Alberta.
The local farmers have not the capital or know how to set up such industries. The Department of Industry talks about disseminating industries among rural communities. The answer is to provide risk capital to get small secondary industries off the ground. That is one area where the government can properly step in, not in the socialistic sense, with help in research and planning by making reasonable amounts of money available. Perhaps the ceiling ought to be $50,000, the money to be made available to local people willing to contribute part of the necessary capital to develop industries which are tied in with agriculture.
Providing aid for research and planning, and also capital, would help all around. Winter employment would be assured. The small family farmer is hard put to pay for the high cost of farm machinery and farm labour. To stay on the farm he must have a secondary industry close to his home. Going to the oil fields or to the bush is not always practical but he can work as a labourer in local secondary industries tied in with agriculture.
If the minister has no faith in the agricultural committee which has made the recommendations I am making time and again, let him listen to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and to the farmers' unions and he will obtain the viewpoint of the farmers. If the minister, together with the Minister of Industry, then makes available the technical know-how and the risk capital we shall take a great step forward in agriculture.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this subject. Everything that can be done must be done to aid agriculture. We hear of the world wide population increase, which many of us have not considered seriously enough. We do not see much evidence of it in this country but it is taking place in the countries of Asia and Africa. While the population of this country remains relatively stable the population of these other countries is increasing rapidly. Half the people do not have enough to eat. This is the stark problem we face today.
An agricultural expert in the United States said the other day that he believes that by 1980 the United States will have no surplus whatsoever of farm products to export. This alarms me in view of the fact that in 1900 the
March 22, 1967

world population was 1.6 billion, by 1920 had advanced to 1.8 billion, by 1940 was 2.3 billion, and in 1965, 25 years later, had reached 3.5 billion.


An hon. Member:: The pill takes care of that.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Philip Bernard Rynard: An hon. member has said that the pill will take care of the situation. That is probably true in part for Canada which has only a very small part of the world population. The pill will have no effect in Asia and Africa, where two-thirds of the people of the world live, for a good many years. It is expected that the world population will reach six or seven billion by the year 2,000. Fifty per cent of the people in those countries today do not have enough to eat and the types of food they eat are of poor quality. It is natural to suppose that as the living standards of these people improve, and we all hope they will, not only more food but a better type of food will be demanded.
Why is the population increasing so swiftly? The reason is that up to 1900 advances in medical science had not affected the countries of Africa and the Far East. Indeed, they had hardly affected the populations of Europe and North America. Science and medical skill have made it possible for vastly greater numbers of children to survive their first vear-always a dangerous period-to reach adulthood and in turn to reproduce themselves.
What can be done about this situation? Let us look at it. At the turn of this century 75 per cent of the population of Canada worked directly in agriculture. If we look at the picture today we find that the figure is an alarming 10 per cent and would probably be nearer 8 per cent if allowance were made for those working part time or moonlighting. Consider the capital which is required by farmers today. Figures show that for every farm worker in the United States a capital expenditure of $35,000 is involved. In the industrial, field the amount is only $25,000. Here we find a disparity of $10,000 right off the bat. It is obvious that something must be done to help provide capital for those who are engaged in farming.
Once the buying power of the primary producer is interfered with the effect is felt in the urban areas and in the industrial field because the farmer buys trucks, uses farm machinery, uses oil and gas and consumes food himself. He is a taxpayer and he is an
Supply-Agriculture
employer of labour. I often wonder what this country would have done without the billion dollars derived from wheat sales, the largest single item produced by the farmers of this country.
What are the returns which these people reap for the work they do? I find that today there is nowhere in the world, with the exception of the United States, where people are as well and as cheaply fed as Canadians are. I am sure that we as a parliament should take every step open to us, to ensure the continuance of an ample food supply at a price our people can afford. But let us remember that if there are not enough primary producers, somebody else must take over the farms. The position was well set out by one of the leading dairy farmers of Ontario; in fact, he is internationally known. I refer to Mr. George McLaughlin who operates Donrobin Farm near Beaverton. This is what is said about him:
A quiet-spoken, modest-mannered man, looking more like a metropolitan businessman than the operator of the well-known model farm, "Dunro-bin" near Beaverton that he is, made one of the most telling points on behalf of his fellow farmers that the general public has yet heard. Speaking at the annual rural appreciation luncheon of the Rotary Club to a mixed audience of businessmen and farmers, George McLaughlin, noted agriculturist and vice-president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, noted that Canadians ate better, and at less cost, than any other people on earth.
He pointed out, however, that all this remarkable feat was achieved at the direct expense of the farmer, whose income, in relation to his costs, had declined steadily until it was now 30 per cent lower than it had been in 1949. In the same period, the figure for his fellow worker in industry had risen no less than 54 per cent.
I do not believe the people of Canada generally want this inequality to continue. I do not believe we are that type of people. Mr. McLaughlin went on to point out:
-this spread of 84 per cent represented a subsidization of the economy by the farmer- "the biggest subsidy in Canadian history."
For while Canada prided itself on the low cost and the variety of food offered its consumers, it accorded its agriculture the lowest measure of government support of any country in the western world.
I repeat that statement because I think it is worth noting-"the lowest measure of government support of any country in the western world". Then Mr. McLaughlin says: "The Canadian farmer has been able to survive only through a number of expedients". Money which should have been used for capital purposes has gone to pay current expenses.

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
If we were to visit the farms of Canada today I am sure we would find that the average age of those who are operating them is increasing every year. What is to happen to these farms in the future? Will they be owned by dairies or food processing companies or grocery chains which will be able to set prices at whatever levels they wish and thus obtain the fair return for their labour which has been denied to Canadian farmers?
If the present trend continues we shall lose our export market which has proved a valuable adjunct to our economy in the past. Today we are shipping thousands of Holstein cattle round the world at high prices to increase the value of breeding stock. We possess some of the finest breeding stock in the world and we are proud of it. It has been a lucrative trade and one which has done a tremendous amount to advertise Canada in countries abroad. It has been made possible because our cattle have proved themselves to be of first quality as milk producers and as a source of beef as well.
When I look at the cattle sales advertized in the Holstein-Friesian Journal and in the journals of the other breeds I have grave doubts about the future of this trade. The very man who made the speech to which I have referred, one of the foremost and best known dairy farmers in Canada, is holding a sale this fall and going out of the dairy cattle business. The McCaigues of Glen Afton Farm, Alliston, outstanding second generation breeders, are holding a sale in May. These are people who have built up this flourishing export business from its very foundations with the result that we have been able to sell our cattle throughout the world.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Wetaskawin suggested that the increase in the price for milk was too little. Some hon. members may consider it a fair increase, but really how much of an increase is it when one considers the cost of labour and farm machinery and the disparity between what the farmer is getting and what the man who works in industry is getting? This disparity has brought a man like George McLaughlin to the point where he thinks he can earn a far better living by getting out of the dairy industry. No one doubts that he has ability and it is a fact that he will make a better living outside the industry.
This whole problem strikes right at the roots of Canada because for every farmer who is a primary producer three other people handle his products after they leave the farm.
[Mr. Rynard.l
Not only that, the farmer buys machinery and equipment manufactured by industrial workers in the urban centres. If we are to maintain employment and keep industry viable there must be a better deal for the farmers.
Subsidies are not the answer. They are only a stopgap measure. Parliament and the government will have to come up with a better answer. Something must be done or else we on this continent will suffer from a shortage of food, not to mention the poor people in the Far East and Africa who are improperly fed, with 50 per cent of them underfed at the present time. Farmers must be allowed to reap the rewards of their work. We provide incentives to industry in the form of capital investment in depressed areas and should do the same for the farmer. Food is more essential than machinery or equipment.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to express my disappointment at the announcement made today by the Minister of Agriculture concerning the subsidy paid to milk producers. My concern is based on the fact that owing to geography many milk producers in my area have to pay more for machinery and machine parts. Their problem is accentuated. I am concerned about the
50,000	milk producers in the province of Quebec. Their industry is dwindling. It is being chipped away and they can foresee its disappearance and the disappearance of their livelihood.
The minister referred to the 33J per cent increase in the total amount of subsidy. This does not impress me because reference to an increase on a percentage basis really does not mean too much. It is applied to the present situation in the industry. We have started off in the wrong direction because even if we paid 50 per cent, 75 per cent or 100 per cent more subsidy it would only mean we would have more people producing milk and selling milk. We have to look at the broader aspect of the whole question to discover how we can do justice to the farmer.
At present the farmer sees the money he has set aside as depreciation on equipment dwindling and eroding. In a few years time he will not have money to replace his equipment. In a few years he will be out of business and his departure will be a grave loss to one of our basic industries.
Unfortunately I could not be here yesterday when the Quebec farmers congregated in Ottawa, because I was undergoing medical treatment in Montreal. However, I feel sorry for them. They were given a build-up which
March 22. 1967

led them to believe they were going to get the price of $5.10 per hundredweight that they sought, the minimum amount on which they can live and secure a fair return for their investment and labour. They have now been let down and let down seriously.
No one in this house need look upon himself as a great defender of the farmer. We are all concerned about the dairy producers and other farmers. We all have to find some means by which we can cure the problem with which they are faced from year to year. In the last three throne speech debates we heard how deeply concerned the government was about the dairy farmer and farmers in general. But all that has been done has been nothing but patchwork. There has been an average increase in the milk subsidy of 10 per cent per year. The increase has done no more than to offset the increased cost of production which in many cases has been more than 10 per cent. The farmer's capital is being eroded and also the money which he has set aside by way of depreciation to replace his equipment. There is danger of the total disappearance of this vital industry.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I believe the increase will be a serious disappointment to all dairy farmers. When I think of all those who are defenders of the dairy producers in the province of Quebec I realize it is not one party alone that is defending them. When the former member for Nicolet-Yamaska was in this house he constantly worried about the dairy producers. In the position he now occupies in his province he is following the same policy of having a deep concern for these producers. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot also expressed concern about the dairy farmer. I do not believe our mandate is being fulfilled when there is an announcement such as that made by the minister today. It will be a serious disappointment to the farmers. It may also contribute to the total disappearance of the dairy industry in this country. How can we cure the problems if all we do is carry out a patchwork job as one would on a pair of trousers? One of these days the trousers will rot away and we will not be able to attach a patch to them.
We should look for other policies. Instead of following the policy of holding farmers to the position they are in today we should look for a policy which will give them the security they need so they will feel equal to those who are engaged in other industries. The farmer
Supply-Agriculture
should be able to receive the same remuneration for his hours of labour as is received by those engaged in other industries. Once we concern ourselves with the problem of seeing that the farmer is equal we will have begun to do something to help bring this industry up to the level of other industries in this country. We have the right to criticize but we also must find a solution to some of these problems. If we followed the practice being carried out by Ontario and Quebec, which have committees to study industries, we would know where the problem lies and would be able to recommend a solution to this problem to the recently created national dairy council. In this way we could start to do something for the dairy farmers of this country. If we were to study this matter properly I am sure we would be able to do something which would bring about an increase in the production of milk. Through an advisory board and researchers we would be able to find outlets for our production.
Because of my concern for the welfare of these farmers I must take exception to the proposal made today by the minister. I do not believe it will advance the welfare of the milk producers. I hope the government will realize immediately that the action they are taking will not be sufficient. I hope the minister and the government will reconsider the policy announced today.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: The
hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will forgo for the time being the opportunity to speak.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The
hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to add a few words on this problem which faces the dairy producers at this time, not only those in Quebec and Ontario but all across Canada.
If we remember correctly-and the minister does-the milk producers asked for a minimum of $5 per hundredweight or $5.10, including the 10 cents for the export premium. It is that amount of $5.10 that the Quebec dairy producers asked for officially yesterday when they came 1,000 strong to meet the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) as well as the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, the hon. member for the iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), and the Minister

March 22. 1967
Supply-A griculture
of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) as well as the Quebec members.
Milk producers in the province of Quebec asked the federal government for a subsidy of $1.40 per hundredweight of milk and requested that the price per hundredweight paid by the dairy be raised to $3.60, which made a minimum of $5 in all.
The first thing to be noticed about this request, Mr. Chairman, is that the dairy producers talked of a minimum of $5.10 per hundredweight of milk, whereas last year the farmers received an average-"average" was the word used-$4 per hundredweight of milk. This year, after one year's experience, the farmers are talking of a "minimum" instead of an "average" per hundredweight of milk with a fat content of 3.5 per cent.
The minister did not think it advisable to rectify this first request of the farmers. There is still talk of an "average" instead of a minimum price per hundredweight of milk. We know that after this average price was granted last year, instead of a minimum price, many farmers got $3.70 or $3.75 instead of $4 per hundredweight.
The minister announces an 85 cent raise, bringing the subsidy to $1.21. The farmers had asked for $1.40. But while the minister announces that the subsidy will now be set at $1.20 per hundredweight of milk, the farmer will have to pay 10 cents for exportation, which means that the government subsidy will, in fact, amount to $1.11 per hundredweight of milk with a fat content at 3.5 per cent.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, to continue my remarks on the minister's announcement, the minister says that the Canadian Dairy Commission of recent creation, will be responsible in cooperation with the provincial marketing boards, for making sure that the farmer gets $4.75 when the $1.21 grant is paid.
It might thus be useful to remark that this $4.75 price will not remain stationary. First of all, 10 cents will be taken off for the export premium and, then, the Canadian Dairy Commission will have to get the provincial marketing boards to increase the price of butter, cheese and casein to such a level that dairies can afford to pay farmers $3.54 per hundredweight. Today, we know they give something like $3, and often less-


Auguste Choquette: Not the dairies. There is no question of dairies here. The hon. member did not understand a thing.
IMr. Grtgoire.]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, these are dairies or processing plants because some dairies also produce cheese and butter. If they do, then they use what is called manufacturing milk and not fluid milk. But that is another story.
I believe the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) will have to recognize that he does not yet understand the problem. He imagines that dairies do not buy manufacturing milk while in fact many do when, for instance, they make butter, which is what dairies can make or cheese, which they do make and when milk is processed to make ice cream, which dairies do also. Then, dairies use manufacturing milk to transform it into butter, cheese, cream or ice cream.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the dairies or the butter industry, or both, must be able to pay $3.54 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk, plus the subsidy of $1.21 paid by the federal government, totalling $4.75, less the [DOT] 10 cents export premium, that is $4.65.
But who tells us, Mr. Chairman, that provincial marketing boards see to it that $3.54 per hundredweight is paid? There again, the minister does not want to assert it. What is wrong in this whole policy is that there are too many different agencies which can affect the price of the hundredweight of milk.
For instance, if a dairy producer delivers fluid milk to the dairy, that is determined by a quota, and the amount over his quota, less a percentage of 20 per cent will be at the level of manufacturing milk, but for the 20 per cent surplus, the producer does not have a minimum price. If the dairy decides to buy it at $2, $2.25 or $2.50 per hundredweight, the minimum amount received by the farmer for his milk will be reduced by that amount, and that is where the industrial producers, the buyers of fluid milk and the dairies can make their profits.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that there are too many agencies deciding on the prices. There are provincial and federal agencies responsible for the milk delivered by the farmer as fluid or manufacturing milk.
For instance, when the farmer arrives at the dairy to deliver fluid milk, the amount over his quota-incidentally this quota is not always enforced-the surplus of 20 per cent- and even over 20 per cent-for which there is no minimum price policy, does not always yield the support price which should be paid by the dairy.
March 22, 1967

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture, who was seconded yesterday by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, as well as several others, could not get the cabinet to agree to $1.50 increase in the subsidy. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) was also one of them. I am surprised that they were unable to get the cabinet to grant $1.40 per hundredweight of milk. Because yesterday, the minister actually told Quebec farmers who came to see him: your latest march will help and support us in bringing your claims before the cabinet and will give more weight to them.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) was also there yesterday. He was much more attentive than today; he is speaking much louder than the standing orders entitle him to do, so that I hear him more than I hear myself. And this has been going on for about 10 minutes.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to see that the five ministers who were there, after having witnessed that show of force by the Quebec farmers, have not been in position to influence the cabinet to obtain that subsidy of $1.40 per hundredweight of milk. Not long ago, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), stated that the French Canadian ministers had the right of veto in the cabinet. Nobody disputed that fact.
Finally, there were many French Canadian ministers at the meeting of the C.F.U. yesterday afternoon. They all said and claimed that they would make every effort to help answer the farmers' wishes, namely this $5 per hundredweight of milk. How is it, Mr. Chairman, that those five ministers who attended the meeting, and all those other members who committed themselves to support the case of the farmers before the whole cabinet, did not succeed on their behalf?


Auguste Choquette: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Of course.


Auguste Choquette: Does the hon. member know that according to the new dairy policy those producers receive an additional $30 million? What is it, if not a gain?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, of course it is a gain. But the president of the C.F.U.,
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. Sorel, explained to the minister yesterday that in the past farmers obtained a mere pittance, and whenever they did gain anything at all, the cost of living or the production cost would increase even more, so that although they received an additional 15 or 20 cents in subsidies they were not any better off because the cost of milk production rose faster than the prices they could set for their product. That is what the president of the C.F.U. was complaining about. And his argument was very well taken.
Now, this year, to catch up with the cost of living, to permit milk producers to operate at some profit and no longer at a loss, and to enable them to increase their productivity, they will get $5.10 per hundredweight for milk but, in fact, they will barely get $3.65 once they have paid the 10 per cent export premium.
Mr. Chairman, the differential is 45 cents. What they get is not enough to catch up with the rise in the costs of production. And that is important, as was explained yesterday by the president of the C.F.U. who stated that with a grant of less than $5.10 per hundredweight farmers cannot catch up with the costs of production and increase their farms' productivity. Even if they were granted $30 million the increase in production costs was even greater. And that is what should be borne in mind.


Auguste Choquette: Is the hon. member aware that the Livestock Feed Board will soon take up its duties which will be precisely to prevent production costs of mill-feed, for example, to reach a prohibitive level.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman I am quite willing to admit that, and that will likely correct many ills in the future, and that would please me. But, there is something else, this Livestock Feed Board is not operating yet, and the feed prices have already increased. It is a hard fact and this explains the high production cost and why the milk producers are asking $5.10 per hundredweight. If, in the future, it were possible to prevent the feed prices from rising, so much the better; in that case the farmers would not have to keep coming back to parliament to ask for subsidy increases.
Of course, the farmers would be quite satisfied if they no longer had to come to Ottawa to beg for subsidies. But they have to do it, because production costs are rising. And if

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
this increase ever stops, the farmers will be most happy not to have to beg for a raise in the federal subsidies. But the price of feed grain has increased and we are now confronted with the following situation: the commission has perhaps not done its duty in the past, and the price of grain has increased, as well as the price of tractors, of gasoline and production costs. Consequently, the producer of milk now needs $5.10 per hundredweight at least to meet those production costs and to increase his productivity.
This must be settled, Mr. Chairman. And the amount granted today by the minister will not be sufficient to enable farmers and milk producers to meet present conditions, because that small subsidy is lower than the percentage increase of production costs during the past year, and this is serious. Subsidies are not being raised at the same rate as production costs have increased. This was what farmers and milk producers requested and what the government refused.
As I said earlier, I heard the ministers say that they would do everything possible to obtain from the cabinet $5.10 per hundredweight of milk.
We heard last week the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche, state that the French Canadian ministers had the right of veto in the cabinet. Then, could we conclude that the French Canadian ministers have not really pleaded the case of Quebec farmers with the cabinet? It is the Minister of Agriculture who introduced his colleagues from the cabinet to the members of the U.C.C. and, introducing the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) to the farmers, he did not say this: "Now I introduce the Minister of Manpower and Immigration." Not at all. He said this: "I introduce the Quebec leader of our party". That is how he introduced him: "The leader of our political party in Quebec".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: The Minister of Agriculture introduced the Minister of Labour and Immigration as follows: "I introduce now the leader of our party in Quebec."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Well, then, the Minister of Agriculture says: Since he is the leader of our party in Quebec, he will see to it that the Quebec people get what they ask for. That other minister was introduced as the leader

of the party in Quebec, but obviously it did not mean much because he, with the four other Quebec ministers, plus all the Quebec members, did not succeed in getting what the Quebec milk producers asked for. Obviously, they were not very influential.


Auguste Choquette: Thirty millions, that is a lot.


Gilles Grégoire: The member for Lotbiniere says: Thirty millions, that is a lot. Even then, it is not enough to compensate for the increase in production costs on the farm, and that is what counts. Even if you granted subsidies of $40 million, if within the same year production costs went up by $60 million, the farmers would be no better off. That is what the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Lotbiniere must understand. Thirty millions is not an absolute figure; nor is the $5 the farmers are requesting. That figure was based on the increase in production costs, and if it doubles again, $75 million will be needed and not $30 million. The $75 million would not be worth then more than $30 million, since production costs would have absorbed the effect of the $30 million.


Auguste Choquette: Just one question and that will be the last one I ask the hon. member. First, I contest those figures; those are unfounded assertions. However, I ask him this question. Does he not agree that there is not only one level of government that must take action to prevent the rise in the cost of production? Other governments must take their responsibilities.


Gilles Grégoire: This is obvious, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: This matter does not come under the federal government only.


Gilles Grégoire: It is for the federal government to announce the policy on manufacturing milk because it comes under its jurisdiction. The provinces are responsible for fluid milk, the federal government for manufacturing milk. We are now concerned with manufacturing milk because the Quebec minister of agriculture decided to grant a subsidy of 25 cents per hundredweight of manufacturing milk, whereas the federal government asked for this subsidy to be abolished and said: We are going to assume responsibility for what has to do with manufacturing milk. So, the federal Minister of Agriculture assumed responsibility for manufacturing milk on behalf of the federal government. The production
March 22, 1967

cost of manufacturing milk and fluid milk has gone up. And if it did-


Auguste Choquette: Remember that Quebec increased the sales tax to 8 per cent. The federal government is not to blame.


Gilles Grégoire: Quebec increased its tax by 2 per cent; Ottawa increased its sales tax by 1 per cent. One levies a tax of 8 per cent, the other a tax of 12 per cent. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere wants to pursue this discussion and make of it a matter of petty politics between Quebec and Ottawa, I could follow him on that field. But I will not do it and I will not play politics at the expense of the farmers and the dairy producers. I will leave that to the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
But one thing remains, Mr. Chairman. Even if there is a flaw in the system, even if there are faults in our system on account of which our farmers are caught between two governments and do not know where to go, if our farmers and our dairy producers are taxed by two governments instead of one and if it were better for them to have only one government, and they chose the Quebec government, one thing remains, Mr. Chairman, namely that at the present time we are still living in Canada, that the federal government is taxing the people in Quebec, the dairy farmers like the others, that it has responsibilities towards the dairy producers, that the federal Minister of Agriculture chose to have jurisdiction over manufacturing milk and left to the provinces jurisdiction over fluid milk, the minister should at least fulfill his duties. One of them was to take into consideration the representations made by the representatives of the dairy producers when they were received by the minister and hon. members yesterday on parliament hill.
The dairy farmers came to explain their problems to us in a very simple, clear and concise manner. They said: At the present time, the farmers have the lowest standard of living of all the social classes in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture cannot deny that. The dairy producers said: The farmers' production cost has increased more than that of any other group. The Minister of Agriculture cannot deny that. And the farmers said: What we want is not to become millionaires but at least to be able to face increases in production costs and have a little money to increase the productivity of our land and improve our production. The minister cannot deny that either because he was there when the dairy farmers said it. And the farmers, 23033-907
Supply-Agriculture
the dairy producers said: To reach those objectives we need $5.10 per hundredweight of milk. It seems to me that the reasons given by the president and the vice presidents of the C.F.U. and the president of the Quebec Association of Dairy Producers were clear and convincing. Those farmers came to talk to us not as businessmen but as people who like their farms, their land, their work. They work from early morning until late at night; their income is the lowest although they work the longest hours of all Canadian citizens.
It was moving to hear the president of the Catholic Farmers Union tell us: If we want to make $2,000, $2,200, $2,400 a year, our wives and children must work without pay, and then we have an income which, for one person alone, ranks amongst the lowest in Canada.
Are the farmers' requests exaggerated, Mr. Chairman? Not in the least. They were not asking for extravagant incomes; they were merely asking for enough to live on their farms, before they have to leave them for lack of sufficient income to make a decent living. That is what the farmers came to ask. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) will agree with me that when they asked $5.10 per hundredweight of milk, they were not asking for salaries of $5,000 or $6,000 a year. They were asking for the minimum to allow them to live decently on their farms. The member for Lotbiniere has farmers in his district. Is he going to tell me that $5.10 per hundredweight of milk would make those farmers richer than our city workers? Never. It would give them an even lower standard of living than urban workers, teachers, dealers or other classes of society.
The request of dairy farmers from Lotbiniere country and elsewhere was not excessive. The hon. member for Lotbiniere knows that they were not being unreasonable in asking $5.10 per hundredweight of milk so as to be able to meet their production costs, increase their productivity and modernize their equipment.
When I see those who object to the farmers' claims, when farmers are probably the group which is most neglected by the federal government, and when I make a comparison with federal subsidies for gold production of between $8 and $10 an ounce. The federal government pays from $8 to $10 to gold mines for every ounce of gold produced. This makes $16,000 per hundredweight of gold. Yet, when the farmers ask for $1.40 per

March 22, 1987
Supply-Agriculture
hundredweight of milk, some people rush in to defend the government policy.
I state, Mr. Chairman, that if all of us in this house were to agree unanimously to try at least once, to meet the demands of farmers, whether from Quebec and Ontario or throughout Canada, and give them $5,10 per hundredweight of milk and if we could count on the support of all members approached yesterday by Quebec and Ontario farmers, then, the Minister of Agriculture would have to recognize that this is not an excessive but a minimum demand.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The farmer certainly did not receive the best treatment in the past from either society or the government. I think it is time the Minister of Agriculture thought about that, and I would ask him, Mr. Chairman, to set himself a goal, either in the form of subsidies, by fixing a minimum price for milk, butter, cream, cheese, casein and so forth, or by giving the farmer $5.10 per hundredweight of milk.
I may be told that this would raise the price of milk, butter, and cheese. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the new Canadian Dairy Commission were willing to assume its responsibilities and eliminate all sorts of intermediaries between the milk producer and the retailer, even the savings which would result from this would make it possible to give the farmer $5.10 per hundredweight of milk without raising consumer prices.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge the minister to reconsider his position in that respect. And I make a special appeal to all Quebec members who have had the opportunity yesterday to hear valid and convincing arguments from the representatives of the Quebec dairy producers. All those who were there yesterday and who are still here today know that the arguments were most convincing. And all hon. members who are here and who have farmers in their riding, know that the farmers are far from being the class best dealt with by the government, nor the most affluent one.
Well, if we were, for once, unanimous in claiming these $5.10 per hundredweight-I am not speaking of subsidies or anything else;
I am only asking a minimum of $5.10 per hundredweight of milk for the farmers- well, if we were all in agreement on that point, if the Minister of Agriculture and all the members of the cabinet saw that all the members, in every corner of the house, were

unanimously requesting it, I am convinced the cabinet would reconsider the matter and adjust the budget so that farmers would receive $5.10 per hundredweight of milk.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I am making an appeal for unanimity in this regard. I am convinced the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) is in constant contact with the farmers in his riding. He asked some questions earlier on behalf of his Liberal colleagues. I know he goes and sees the farmers of his riding, that he takes their interests at heart, that he knows their problems and that he really wants-


The Chairman:: Order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, may I propose that progress be reported for the purpose of continuing to sit after six o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit later today or at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Later today.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon):
That pursuant to standing order 6(2) this house continue to sit after six o'clock p.m.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether he has any idea how long it will take to finish what he has in mind?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I understand that consideration of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture will not take very long but that there are other matters involving policy which can be dealt with on interim supply. I am in the hands of the committee which will have to decide under what item to take up these matters but it seems to me that since they involve policy it may be better to discuss them on interim supply. It is my understanding that this should take about an hour and a half.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
March 22, 1967
[Stage Direction]


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

[Stage Direction]
17g. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $94,387,000.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to say a few words about the dairy industry and the announcement made this afternoon by the minister.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we all know that agriculture is in a state of stagnation. In fact, farmers are making representations and putting pressure on the federal parliament, the Quebec parliament and even the parliaments of every province to improve their situation.
The agricultural situation is more serious than we think. Our agriculture is in a dreadful state of stagnation, as those who have eyes can see. If the farmers are taking so many steps, it is because our agriculture is going into bankruptcy. We must make the required efforts if we want to rehabilitate agriculture.
Agriculture must be rehabilitated because it is the foundation of society. It is the very foundation on which rests our whole economy.
So, Mr. Chairman, small measures or small subsidies, dispensed with a dropper, will not solve our agricultural problem.
Once and for all, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance and the whole Canadian economy must get together to rehabilitate agriculture because it is run down, it is stagnating, it can barely survive. The young are leaving the farm, they cannot see any future in it, any way of making a living out of it, the possibility of raising a family. They want to live like the others. They want to have reasonable working hours and nobody can blame them.
Agriculture is in a state of stagnation. In various parishes of my riding, in the past ten years, 70 per cent of the farmers have left their farm.
In one small parish, comprising approximately sixty farmers, 13 farmers left their farm during the same week. This has been happening everywhere for the past several months.
Supply-Agriculture
It can be truly said that agriculture is in a state of stagnation. Farmers are surely justified in expressing their views and in making their plight known to the government.
It is not the fault of the farmers, but of the greatest economic factor, the financial factor. The financial system has driven farmers into debt, together with farm loans.
Farm loans were supposed to save agriculture as a whole, but it was not saved. It was sunk and it floundered. The further ahead we go, the deeper the farmer goes into the hole. This results from several economic factors of our system, which is upside down.
The system has to be corrected. When we talk about reforming the system, we are taken for cranks, for ignorant people, we are taken for people who have never been to university. But why did the intelligent people who went to university bring ruin upon us? Why did they lead us into our present situation, where nobody can live reasonably any more in a country overflowing with wealth?
The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that farmers produce below cost. That is why they need farm loans. When you produce below cost, you can neither repay your loans nor modernize your farm.
When a farmer is given a loan, he is not given enough to turn his farm into an economically worthwhile enterprise. He is given about half of what he needs, or three quarters, and he never gets the balance. And with that, he cannot enlarge his property; he cannot neither improve his land nor his farm buildings; he cannot improve his machinery. He does not have enough of one farm loan, because it is too small.
The farmer who needs $20,000 is loaned $12,000, $13,000, $10,000 approximately. There is one of the problems. If you want to lend money to farmers, if you want to improve agriculture, lend enough to enable it to recover. Or else allow them to make profits, and then farm loans will not be needed! A great number of farmers will then be able to do without the various farm loans or other bank loans granted at excessive interest rates. They had to borrow because they were not making any profit, and the minister knows it.
Therefore, farmers are in a bad way and prices keep going up. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) says the government is doing much for the farmers, but he turned a deaf ear to what was said yesterday,

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
for instance. The farmer needs a lot of equipment: a car, a truck, a tractor and various farm equipment. He also needs buildings and all kinds of materials and implements. The farmer is one of the biggest consumers in Canada, for he needs all sorts of things in various fields.
The farmer keeps on buying things while the government keeps on raising taxes and interest rates. Therefore, the way things are going, economically the farmer is going from bad to worse. When a farmer needs some instruments or materials to improve or build installations, he has to pay the 11 per cent tax, the 12 per cent tax, school and municipal taxes. The cost of living is rising for farmers just as for other people, and their profits are not sufficient to balance all those increases in the cost of living.
I shall not enter into details, knowing that $90 million is considered a prohibitive amount, for farming. Everyone is shocked at the thought we spend billions for defence, feeling it is nothing. And when it is not enough, supplementary budgets are brought down for defence. But when it comes to forming the very foundation of our society, of the economy of the entire nation, we do not move. Subtract $50 million from the $90 million for management, and you will get $40 million for effective assistance to farming. That is what is done for farming, and allegedly it is not possible to do more. It is stated that substantial amounts are given and everything is done for farming, but nothing is done. It is like a drop of water in the ocean. Ninety million.
I suggest that farmers would be better off with nothing at all. They would give up sooner and the government would not be compelled to squander that money with no avail. When funds are invested somewhere, they are supposed to yield profits in the long run, to improve something. But when insufficient funds are granted to improve conditions, it would be better not to give any.
Then, I maintain that the amount asked by farmers, namely, $5.10 per hundredweight of milk, is not too high, that it is not even sufficient. They would need $8 per hundredweight in order to make profits or pay off their debts; it is not with $5 per hundredweight that they will do it.
I say to the minister that within a year, even if he gives the farmers $5 per hundredweight, they will still be in a very difficult position because the cost of living will have continued to rise.

What must be done is to stop the rise in the price of farm equipment and machinery, of building materials and the rise of interest rates. Then, farmers and all other classes of society would enjoy a decent living in such a rich country.
The farmers are ready to produce as much as is needed. But the prices are not adequately balanced. Right now, we find a decline in the budget. A great number of farmers of my area, as everywhere else in the country, have set up an organization to produce pork. And now, as we say, they are played a low trick. Hog prices are down and once again people who made high expenditures can no longer make both ends meet. Anything related to agriculture is discouraged. It is the same in all areas. When the farmer manages to produce beef, the same thing happens. If he manages to produce milk, he faces the same situation. It is the same thing in all agricultural sectors. The farmer cannot even set his price, when he has merchandise to sell, for it is the dealer who comes to him and says: I'll give you so much for your products. The farmer cannot charge his own price, though he knows that the price offered to him is lower than his production cost. He needs money so much that quite often, he sells under cost.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is the government's duty as well as that of the Minister of Agriculture to submit a true master plan, a true reform of agriculture with all the millions of dollars that will be needed to give it the expansion and the vitality which will enable it to play its role and make it possible for the farmers to stay on their land, for those who are qualified to go into farming and do something they like for a living.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, wonders will happen in the field of agriculture and the millions of dollars spent for its development will be counterblanced this time by the millions of dollars which will find their way into the Canadian economy. Today we are not always sure to recuperate the millions of dollars allocated to agriculture because when farmers leave their land they forget about their farm loan at the same time and the governments get stuck with the abandoned land.
One must not imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the Quebec government has not on hand several pieces of land that it has been compelled to take over. Statistics show that very few federal farm loans have been granted in
March 22, 1967

the province of Quebec. There are a few, but, for the most part, the farm loans have been made by the provincial government, since the latter are a little more advantageous than the federal ones. That is why, almost all farmers have taken advantage of the provincial farm loans. But, one should go and see how many pieces of land the provincial government has on hand at this time, because it has been unable to sell them.
When a farmer who has worked all his life to build a farm worth $25,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000, wants to sell his land because he is too old, he cannot even give it away. Then, he has worked all his life for nothing. And that is what the young people refuse to do. That is the reason why the young people do not want to stay on the farms, because farming is in a frightening state of stagnation. We have to get it out of the doldrums and, in order to do that, the hon. minister has a lot of studies to undertake.
Even as individual members, we must assume our responsibility in this house. It is not simply that of the Minister of Agriculture but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), the officials in every department and all the members must assume their responsibilities with regard to what is happening in agriculture, because the conditions are not easy. In fact, the problem is far more serious than we seem to realize.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not say any more, although I would still have quite a lot to say about agriculture. However, I have said enough to show you that farming calls for reform.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture? [DOT] (6:10 p.m.)

I would ask a question of the minister.

Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell me if the price of $4.75 per hundredweight will be a minimum or an average price?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might take a moment to answer several questions that hon. members have asked.
First of all I wish to commend the hon. member for Simcoe East for his responsible and pertinent speech about the problems of farmers generally across the country, the cost-price squeeze they face and the image
Supply-Agriculture
they sometimes have with those in urban centres. By some it is thought that the farmers are a burden on the rest of the taxpayers or in some way are imposing on the rest of the taxpayers.
The statistics the hon. member drew to our attention were meaningful and pertinent, particularly when one considers that a decade ago the average Canadian spent some 28 per cent of his income on food while today he spends only 20 per cent. That statistic, more clearly than any words of mine, shows that farmers by their productivity and efficiency have contributed to the well-being of the rest of the people. But they have failed to share to as great an extent as other citizens in the booming economy and increasing economic opportunity in our country. All of us concerned with the well-being of the agricultural community must bear this in mind. We must do what we can to improve the lot of the farm community.
When we consider how proud we are of the efficiency of our industrial sector, which in this age of automation and rapidly moving technology has moved ahead extremely quickly, I wonder whether we have paid enough homage to our farmers and to their increased productivity. Statistics I have show that industrial productivity per industrial worker has gone up by approximately 2.6 per cent per annum over the past decade. During the same period the increased productivity of the individual agriculturalist, the individual farmer across the country, has gone up by over 5 per cent per annum, almost twice the increase for industrial workers. The increased productivity of the farmer is the main reason for our higher standard of living. We continue to spend less of our income on food and we have more left over for other amenities, some even the luxuries of life. I thought the hon. member for Simcoe East drew these facts to our attention forcibly.
There is a heavy onus on us, conducting the business of the country in this house, to see that the farmer continues to share equitably in the increased wealth available in this country. The problem is not simple. At the beginning of the second world war about 30 per cent of Canadians were engaged in agriculture. Today only 11 per cent of Canadians are engaged in agricultural production. The economists tell us that within a decade between 5 and 6 per cent of Canadians only will be producing the food for the rest of us. That figure enables us to see the nature of the problem.

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
The agricultural community is becoming more efficient. Production emits are becoming larger. Yet agricultural problems remain grave and difficult. I have found that these problems are not pertinent to Canada only but are generic problems facing the entire agricultural industry. From my studies I have found that the higher the standard of living is in any country, the fewer are the people producing that country's food. All those countries that I have studied, I find, suffer from the inherent problem that fewer, more efficient farmers assume the responsibility for feeding the rest of the population which is moving largely to the cities and the industrial sector. The problem in all these lands is that the farmer receives an inadequate income when it is compared with that of the industrial population. In all countries this is a major concern. Recently it was demonstrated by a major agricultural study undertaken by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that in countries that were becoming largely industrialized more efficient and larger farm units were feeding the rest of the population.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, most of us agree with what the minister is saying, but I express the hope that he is not opening a debate that will take considerable time.


Gilles Grégoire: I was hoping the minister would answer my question but he is taking a long detour.


John James Greene: The hon. member for Lapointe thinks he is the only member in this house; he has often left that impression. Many other hon. members have asked questions and it is incumbent on me to try to answer them as best I can.
The hon. member for Acadia raised some points. He complained that I was not in the house for part of the time when he was making his remarks. I think my record of attendance here is certainly the equal of his; in fact, it may be very superior to his. I think the hon. member labours under the impression that, though he is not here very often, if he makes enough noise when he is here he will make up for all those times when he is not here. In point of fact I was in my office attending to a prior appointment. My office is on the second floor. When the hon. member for Acadia speaks one can be anywhere in the building and hear him. One does not have to be actually in the chamber.
[Mr. Greened
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The hon. member complained about the lack of legislative accomplishment, including agricultural accomplishments, during the past year. Possibly I should clear the record in this regard. He claims that this government has accomplished nothing whatsoever during the past year in agriculture. I would draw attention to the following items. The Farm Credit Corporation Act was amended to increase the capitalization from $24 million to $40 million and to increase the borrowing power from $600 million to $1 billion. An act was passed to establish the Canadian Dairy Commission which I suggest will prove in the future to have been a milestone in Canadian agriculture. Amendments to the Crop Insurance Act were passed increasing the federal level of payment and making the act adaptable to a greater variety of crops. Crop insurance is now available as never before all over Canada. Section 88 of the Bank Act was amended only yesterday to give a very impressive benefit to those engaged in agriculture. I claim no credit for this. The hon. member for Essex South deserves all the credit for it, I believe. But I do suggest that credit should accrue to the government side.
A farm machinery inquiry was established. Hon. members opposite had asked for this for many years and in all fairness I must say that they attempted to do something about it in 1961 and 1962 by bringing this matter before the committee. We instituted an inquiry by highly responsible people so as to allay fears and find new policies in this area. The dairy program in each of the years we have been in office has evolved continuously and shown a continuing improvement. It represents an accomplishment in which I think the government can well take pride.
With regard to the situation in agriculture generally, I think I should point out that for the first time last year farm income in Canada reached a gross figure of $4 billion. Some hon. members opposite including, I believe, the hon. member for Acadia, have indicated that farming is a diminishing industry. Some said that farmers were almost going out of business. Let me cite a few statistics. In the years from 1959 to 1963 the average production of Cheddar cheese amounted to 118.7 million pounds. In 1964 it was 144.6 million pounds, in 1965, 158 million pounds, and in 1966 an estimated 167 million pounds. So there has been an increase each year. What are the figures for cheddar cheese exports? From 1959 to 1963 the average was 21.9
March 22, 1967

million pounds. In 1964 they amounted to 30.3 million pounds, in 1965 31.6 million pounds, and in 1966 an estimated 35 million pounds.


An hon. Member:: What about butter?


John James Greene: I will come to butter. It is doing fine too. What about the price of beef about which some hon. members from the west should be concerned? Despite their lamentations and their accusations that the government has done nothing, the figures are interesting. The price of beef when they were in office in 1963 was $23.65 per hundredweight for good steers at Toronto on the basis of monthly and yearly averages. In 1964 it was $22.70. In 1965 the price was $24, in 1966 it was $26.03, in January of 1967, $27.50 and in February it was $27.50. I suggest these are improvements and that it is completely irresponsible to say there have been no improvements in the industry. These improvements have been made since we came to office.
What about eggs? In 1963 the price was 34 cents a dozen. In 1966, the average price for all grades was 40 cents a dozen. I will admit that at the present time, as some hon. members have pointed out, there are problems in connection with the supply of eggs. But I think these will be solved as the season proceeds. Even now the price is 35 cents a dozen.
What about wheat sales and wheat products? No less than 840 million bushels of wheat were produced and 600 million bushels went into export. I have a speech made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, formerly minister of agriculture, during his term of office. In it he stated that we should not foresee export sales in the future greater than 300 million bushels. This was quoted in the Western Producer and I am pleased to say I have a copy which I can show at any time to hon. members who are interested. This was the "doom and gloom" philosophy with respect to agriculture which has not been borne out under the authority of this administration.
Someone asked about dairy products. Let me cite a few statistics in this regard. Milk production in 1957 amounted to 17 billion pounds. For succeeding years the figures were as follows, in billions of pounds: 1958, 17.7; 1959, 17.6; 1960, 17.7; 1961, 18.3; 1962, 18.4; 1963, 18.4; 1964, 18.5; 1965, 18.3. Dairy milk used went up in every area except that of farm use where, of course, it has a lower commercial value. In 1952 fluid milk production amounted to 5,117 million pounds and in
Supp ly-A gricul ture
1966 to 5,240 million pounds. Butter production rose from 7,099 million pounds to 7,440 million pounds in 1966 and cheese from 1,212 million to 2,039 million pounds.
I could continue reading figures into the record from now until midnight to show not only increased productivity in agriculture but an improvement in the price structure during the past three years since the government took office.


Mr. Nowlan:: May I ask the minister a question? Is he suggesting by these figures that the net income of farmers increased in those years?


Richard Albert Bell: Is the minister trying to talk out these estimates?


John James Greene: Hon. gentlemen opposite are very prone to make speeches on the estimates which are devoid of substance and contrary to the facts under the assumption that they will get away with it and that no one will show them to be false.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Albert Bell: If the minister opens this up he will be kept here until after Easter.


John James Greene: This is all right by me. This is what we are here to do, and every time false facts are placed on the record I think any hon. member has the right to correct them.


Richard Albert Bell: I suggest the minister should get in touch with the President of the Treasury Board and see what that minister thinks of the way in which he is conducting himself.


John James Greene: If the hon. member is saying it is the duty of members of this house to leave false facts on the record I will be very pleased to take his opinion in this regard.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not think the minister has yet answered my question, though it was I who asked him a question originally.


John James Greene: If the hon. member will permit me to finish my speech I will answer questions thereafter.
Some comment has been made about dairy prices. I do not pretend for a moment that we have achieved during three years in office all we would like to achieve. But with respect to the allegations made this afternoon that there has been no progress I think it is fair to point out that when we came to office the price of manufacturing milk was $2.66.

March 22, 1967
Supply-A griculture
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The party that was responsible for a price of $2.66 for manufacturing milk is claiming today that an increase in that price to $4.75 over a period of three years is not a notable accomplishment. The hon. member for Gaspe said, and I took down his words verbatim, "What is a 33J per cent increase"? In other words, what is an increase of $30 million? At one time in this house someone is supposed to have said, "What's a million"? Now we have the statement, "What's $30 million"?
There are improvements in other areas, Mr. Chairman, that I think I should put on the record. In 1961 the total wheat crop was 283.4 million bushels, in 1962, 565.6 million bushels, in 1963, 723.4 million bushels; in 1964, 600.4 millions bushels, in 1965, 648.9 million bushels, and in 1966, 844.4 million bushels. Exports of wheat in 1961 totalled 305.3 million bushels, in 1962, 474.4 million bushels, in 1963, 565.9 million bushels, in 1964, 531.7 million bushels, and in 1965, 566.5 million bushels. Here are the figures of total farm production in millions of dollars. In 1961 the figure was $485.3 million, in 1962 $941.4, in 1963 $1,259.2 and in 1964, the last year for which we have figures, $957.2 million. The price for No. 1 Northern wheat at the lakehead in 1961 was $1.90 per bushel, in 1962 $1.96, in 1963 $2.03, in 1964 $1.98, in 1965 $2.00, and in 1966, estimated to date, $2.11.
If these figures indicate a declining industry-


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question?


John James Greene: When I finish my speech. If these figures indicate a declining industry, and I know figures do not always tell the truth, it seems a strange conclusion to draw. All these figures in every facet of the agricultural industry show that the industry is a productive one, that the Canadian farmer is doing a tremendous job of production, something which seems to be denied in speeches made from the opposite benches. Speeches made by hon. members opposite indicated that the industry was a dying one, that it was in terrible shape, and some of the speeches indicated that we are going to be out of farming altogether in Canada soon. I do not think we serve the farmers well, or anyone else well, by raising bogies that do not exist, by alleging facts that are not so, or by indicating problems that in fact are merely indicated for political and partisan purposes.

I think we should all agree, as I said at the outset, that we want to do everything we can to improve the farmers' position, that we want to have policies which will enable the agricultural sector to have a better way of life and income more comparable with the industrial sector. But I think we will achieve those ends much more effectively if we face the facts as they are and not as we would like them to be for political or partisan purpose
Some questions were asked with respect to the dairy program. First of all allusions were made, again I believe by the hon. member for Gaspe, to the effect that we gave an undertaking to the very good meeting of agriculturalists from l'Union Catholique de Cul-tivateurs of the province of Quebec who came here yesterday. This was a meeting called at their request. They came here in order to give us their views and to make their representations with respect to the dairy program for the ensuing year.
Those representations were made forcibly but responsibly. Their views were made known very clearly to us. No undertaking whatsoever was given except that the representations which had been made would be given every consideration in this year's program in the light of the government's responsibility. As with this and other programs I do not claim we have achieved everything we would like to do. I do not think we have perfection by any means but I say that a contribution of a further $30 million is a responsible contribution. I say that a program which increases the support at the federal level beyond last year's price at this time of $4.10 to $4.75 is a step in the right direction even though it may not be all we would have it be.
I know that the party of hon. gentlemen opposite has had the responsibility of office from time to time and that its members realize some of the differences between opposition and the responsibilities of government, with the government having to consider all facets and factors of the economy. Members of other parties have never had the responsibility of government and never will have it. The public does not think they ever will have it and so it is very easy for them to say, "You should give everybody everything they want." If we had given everybody everything they wanted by acceding to the requests made from time to time from various parts of the house, this country would have been bankrupt long ago.
March 22, 19G7

Some hon. members remind me of the American congressman who was asked how he stayed in office so long. He said, "I voted for all expenditures and against all taxes." I think maybe there are members of this house and parties in this house that subscribe to the same irresponsibility.
I merely say, Mr. Chairman, that all these facts and figures indicate that the government has created a climate and has passed legislation which has moved the agricultural economy ahead productively and economically. I agree that there is a great deal more to be done, that none of us should cease in our endeavour to bring the farmer into the economic sunlight in the same measure as the industrial worker has come into it over the past few years. But I do suggest that to load the record of this house under any pretext, be it interim supply or otherwise, with facts that are not borne out by the record does no service to the farmer and does not bring the day closer when we will have the kind of comprehensive policies which will achieve the economic results that I think all members want for the agricultural community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the minister quoted figures relating to increased production and prices. Could he give us the same prices with regard to production costs? Could he tell us, for instance, how much it cost in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 to produce a hundredweight of milk compared to today?
I also want the minister to answer my earlier question. Is $4.75 per hundredweight of milk an average or a minimum price?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, costs of course depend upon the efficiency of the farmer, the size of his operation and the techniques he uses. I have no cost figures which would apply to each and every individual farmer. I certainly appreciate the fact that the farmer's costs have gone up, that he is caught in the cost-price squeeze and at the same time in some areas is unable to get a better price for his product, but there is one area in which he has certainly been able to get a better price for his product, thanks to this government's policy, and that is in the area of manufacturing milk. However much his costs have gone up I suggest I am very safe in saying they have not gone up during the last three years 23033-908
Supply-Agriculture
in the proportion of $2.66 to $4.75, which is the price we have made available to him now.
With regard to the hon. member's question about $4.75 milk, the statement is very clear. It is very specific. I know the hon. member understands it, and I hope he does not wish to delude either this chamber or the farmers in any way. What we have said is that our support policy will enable factories to pay $3.54 for milk which, with the $1.21 subsidy, will give a price of $4.75 for milk.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
As I said last year and repeat now, we have no authority to force factories to pay any price whatsoever. We have a support program that will enable them to pay $3.54. In the province of Ontario machinery has been set up which will compel the factories to pay this price when the support program enables them to do so. The minister in the province of Quebec has assured me that in the ensuing year they will have similar machinery available so that they will be in a position to fix the price. In the province of Quebec and possibly in other parts of Canada there are remote areas in which there are casein and roller powder plants which may not be able to pay this price. This applies particularly in respect of casein. The minister in the province of Quebec has assured me that as a result of the savings which will ensue from our taking over the support in respect of manufacturing milk they will be able to supplement provincially those areas in which the companies cannot pay the $3.54.
I should like to make it abundantly clear that I have never said that we are fixing the price, that we can fix the price, or have the authority to do so. The statistics I have indicate that in some areas, particularly in Quebec, some factories may not be able to pay this price but, from the statements which have been made to me, the provincial government will put them in a position to pay it then in fact the factory will pay this price to the producer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am stressing this problem because it is extremely important. We were told, last year, that our dairy policy would give the farmers, the producers of industrial milk, an average of $4 per hundredweight of milk and it is precisely this $4 per hundredweight that allowed certain industries to avoid paying that price.
Now, since the minister tells us that his government is granting the necessary aid to

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
enable industry to pay $3.54 per hundredweight could he say whether the assistance his department is giving the dairy industry is designed to secure a minimum of $3.54 per hundredweight?
Does he not feel it would be better to set a minimum price the manufacturers or the processors would have to pay the milk producers, as he has said that his department was giving all the necessary assistance and the required support so that the milk industry could be in a position to pay $3.54 per hundredweight of milk?
Since the federal government is providing the assistance necessary for a minimum payment of $3.54, why is his Department not setting a minimum price of $3.54 per hundredweight as the price to be paid by the operators of the milk industry to the milk producers?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, as I explained before, the best advice I have is that at the federal level we do not have the authority to fix prices within a province. This is a provincial responsibility. I do not know whether it will be feasible in all the provinces to have boards which set prices. Certainly, however, this is a matter which will be discussed by me with the provincial ministers. I know this already has been done in the province of Ontario and I am assured by the minister that it will be done in the province of Quebec. Surely this should answer the fears of my hon. friend concerning the $3.54 being paid, provided that the action which I have been assured will be taken is carried out by the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is an important problem. I realize that everyone is anxious to complete as soon as possible, the consideration of those estimates; nevertheless, I would have one or two questions to put to the minister.
Could the minister tell me whether his Department would object to the payment of additional subsidies by the Quebec government, if the dairy industry was unable to pay the price of $3.54 per hundredweight of industrial milk?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, the problems in respect of provincial subsidies which arose last year made life very difficult for those provinces which did not have the subsidies.

When a subsidy in one province enables a manufacturer in that province to produce more cheaply than a manufacturer in another province, this leads to an unnatural flow of the product across the provinces and makes it difficult for the federal government to exercise its responsibility equitably over the movement of the product across provincial boundaries. Accordingly, the ministers from the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and I met and resolved the problem as best we could. I believe we reached a viable solution. It was agreed that provincial subsidies would be removed provided that the federal program for the ensuing year included an increase of a minimum of 25 cents. This has been done. It was made quite clear, however, that in areas such as those which have casein or roller powder plants, or other remote areas where the plants are not able to pay the $3.54, the province of Quebec would have every right to subsidize those producers up to the $3.54 level.
It was suggested that the funds they would save by reason of the Federal increase in our support level, which I understand would amount to $8 million or $9 million, could be used for that purpose and, along with capital expenditures, for the purpose of rationalization of the industries in those areas which do not have economic plants or, in particular, in which there is a desire to carry out a conversion from casein.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly the minister's statement, his department would see no objection in allowing the Quebec government to pay additional subsidies which would enable the leaders of the dairy industry to pay $3.54 for a hundredweight of milk?
In my view, that is what his statement is all about.


John James Greene: I think that is quite correct. I might add that I would be somewhat presumptuous if I were to tell any province what kind of subsidies it should provide. I think it was agreed that if there were to be provincial subsidies they should be equalized, that is, that a disparity in respect of subsidies between one province and another would not lead to an efficient and economic industry. In our deliberations, however, I believe the provincial ministers preferred to get out of the business of subsidies on manufacturing milk in consideration of a better federal program
March 22, 1967

and in turn we believe the responsibility in respect of fluid milk should remain with the provinces.
{Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have another question and I should like to clarify this point, as I know it is one of the most important problems facing the Quebec dairy producers. As a matter of fact, the province of Quebec has a right, and this was recognized at the conference between the federal Minister of Agriculture and his counterparts in Ontario and Quebec, to pay a subsidy for manufacturing milk, but only up to $3.54 per hundredweight of milk, so that this will be standardized throughout Canada. Then, the province of Quebec will have the right to grant a subsidy up to this amount of $3.54 per hundredweight of milk.
And now, another point, since this is what the Minister of Agriculture just told us. I think that, at that time, the Quebec milk producers-


Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: It is not
that at all.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I hear the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Asselin) telling me it is not that at all. Perhaps I misunderstood the answer of the Minister of Agriculture.
Therefore Mr. Chairman, I will again direct my question to the minister. If milk producers received less than $3.54 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk in some areas, the Quebec government could make up for the difference by means of subsidies, so that the dairy producer would get a minimum of $3.54 per hundredweight?
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I have tried to answer this question four times but apparently I am not getting through to the hon. member. I cannot stop provincial governments from paying whatever subsidies they wish. They have the constitutional right to pay any subsidy they desire.
The gist of our agreement last year was that we would envisage a program in respect of subsidies which would improve the situation of the industrial milk farmer by the provision of a minimum of $3.54 in the coming year. The provincial governments indicated that if such was the case they would stay out of the manufacturing milk subsidy field 23033-908J
Supply-Agriculture
except in those areas where the plants could not be supported to the extent of $3.54 because of economic reasons. It was agreed by the three parties at that time that if Quebec adopted such a program in those areas enabling producers to get $3.54 it would be in keeping with the spirit and tenor of the agreement we made.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have another question for the Minister of Agriculture-


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I should not like to let this opportunity pass without assuring the minister that I do not belong to the school which believes in the weights and measures criterion. I belong to the school which believes we should get away from this spending spree but not at the expense of the farmers. The 33 J per cent figure in which the minister took such pride is relative to the amount of milk produced and does not relate to dollars and cents. We should look at production and methods of providing farmers with a better way of living.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend te take part in this discussion at this time but I cannot let the minister's partisan remarks go by without comment. He suggested that the facts put on record by those of my colleagues who are not present at this time in the house were substantially incorrect. Will the minister accept the facts in respect of agriculture put forward by my colleagues or does he stand by his figures and say that the farmers in Canada never had it so good?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, those are the hon. member's words, not mine. My remarks and the statistics I placed on the record clearly indicate that from the standpoint of productivity the Canadian farmer is doing the best job he has ever done and the best job being done by farmers in any part of the world. From the standpoint of gross income we have made considerable improvement. I have said time and time again, and if this is what the hon. gentleman has reference to I agree with him, that we have done quite a bit but must do a great deal more. On the other hand, we cannot contribute to the accomplishment of better policies or a better way of life for the farmer by mis-stating the facts or misleading the farmers by suggesting that farming is a dying industry and there is no

March 22, 1967
Supply-Agriculture
hope. That attitude will not contribute anything. I take exception to this attitude when expressed by hon. members. My contention is that we have done a great deal but we must do more.


Gilles Grégoire: A further question, Mr. Chairman.
The Minister of Agriculture knows that when a dairy producer produces fluid milk for bottling, the dairy fixes a quota, and when such a quota is exceeded for an additional quantity of 20 per cent, the dairy no longer has to pay a minimum or average price to dairy producers. Therefore, this means that if a farmer has a 500-pound quota and he comes to the dairy with 700 pounds of milk, he will get his maximum or the average price on 500 pounds, but on the extra 200 pounds he may as well get $2.00, $2.25 or $2.30 per hundredweight. In this way, his average price for 700 pounds of milk is greatly reduced.
Can the minister tell us whether, under the new dairy policy announced today, dairies will have to pay $3.54 per hundredweight for any surplus, above the quota fixed, that will be used as bottled fluid milk, but as manufacturing milk to be processed into butter, cheese and other dairy products? In other words, will the policy announced today also apply to any surplus, starting with the first pound of milk, above the quotas fixed by the dairies?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, the statement very clearly indicates that responsibility for the fluid milk industry as far as we are concerned now rests with the provinces. No matter how hard everyone tries to do his best it is difficult to devise effective programs when there is mixed jurisdictions. As a result of our agreement with the provinces last year, under which we accept responsibility for the support of manufacturing milk, we deemed it in the interest of the industry generally that we should leave the entire authority and jurisdiction in respect of fluid milk with the provinces.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am not referring to the quantity of fluid milk for bottling sold by the dairy farmer, I am talking about that part of the small producer's milk to be used as manufactured milk and processed by the manufacturer. I am dealing only with that part used as manufactured

milk and brought by the farmer to the dairy in excess of the quota fixed by the dairy.
I shall therefore repeat my question. If a farmer brings 700 lbs. of milk to the dairy when his quota is fixed at 500 lbs., that quantity will be bottled and sold as fluid milk. Then, that quantity of milk will come under provincial jurisdiction, but will the remaining 200 lbs. used as manufactured milk and processed as butter, cheese or other products be subject to the new dairy policy announced today by the minister? That is what I want to know.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 172 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, can the minister answer this question; it is the last one I have to put to him. Will that part which is to be used as manufacturing milk and processed at the factory, and which will not be used as fluid or bottled milk, come under the new dairy policy announced today? Will the new dairy policy apply to part of manufacturing milk? That is what I should like to know from the minister.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry? [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, all I want from the minister is yes or no. It is my last question. Could the minister answer it? Will it come under his jurisdiction?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I want to answer the question if I can.


Gilles Grégoire: Just say yes or no.


John James Greene: As I understand the nomenclature of the trade, if you have a fluid milk quota and you deliver to a fluid milk plant you are a fluid milk producer whatever your quota may be. Everyone who has a fluid quota is looked upon as a fluid milk producer. It is the intention of this program that those individuals will come under provincial jurisdiction and that those individuals who do not have fluid quotas will come under federal jurisdiction so far as subsidy and support are concerned.
March 22, 1967

[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister could have answered much faster. Is the answer to my question, yes or no? We do not know it by the way he answers, because he says finally that fluid milk comes under provincial jurisdiction. I admit that, but I am referring to the surplus fluid milk which will be used as manufacturing milk and which will be processed. Does that part of the manufacturing milk come under the jurisdiction of the dairy policy announced today? It is simple. Is it yes or no, Mr. Chairman.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, surplus fluid milk does not come under the policy announced today.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 17g carry?


Gilles Grégoire: On division, since we did not get any satisfactory answer from the minister. Mr. Chairman, I say "on division" because-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Lapointe is now insisting on the answer that he would like to receive.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not insisting; I say "on division" because I am far from satisfied with the answers given by the minister, because every time we ask him questions, every time we try to get precise details, he refers us to the Quebec government, and Quebec refers us to Ottawa. In fact, farmers do not know where they stand. Let us organize a system whereby a farmer knows exactly where he should apply. Both governments tax him, but when the time comes to know what to do or to get answers, he gets such a vague answer like: "It is the other one, it is not our fault, but the fault of the other."
If both governments want to keep on taxing, let them organize so as to give him at least satisfactory answers instead of letting him always find himself between two stools or on the fence, which is the least interesting situation I know of. When taxation time comes, he is made to sit down and taxed, but when it is time to do him a service, he finds himself between two stools. That is why I say "on division".
Supply-C.B.C.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 17g carry? Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
20g. Administration, operation and maintenance, $223,600.
Plant and plant products-
35g. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $1.
Health of animals-
40g. Administration, operation and maintenance. $136,000.
45g. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $1.
Canadian dairy commission-
65g. Administration, operation and maintenance. $49,000.
Farm credit corporation-
90g. Estimated amount required to provide for the operating loss of the farm credit corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967, $2,600,000.


Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture.



ATOMIC ENERGY

[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to:
Atomic energy control board- lg. Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, $2,214.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-
(Research program)-
lOg. Current operation and maintenance, including expendable research equipment, $1,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
lg. Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, $800,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I should like to put to the minister under this item which calls for an additional grant of $800,000 to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am not against the grant but I have a question I should like to ask; indeed, I have a suggestion to make.
On January 16 this year I filed a question on the order paper in which I asked for figures covering the calendar year 1966. My question asked how much money had been spent by the various departments of the government on advertising over C.B.C. radio, C.B.C. television, private radio and private television.
My question was made an order for return on March 13, 1967, and a return was tabled that day which is identified as sessional paper No. 238C. I must say that I was a bit amazed to discover from the information contained in

March 22, 1967
Supply-C.B.C.
this return that with the exception of one department of the federal government all the departments that do any advertising over radio or television stations spend considerably more money on the private radio and television stations than they do in advertising over the C.B.C. The minister will see immediately why I indicated that I had a suggestion to make to him, that if the C.B.C. needs some extra money maybe one of the ways we could do it would be by transferring government advertising from private stations to the public stations, or at least by doing it on something of a 50-50 basis-not the one horse, one rabbit, a suggestion that was made earlier today.
I will not take the time of the committee to put all the figures on the record; as I say, they are contained in sessional paper No. 238C. But let me give the totals. The total amount spent by the government in advertising over C.B.C. radio last year was $67,511, and over C.B.C. television stations $149,733. I am omitting the cents. But the government spent in advertising over private radio stations $510,246, and over private television stations $502,711. If I may go one step further and just add those figures together, both radio and television, it adds up to an expenditure of $217,255 in advertising over the C.B.C. but $1,012,958 in advertising over private radio and television stations. There is a difference there of almost 5 to 1. In fact, in one of the minister's own departments-I am thinking of the minister as having three departments, the Treasury Board, taxation and customs -Treasury Board and customs apparently did no advertising of this kind, whereas the taxation people spent $3,857 in advertising over C.B.C. but $77,854 in advertising over private radio.
I am going to ask the minister for an explanation. I ask why this kind of advertising is not divided a little more evenly between the two broadcasting regimes in this country; and does he not agree that here is a way where money might be obtained by the C.B.C. for advertising services rendered, rather than having to make a grant at this time? I do not wish it to be inferred that I think the advertising that is done is all worth while. Some of it is, but I think some of it is not. I am not going into that matter now; I am going, rather, into the question of the inequity of the way in which this advertising money is spent.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, of course I cannot speak for all advertising that is done and how it is divided as between C.B.C. radio and private radio stations. But I can speak with

respect to my particular department and the taxation division. The advertising that is carried out on radio is allocated in order to achieve coverage in all cities in Canada and all areas of Canada.
There is a much greater number of private radio stations than C.B.C. stations. The C.B.C. stations cover the major markets. Where these stations exist, they are used. Every station is covered by the advertising agency based on listener reports. They are selected by the agency in order to obtain maximum coverage. There was no television involved with regard to my department. To obtain the coverage we wanted in the areas we wished to cover, we had to use far more private stations in number, and consequently in dollars, than C.B.C. stations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, does the minister expect me to believe that this explains the disparity in his own department of 20 to 1?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says yes but he has not convinced me.


Edgar John Benson: I would be very pleased to show my hon. friend the breakdown in the submission which was given to me by the advertising agency in order to accomplish the coverage which was desired in this particular campaign.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would still like to suggest to the minister, in his capacity as President of the Treasury Board, which looks at these expenditures, that he take another look at this question of the government spending five times as much on private stations as on the C.B.C.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, since parliament has given us practically no opportunity to discuss matters relating to the C.B.C.-the latest example of that was when the estimates of the C.B.C. were withdrawn from the committee on broadcasting and brought into the full house a few weeks ago-I should like to make some comments on this vote. Since the C.B.C. gives no information to anybody, they cannot be said to have a spokesman in the house. I have referred to the Secretary of State on several occasions as representing the C.B.C. She certainly does not answer for it, as she is never given any information with which to answer questions.
March 22, 1967

I can say that I can state the position of the C.B.C. with regard to the most recent exchange between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of National Revenue. One reason for the great disparity in the moneys paid out to private stations as compared to those paid the C.B.C. is that private stations have a much greater audience appeal and a much larger number of listeners and viewers. This can be proved by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. If the cabinet wishes to reach the largest number of viewers and listeners for the money it is spending, it has to use private stations.
It will be interesting to have an analysis made of the figures which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just produced to see how much money was spent on private stations which are located in centres where there is also a C.B.C. station. I find it hard to believe, after having been in the advertising business for 40 years, that the disparity could not be reduced in the smaller communities where the C.B.C. does not have an outlet, especially in view of the fact that rates are not very high in these smaller communities. The most interesting comparison would be between the money that is spent on private stations in centres where there is a C.B.C. outlet and places where they operate alone. I do not expect this information will be given to us much before one or one and a half years have elapsed, at which time we will have forgotten about the whole matter.
My purpose in rising now is to ask two questions. I note that in the past few days that great Canadian commentator, Mr. James F. Minifie, who is a full fledged American citizen and therefore is in a position to look through Canadian eyes at affairs going on in Washington and in the United States, and is able to tell us stay-at-home Canadians how he looks at Canadian affairs, has recently made a trip to Guam with the President of the United States. If it is at all possible I should like to ascertain whether or not the C.B.C. paid anything for the passage of Mr. Minifie, a United States citizen, because of the attack made by Mr. Knowlton Nash on three Canadian newspapermen alleging that when they took part in an aeroplane trip to South Viet Nam paid for by the United States government their opinions were therefore coloured. If these newspapermen's opinions were coloured by the fact that they flew to South Viet Nam at no expense, what about the opinions of Mr. Minifie who flew to Guam? If we are told that
Supply-C.B.C.
Mr. Minifie's expenses were paid, can we ascertain from the C.B.C. how much the C.B.C. paid for that trip?
If he was only paid $100 or so, as a token
payment, which is nothing compared to what it would cost to fly from Washington to Guam, survey the scene and fly back, then there is nothing more to say. Otherwise I do not see how the C.B.C. can allow a man like Mr. Nash to stand before the microphones and accuse people who fly to South Viet Nam at the expense of the United States government of being biased in their opinions, while a fellow citizen commentator, Mr. Minifie, flies to Guam and back and we have to believe that his opinions are absolutely crystal clear and pure. If the C.B.C. would stop attacking competing media and look after its own house, it would be much better. I would ask the minister to ascertain how much money the C.B.C. paid for Mr. Minifie's flight to Guam.
Has the C.B.C. taken a definite stand to do everything possible to offend the U.S. government? I have stood in this house on numerous occasions and stated that, come what may, the foreign policy of this nation should be to maintain the closest possible friendship with the United States. I will repeat this tonight. In the last 24 hours we were told about a group of U.S. citizens who, according to the United States government, were violating the United States law in taking medical supplies to North Viet Nam by launch from Hong Kong. They are going to North Viet Nam with $10,000 worth of medical supplies. I say: All power to them, and God bless them in the work of compassion which they are performing. I certainly do not criticize them.
We are told, when we are performing any works of compassion, not to let our left hand know what our right hand is doing. I do not know of any organization that is getting more free publicity for their limited work in helping the injured in North Viet Nam than the organization which is operating that launch from Hong Kong to Hanoi. Yet why is the C.B.C. sending a man to travel alongside the launch in preparation of an hour long documentary? Is the C.B.C. going to spend its time to show that the United States government is performing great outrages in North Viet Nam and at the same time prepare a documentary on these fine gentlemen who are going out in a launch with medical supplies, to show the fine work they are doing?
The $10,000 in gifts going to North Viet Nam is nothing compared to the value of the free advertising that this trip in a launch is

March 22, 1967
Supply-C.B.C.
receiving. Why does the C.B.C. have to commission a freelancer to go along and make a documentary of the trip? Is it not enough to tell us that medical supplies are being run to North Viet Nam and the United States does not like it? Why does the C.B.C., which is paid for from Canadian government funds, have to have a man following the launch to prepare a documentary showing that $10,000 worth of medical supplies are being brought to North Viet Nam? It is galling, the way the C.B.C. is eternally needling the United States and its attitude with regard to North Viet Nam, as well as its attitude in other parts of the world where the United States government has to take an active stand while more supine governments take no stand at all. Why is the C.B.C. always needling the United States?
Can the minister ascertain whether the C.B.C. is paying for Mr. Minifie's trip to Guam and back, and can he also advise us whether the C.B.C. has taken a definite anti-U.S. stand in the light of the fact that Beryl Fox had been sent to South Viet Nam, and now this freelancer is going to North Viet Nam?


John Mercer Reid: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman who just spoke whether he knows it as a fact that Knowlton Nash is a United States citizen?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I never made such a statement. I said Mr. Minifie is a United States citizen. I do not have enough interest in Knowlton Nash to inquire what his citizenship is.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I was only going to take about five minutes of the time of the committee to make my comments, and I would not even take up that much time except for what the previous speaker has mentioned, namely that we never get a chance to discuss the C.B.C. in this house. In fact we have not had such a chance for years, except for the briefest exchanges during the question period.
There are one or two points which I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. I do not suppose that my comments will make any difference in the outcome because this extra expenditure will be approved this time. I should like to know who if anybody in the C.B.C.-and I suspect no one-has any control over the amount of money that is spent on these trips, and what is their purpose.
People are being sent on such junkets as this trip to North Viet Nam to cover the Quaker launch taking supplies to Hanoi, and

we could name many more instances. I realize that people in the C.B.C. think there is a limitless well of money, and all they have to do is ask for it, that no matter what the purpose of such an expenditure might be, parliament will grant it. To be fair, I do not blame the C.B.C. officials for thinking this because the supine parliament, of which I have been a member for many years has always voted, almost without question, whatever amount of money the C.B.C. has asked for. As I said earlier, parliament seldom gets the opportunity to do much questioning of the operations of the C.B.C.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
As the previous speaker very well pointed out, the C.B.C. seems to be more interested in being anti-American than it is in looking after the problems in Canada. They send all sorts of people down to the southern United States to take pictures, make documentaries and all the rest about the very difficult race problems existing in the southern United States. This is of some interest to Canadians, of course; but for a while every time you turned on the radio or a television set all you would hear about was the problems of the southern United States.
The C.B.C. should spend more of the taxpayers' money on trying to better the lot of the Canadian Indians and Eskimos and some of the other groups in this country. This would be much better than spending much of their time broadcasting the problems of other countries. Though these may be of some interest to Canadians, they are not of paramount interest. Our main interest is, or should be, the problems we in Canada face, and we should be told how we can cure them. I suspect that some of the people in the C.B.C.-for what reason I know not, though I have my suspicions-want to do all they can to damage the image and reputation of the United States in Canada; and we all know who will benefit the most from this.
There are many other examples I could cite in this regard, Mr. Chairman, but my time is limited. I should like whoever is replying for the C.B.C. just to cite one example during the course of the last two or three years, or even further back than that, of a program that was even neutral in content toward the United States. All of the programs I have heard were violently anti-American, and I am a constant listener to the C.B.C. We will have a great deal more to say on this matter on another occasion, but I think this matter should be brought before the house as often as possible.
March 22, 1967	COMMONS
One of the main criticisms I have heard of the C.B.C.-and it is one of my own as well-is that some people in the C.B.C. seem to have a God-given mission, a self-appointed one, I may add, to know what is best for the people of Canada and they make sure that Canadians get it whether they like it or not. They decide a certain economic policy or political policy or social policy is good for Canadians and they ram it down our throats. All you have to do is listen to any of the commentators on programs, or C.B.C. spokesmen, and you will see what I mean.
I have no objection to some people in the C.B.C. wishing to make it a policy to brainwash the public, provided both sides of a controversial subject are presented. I know that there is, of course, a very practical disadvantage to this suggestion, because if the brain trusters in the C.B.C. decide to promote anti-Americanism, or socialism, or something else, they will do so. Then if they are asked to present the other side of the picture, all they will do is to put on the program people who do not present a very good case for the other side. That is all they will do and I know that perfectly well.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I think that some sort of body should be given the power to make regulations. Certainly the Board of Broadcast Governors do not do their job, that's for sure; otherwise we would not have this problem. I suppose a lot of people like to be appointed to the board because it gives them some prestige and they never do anything. I think they should pay more attention to their jobs.
To return to the subject, before the C.B.C. is given a lot more money by this parliament it should be impressed upon that organization that they will not get it unless controversial subjects of great public interest are presented in a fashion which shows both points of view. This has never been done to date, and I think it should.
I do not wish to take up the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, because we all wish to get things completed as soon as possible; but I know that a good many of my colleagues on both sides of the house will have more to say on this subject.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that, as my hon. friend of course knows, the government is not responsible for the programming policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The best I can do
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources is to bring to the attention of the C.B.C. through the Secretary of State the remarks made by hon. members in this chamber.
I should point out that the amount of money we are asking for in this estimate is $800,000. This represents part of the cost of the increased salaries that were agreed upon in negotiations this year. We pressed them very hard to find as much of this as they could out of their existing budget, and this is the balance which could not be found.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I just ask one question. Is any of this money for these colour television sets we have been hearing about?


Edgar John Benson: No. This is purely salaries, nothing to do with television sets, to the best of my knowledge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is conveying what has been said here to the C.B.C. officials, I hope he will also add that there are some programs the C.B.C. puts on which some of us think are very good and very useful.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
lg. Salaries and expenses of officer, $2,060.
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to:
A-DepartmentlOg. Reimbursement of the supply service revolving fund for the value of stores which have become obsolete or unserviceable, $13,423.
15g. Reimbursement of the queen's printer's advance account for the value of stores which have become obsolete or unserviceable, $36,678.
C-Crown companies-
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
40g. Administration and operation, $391,000.
45g. Construction, improvements and equipment, $67,700.

[Stage Direction]
Administration services- lg. Departmental administration, $104,000.
['As I understand the situation, there were almost as many last year. However, that is neither here nor there. As I explained earlier, many of these items are not legislative items, inasmuch as they only change a vote wording. I read into Hansard a little earlier this evening an explanation of all of them. As I recall it there were only three which were really legislative items, two of them with respect to the pension plan and superannuation contributions of civil servants.\n[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)\nPerhaps I might take the blame for there being an oversight. Were that not provided we should have to amend the Superannuation Act. This is a once and for all item, and may be dealt with in this manner. I can assure my hon. friend that I do not like this because, no matter what department comes before the committee I have the responsibility for getting it through, and I know how difficult that is.']
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak briefly on a matter that is of importance to Canadians generally and of particular importance to those who have been following the question carefully and have made some study of it. I refer to the growing
14372	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources concern across this country among professional people and other Canadians at the decision of the United States to increase the capacity of Grand Coulee dam from 2 million kilowatts per annum to 9.2 million kilowatts per annum by 1990, all based on storage in Canada.
I think that more and more Canadians are realizing that this situation has resulted from an unfortunate mistake on the part of the Canadian government and the government of British Columbia, and they at least hope that this experience will make us very careful when we come to develop a national water policy in the days ahead.
In order to save time I want briefly to quote from the Globe and Mail for January 14, 1967, which contained this article by Mr. Bruce Macdonald from Washington:
Largely as a result of water storage facilities provided by Canada under the Columbia River treaty, the power-generating capacity of Grand Coulee dam in Washington state will be increased from the present level of almost two million kilowatts to a proposed output in the 1990's of 9.2 million kilowatts, making the Grand Coulee the largest power dam in the world.
Interior Secretary Stewart Udall announced yesterday that a start had been authorized on the addition at once of a further 3.6 million kilowatts, as anticipated at the time the agreement was signed with Canada for the joint development of the Columbia River power and flood-control facilities.
Further on in the article the following appears:
Despite the U.S. contention, Canadian sources-
We do not know at the moment who they were.
-expected that officials in Ottawa would almost certainly scrutinize the complex formula laid down in the treaty with Washington to determine whether the addition of power-generating capacity would entitle Canada to claim increased compensation.
Canadian officials noted that even if the total power output was no greater than anticipated at the time the treaty was signed, it was possible the fine print would show that British Columbia was entitled to a higher payment if the extra power produced was used to meet peak demand and was therefore capable of being sold to power distributors at a higher price than electricity for base demands.
Then under the subheading "Canada sold down river, Toronto economist says", Mr. Macdonald writes:
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Mr. Higgins said: "The U.S. is taking advantage of the tremendous opportunity for the investment in very cheap power and very cheap storage. I don't think there is an estimate available as to the cost the United States would face to get the

DEBATES	March 22, 1967
peaking power they would need if the Canadian storage was not provided."
Mr. Higgins said Canada would not reap any of the benefits the United States is obtaining from the savings brought about by the cheap peaking power of the Columbia.
"Canada should have got greater benefits in the treaty, Canada is not even going to get enough money from the treaty to cover the costs of building the storage capacity, which will only aid the United States. We get zero from it."
Then, in Vancouver, Dr. Hugh L. Keenley-side, co-chairman of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, said:
Increased power-production in the United States would have no bearing on major power development projects under way in British Columbia.
There is a final statement from another Canadian expert on the treaty, Mr. Gordon MacNabb, of the water resources branch, of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. He agreed with Dr. Keenleyside in that the Coulee announcement would have no effect on Canada. He said water stored several hundred miles away in Canada would not be affected by the operation, and the extra capacity would have been installed whether or not there had been a treaty.
This has created concern among hydro engineers. Not long ago a leading engineer spent two hours with me discussing this question, which has been discussed at professional meetings with engineers. These people, who did not take a stand when the treaty was signed, think that Canada has been sold down the river as far as this treaty is concerned. Others are becoming concerned. I know that trade unions in British Columbia particularly are concerned, as well as some in Ontario. I see the hon. member for Kootenay East smiling; he knows what I am talking about.


Mr. Byrne:: That is N.D.P. propaganda.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Also farm organizations as well as other organizations in the province having to deal with the conservation of water resources generally in Canada are concerned with this question, as the result of considering it. Having discussed this question at the union meetings, and at other meetings, I happen to know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is receiving an increasing flow of correspondence dealing with this question, urging that he have the Columbia River treaty brought before the appropriate committee so that it can be studied, and so that officials of our water resources branch can be examined again.
March 22, 1967

A few days ago one of the top hydro engineers in Canada told me that though Mr. MacNabb is competent in his field, never in his life has he operated a hydro plant. Other engineers consider him a theorist. These engineers would like the officials of our water resources branch to be brought before the committee and examined, to defend the situation as it is today. We all know that to build this project will cost British Columbia more than it will receive from the United States.
With these few comments I conclude my brief remarks. I have sat here patiently for the great part of the day. I ask the minister to convey my message of this evening to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the first opportunity.


Edgar John Benson: I shall do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
Field and air surveys, mapping and aeronautical charting-
20g. Administration, operation and maintenance, $100,000.
General-
85g. Polar continental shelf project, $251,000.
B-Dominion coal boardlOOg. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $6,500.
105g. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council-To extend the authority granted by mines and technical surveys vote 75b, Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964, as amended by mines and technical surveys vote 75d, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1966, and by energy, mines and resources vote 105c, Appropriation Act No. 9, 1966, to increase to $37,737,911 the amount that may be spent pursuant thereto in the current fiscal year; additional amount required, $4,591,686.

[Stage Direction]
lg. Administration, operation and maintenance, including a payment to the Roosevelt Campobello international park commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the act respecting the commission established to administer the Roosevelt Campobello international park, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $1.
Thomas Miller Bell: An answer to one matter might facilitate consideration of these estimates. I notice that one amount here is set out at $32,000; beneath that amount fortuitously is found the amount of $31,999, the difference happening to be $1. If the minister will explain at this time how it is that these amounts occur so fortuitously, he may get the co-operation from this side he is not getting from his own side.

Supply-External Affairs


Edgar John Benson: I appreciate the co-operation I have received from all sides of the house. Perhaps I can say a few words about the $1 items in general. There are 18 of these particular items. Ten amend or extend the authority contained in previous vote wordings. They do not affect the provisions of any statute law, other than previous appropriation acts. They amend the amount or extend the purposes.
The ten votes in this category are: Department of Agriculture, votes 35g and 45g; Department of External Affairs, vote lg; Department of Defence Production, vote 13g; Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, votes 3g, 15g and L51g; then there is Department of Manpower and Immigration, vote 30g; Department of Transport, vote 20g, and Department of Public Works, vote 30g.
Three of the one dollar items are set aside under a provision of the Financial Administration Act to permit the carrying out of a particular transaction, without amending the act or affecting its application to other transactions. These are, Department of External Affairs, vote 6g; Department of Transport, vote L82g and Board of Transport Commissioners, vote 82g. One item sets aside on a similar basis for a specific case a provision of the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, without amending the act or affecting its application to other cases. This is Department of Veterans Affairs, vote 6g.
One item seeks the authority to write off certain uncollectible debts in excess of $1,000. Parliament alone can grant this authority since the Financial Administration Act gives authority to the governor in council only with respect to debts not exceeding $1,000. This does not involve amending any statute. It seeks an authority for which no statute makes provision, and this is Treasury Board vote 25g.
The three remaining items, out of 18, involve, technically, changes affecting existing statutes. Department of Industry, vote 15g, increases a commitment authority originally fixed in the Area Development Incentives Act. This will not affect the original provision of funds but it does increase the commitment authority, so that further projects can be carried out. In due course parliament will have to authorize the funds to carry them out. This is merely to allow the Department of Industry to increase its area development commitment up to $200 million from the present commitment limit of $125 million.

March 22, 1967
Supply-External Affairs
Treasury Board votes 19g and 24g each involve a technical amendment of the Public Service Superannuation Act, first, to delete defunct corporations or boards as well as persons already covered by other plans from the coverage of the act, and second to set a 6.5 per cent ceiling on the combined public service superannuation and Canada Pension Plan contributions in regard of all earned income received after December 31, 1965. This, I might say, was necessary because with respect to income received after December 31, 1965, which was earned in 1965, employees without this amendment might have been committed to pay 8.3 per cent rather than the 6.5 per cent. We have assured members of the public service that their contributions would be on the same basis as previously.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sg. Representation abroad-operational, $195,000.
Item agreed to.
6g. To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be known as the Canada foundation account, to which shall be credited (a) the interest payable on the bonds received by Canada under the civilian relief agreement of 1950 and the cultural agreement of 1954 between Canada and Italy, and (b) the proceeds from the sale, redemption or maturity of the said bonds and notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide in the current and subsequent fiscal years and in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council for payment out of the Canada foundation account for the purposes of the said agreements, $1.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am speaking on item 6g under Department of External Affairs on page 8, Mr. Chairman. I do not like the way these estimates are being jammed through the committee-and that is the proper way to describe it. I might emphasize that this is no reflection on the Minister of National Revenue.
As the minister has already pointed out, there are 18 one-dollar items in these supplementary estimates. By no means are they legislative items. The cabinet has learned that the house does not like one-dollar items in the supplementary estimates, as is proven by their not proceeding at the present time with supplementary estimate No. 7, under the Department of the Secretary of State, for $750,000 on behalf of educational broadcasting facilities, which should be brought in as a separate bill so that it may be fully discussed by the house.

We have 18 one-dollar items, of which one, and possibly two others, might affect legislation now on the statute books. Also I want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that in these supplementary estimates there will be found eight times the expression "notwithstanding" some act already on the statute books of the nation. This means that these supplementary estimates, if passed in their present form, will set aside the requirements of eight pieces of legislation. For instance, under vote 6g of the Department of External Affairs we are asked to set aside section 35 of the Financial Administration Act. This is money that has been received from the people. It has been taken in by the Receiver General of Canada and paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Why cannot this money be taken by the Receiver General of Canada into the consolidated revenue fund in the same way as all other moneys are received? I do not see any urgency about setting up tonight a separate organization to accept this money from a foreign government. It will not be embarrassed by any delay caused by the time taken to bring in a bill to create the change suggested in this one-dollar item.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I have addressed myself to this item 6g in particular. I have made no comment about other one-dollar items up to this point, because they do not have the effect of legislation. But if we turn to page 12 of these estimates we will find under vote 20g a statement that, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, something is being done. On page 13 under the heading "Industry", vote 15g, we find the words "to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act-" and so on. Then if we move on to page 17, under the heading "Privy Council", we find in vote 5g "Ministers without Portfolio-payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act-", and so on. In all, there are eight separate references setting aside some law of the land at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not like to see legislation by supplementary estimate and I do not like to see the law of the land being set aside by this means. I frankly think this vote 6g could be set aside, and this situation handled in a more parliamentary manner than by a supplementary estimate. I mean every word of what I say with regard to this item 6g, and hope it will be withdrawn and brought up for consideration at some time in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
March 22, 1967
[Stage Direction]
15g. Assessments, contributions and other payments to international (including commonwealth) organizations and international multilateral economic and special aid programs as detailed in the estimates, $256,000.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is an amount here of $25,000, a contribution to the United Nations program for the education and training abroad of South Africans. I wonder whether the minister could give us an explanation of this.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, because I remember this particular item. I myself questioned whether we were not, perhaps, contributing to the *education of persons who believe in something in which we ourselves do not believe. I was assured that this money goes to helping young persons who have left South Africa to obtain education outside South Africa. I could get a further explanation if I were given a minute or so in which to look one up.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I imagined that this was the purpose of the item. What concerns me is that we might be setting a precedent here, and find ourselves contributing funds for students in goodness knows how many countries around the world because they do not like the government of the country to which they belong. I can think of a great many countries where funds such as this might be set up. We might be setting a precedent here which would be most undesirable. We do a great deal ourselves in the education of foreign students and I think hon. members are very much in favour of such a program. But I wonder whether the precedent we are setting here is a good one. Could the minister perhaps find out whether South Africa is contributing toward this United Nations project? We would be interested in knowing the answer though I realize he may not be able to provide it immediately.


Edgar John Benson: I will certainly try to find an opportunity to give the hon. gentleman a more detailed answer. In the meantime, I can assure him that this question was examined very carefully by the cabinet before this grant was determined on, and it was decided that the vote would be quite proper in the circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
External aid office-
35g. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the estimates, $3,500,000.
Supply-Finance
[Stage Direction]
lg. Departmental administration including administration of the Guaranteed Loans Acts, $125,200.
Item agreed to.
Thomas Miller Bell: There is an item here amounting to $35,200 and a note which reads "Less: Amount recoverable from Treasury Board for Administrative Services". Can the minister explain what this means? Is this one of the magical items we heard about earlier? Is this amount recoverable in any case, or only because of its inclusion in this vote?


Edgar John Benson: The amount is recoverable because the Department of Finance carries out administrative services for the Department of the Treasury Board, which has now become a separate department. An amount is being paid to the Department of Finance, and the Department of Finance is only asking for the balance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3g. Grant to the endowment fund of the Vanier institute of the family, $167,000.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: I should like to ask the minister whether the Vanier Institute of the Family is being supported exclusively from the proceeds of an endowment fund. Is this to be the only grant to the institute or will there be annual grants from the government in this connection?


Edgar John Benson: The government made the Vanier Institute a capital grant which has been approved by parliament. In addition, it agreed to match dollar for dollar contributions to the institute up to a maximum amount. This particular item is the equivalent, dollar for dollar, of the amount collected by the institute.
The following items were agreed to:
Comptroller of the Treasury-
25g. Administration, including the administration of the Superannuation and Retirement Acts and recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada pension plan, $440,900.


[Stage Direction]
Administrationlg. Departmental administration, $23,000.
Fisheries management and development-
15g. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $300,000.
Supply-Justice
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1967
Special-
17g. Estimated amount required to recoup the fishing vessel indemnity account, the lobster trap indemnity account and the fixed fishing gear and shore installations indemnity account established under vote 540 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955 and vote 527 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, to cover the net operating losses in the said accounts as at March 31, 1967, $132,000.
[Stage Direction]
lg. Departmental administration, $7,000.
Forestry-
23g. Contributions to the provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the details of estimates, $130,000.
[Stage Direction]
lg. Office of the secretary to the governor general, $4,000.
[Stage Direction]
Resource development-
3g. Administration, operation and maintenance- to extend the purposes of Indian affairs and northern development vote 3 of the main estimates for 1966-67 to increase the contributions to the Canadian council of resource ministers to $107,310, $1.
Natural and historic resources-
15g. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1.
20g. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-to extend the purposes of Indian affairs and northern development vote 20 of the main estimates for 1966-67 to increase to $17,906,700 the authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year and to provide a further amount of $990,000.
Indian affairs-
30g. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as specified in the sub-vote titles in the estimates, $2,100,000.
35g. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,100,000.
Northern administration-
450. Administration, operation and maintenance, $271,600.
[Stage Direction]
15g. To authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, an increase to $200,000,000 in the total amount of commitments in the current and subsequent fiscal years for development grants under the Area Development Incentives Act, $1.
[Stage Direction]
lg. Departmental administration, $25,000.
[Stage Direction]
lg. Administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $102,000.
Richard Albert Bell: Would the minister tell us what professional and special services are included in this item for which $100,000 are provided?


Edgar John Benson: This covers legal fees, witness fees, reporters' fees and so on in connection with the appeal of Steven M. Truscott-the Truscott appeal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR B-Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
25g. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to Section 35 of the National Housing Act, 1954, for expenditures incurred during the period January 1, 1966 to December 31, 1966, for Housing Research and Community Planning as contemplated by Part V of that Act, $2,171,932.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion every Canadian has the right to adequate shelter. We have been told that we need 170,000 housing starts per year just to keep up with the present level of accommodation. Last year we had only 134,000 starts. Why? I submit there are three or four basic causes.
The first cause is high labour costs. More important is the federal government's sales tax, municipal taxes and a tight money policy. We in this party have been pressing for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax which is applied at the manufacturers level. We have been pressing for its removal with good and just reason, because we find that this tax, innocuous as it appears to be at 11 per cent, by the time it hits the ultimate consumer has been marked up by the various levels through which it passes until it reaches 15 per cent or 16 per cent.
I have been a member of the consumer credit committee, which has been informed that in the average home costing $15,000 to $18,000 roughly 60 per cent of the cost is accounted for by material, and by the time the various profits are made on the sales tax at the various levels, instead of this tax amounting to $1,000 on such a house, as it normally would, it winds up being between $1,500 to $1,600.
We definitely have a housing crisis. In fact reference has been made to a fiasco in the housing industry. I submit that the cost of government at various levels, municipal, provincial and federal is to blame to some degree.
March 22, 1967

I was recently interested to read a statement by Mr. Hignett, President of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to the effect that the average self-contained three bedroom home probably has a municipal tax burden of $38 to $40 per month, due to services which the public demands, and which has resulted in the fact that the average person earning $5,000 to $6,000 per year can no longer own or even attempt to own a home.
Another situation is developing whereby people living in limited dividend housing and subsidized housing are being forced out of such homes due to the actions of the government. Indeed at Saint John, New Brunswick, there are at present 30 or 40 vacancies in public housing because the formula which is used for rental accommodation is based on the gross take home pay of the renters. Due to the money which the government takes from the average wage earners' pay packet in Canada Pension Plan contributions, hospital insurance, income tax and all the other deductions, he can no longer afford to stay in subsidized socialized housing. Therefore the 25 per cent to 27 per cent figure which is applied to total income in establishing rental for such a person must be re-examined. In other words the percentage figure must be applied to what such poor people have left over after the government has dipped into their pay packets first. We have welfare stated ourselves so far that such people cannot afford subsidized socialized housing.
Due to lack of action by the government, and lack of an adequate housing plan, the government has spread the mantle of poverty over those in the low income bracket until it now reaches up into the class I choose to call the affluent poor, those in the $5,000 to $6,000 per year category, who should be able to own houses but who cannot.
I shall not take up the time of the committee further, Mr. Chairman. I just close with one statement with which I think no one will disagree, namely that housing should not be the victim of government tight money policy.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chaimran, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has introduced a very important issue, that of housing. On Monday afternoon my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth, attempted to initiate an emergency debate on the housing crisis. He pointed out that the government has had a housing policy fiasco and that it has reached the point of being a critical national calamity and national disgrace. He also pointed out that the Minister of Labour, in charge of housing, in the
Supply-Labour
midst of this crisis remains serene, indifferent and unconcerned. That was on Monday of this week.
In today's Ottawa Citizen there appears an article quoting statements made by the Minister of Labour on the housing crisis. I read it in part as follows:
Canada is coming out of its house-building crisis. Labour Minister J. R. Nicholson contended Tuesday.
But the new houses are going to cost too much for the average Canadian to own if they're located in major cities, he readily admitted-
"Housing problems are going to be serious for an indefinite period," he concluded. "But I would hope that the crisis period is over."
Mr. Nicholson offered no hope that the cost of housing would decline as new housing becomes available.
He said high land values would continue to prevent Canadians from getting the housing they wanted in major cities.
"If you're going to live in a city you're going to have to live in an apartment," he said.
The alternative was to move to the suburbs, he explained. Or if you wanted to own your own apartment you could resort to condominium housing which had just been approved in British Columbia and Alberta.
That is the approach being taken by the minister to the housing crisis. In 1965 there were 165,000 new homes built in Canada. In 1966 the figure was 134,000, a drop of 19 per cent. The projected housing goal for 1967 is 170,000 units, set by the Economic Council of Canada and confirmed by the President of C.M.H.C. But in the first two months of this year there has been a serious drop in housing starts, so serious that it prompted the hon. member for Danforth to bring it to the attention of the house.
An article in the Globe and Mail of March 8 stated:
It is not news that Canada is moving into a housing crisis. Last fall the Economic Council of Canada warned that anything short of 170,000 housing starts a year would result in a serious shortage-[DOT]
Central Mortgage this week confirmed everybody's worst expectations. Total urban housing starts in January, it reported, nosedived 29.6 per cent compared with last January. Toronto's starts were down by an alarming 59.2 per cent, and Toronto and Montreal, which also showed a decline, are the housing weathervanes of the country-
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Yet no spirit of haste is evident in either national or provincial government. Federal Labour Minister J. R. Nicholson has announced that loans for 20,000 new housing units will be distributed in the spring -a mere drop in the bucket; that funds available under the National Housing Act will be increased from $600 million to $800 million; and that he is contemplating some changes in the act. Ontario

March 22, 1987
Supply-Labour
has promised to launch its dubious Home Ownership Made Easy program, for buying up land and leasing it at nominal sums to would-be home owners.
This is the approach the minister is taking. He says there will be 20,000 new units in the spring and that the reason for the drop in January and February this year is that the direct loans last year were made in the summer. He says that this year they will be made in the spring and the result will be a projected increase in housing starts.
Another approach was to increase the interest rates on N.H.A. mortgages from 7| per cent to 7J per cent. He also hopes there will be an increase in housing because of the participation of the banks in the mortgage lending field. This is the approach the minister takes to our housing crisis. In the past few months he has held a housing symposium in many cities across the country. He has heard from the builders about the serious lack of mortgage money. He has heard from the developers about the serious lack of serviced land, and he has heard from other representatives about the serious rise in the cost of homes. I recall that Mr. Mansur, who has been called Mr. Housing in Canada, indicated that Canadians have outpriced themselves in the cost of homes. He said that mortgage money is available but that the costs are so prohibitive that purchasers of homes are not being attracted. In Toronto the average cost of a home is $29,000. In order to carry that type of home one would have to have an income of between $8,000 and $10,000. This would indicate that any person with an income below that amount would be left homeless, in the full sense of the word, when one thinks of adequate housing.
It might be said that it is very easy to be critical and that it is better to become constructive with regard to a definite housing program. We in the New Democratic Party have attempted to be constructive. We have impressed upon the minister the need for a ministry of housing and urban development. By this means we would be in a position to provide leadership to the country in respect of housing needs and to encourage the provinces and the municipalities to participate in a massive housing program to fulfil the needs of the low income groups, middle income groups, senior citizens, and those people who wish to participate in co-operative housing projects. We believe the government should inject a massive amount of money into the economy for mortgage loans at interest rates

of 5 per cent or 6 per cent. These would be reasonable rates at which people could afford to buy homes. Someone may ask, where will we get this money. The amount has been increased from $600 million to $800 million. We have suggested, and I suggest again tonight, that we should participate in home bonds. We believe the government should float bonds at attractive rates of interest in the same way they did during wartime when they promoted the victory bonds to prosecute the war.
We should float home bonds so that Canadians would be in a position to participate in a program which would ensure that there would be decent housing for all Canadians. The government should also take the initiative in respect of public housing. The government has not been able to persuade the provincial and municipal governments to participate sufficiently in public housing in order to take care of the needs of the people who have incomes ranging between $4,000 and $6,000. The result is that there is a tremendous shortage of apartments for these people. The apartments which are available are available at very high rentals.
During the housing symposium a suggestion was made that the government should take a more active interest in limited dividend housing. At the moment the government guarantees a return of 5 per cent on limited dividend housing. The suggestion was made that there would be more participation by builders if the guaranteed return on their investment was between 8 per cent and 9 per cent. We are in agreement with this suggestion. Because of the serious housing shortage some inducement must be given to builders and developers.
One of the saddest commentaries we have in centennial year is the serious plight in which our senior citizens find themselves today. Our senior citizens who are on fixed incomes are paying very high rent for apartments and rooms. Because of the high cost of living this represents a very great drain on their limited assets and income. This is the reason the government really should encourage the provinces and municipalities to build more homes for the senior citizens so that their needs can be fulfilled. Co-operative housing also should be encouraged so that those people who have the desire to build their homes could be given help, so that they would be in a position to finance their homes.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent mentioned a very important problem with regard
March 22, 1967

to the cost of homes today. One reason is the 12 per cent sales tax that is imposed on building materials, and the 5 per cent provincial tax. Both these items should be eliminated in respect of residential homes in particular, if these homes are to be sold at prices which will be attractive to purchasers.
These are a few ideas which we would hope the Minister of Labour would consider seriously, rather than continue in the belief he has now that there is a constitutional barrier with regard to full participation in this important matter. He seems to believe that his only role at the moment is that of the friendly banker. We disagree with this and hope that he will forge ahead and give the necessary leadership to meet the housing crisis, so that Canadians in 1967 will have a housing program of which they can be proud.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I realize it is getting late, but some of us believe that we should not go away from the house at this time without again drawing the attention of the government to the magnitude of the housing crisis, and the fact that all of us have had our attention drawn to the plight of the people all across the country who are suffering because of the lack of decisive action in dealing with the problem at this time.
My colleague from Toronto-Broadview has pointed out the way in which the minister is indulging in optimistic and hopeful predictions about what will happen in respect of housing this year. Actually the members of his staff are much less optimistic than the minister.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I wish the minister were here tonight but I have no doubt his duties require him to be elsewhere. I should like to urge him to take his head out of the sand and look around to see what is happening in respect of housing today. His head is far too decorative a part of his anatomy to be left in the sand. He should look around to see what is happening, rather than hide behind the rosy vision which he obviously has in respect of what he hopes housing starts are likely to be. He should realize that something more far-reaching has to be done in respect of this very difficult housing situation. It is time the minister stopped predicting housing starts and began to do something to help provide the 170,000 new homes we will need for this current year. That number of new houses will not be of any assistance in reducing the backlog that has been built up.
Supply-Labour
The committee on prices heard a great deal of evidence across Canada about the need to deal with the housing shortage in a much more comprehensive manner. I wish to make a few remarks about the situation in my city of Vancouver because I have had a great number of representations from people who live there, and because I feel that that city is fairly representative of larger Canadian cities. Those things which are evident in Vancouver are evident in most of the major cities in Canada.
On February 1 the director of planning for the Vancouver city council prepared a series of notes for the use of aldermen at the housing conference. I do not believe those notes were used to any extent during that conference but I should like to quote one paragraph. The director of planning wrote the following:
Much has been written about housing needs in Vancouver and elsewhere, yet no major Canadian city appears to have made a comprehensive survey of such needs. The city of Vancouver in 1960 and 1961 budgeted for its share of a $36,000 metropolitan housing survey to be financed 75 per cent by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under Part V of the National Housing Act, and 25 per cent by lower mainland municipalities. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, however, declined to participate.
In 1960-61 the city of Vancouver realized the need for a comprehensive survey of housing needs in the city at that time, and that was six or seven years ago. At that time the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had the rosy idea that if things were left to the workings of the market sufficient housing would be provided in the city of Vancouver. Vancouver is still waiting for the C.M.H.C. to approve this plan. However, the city is now trying to get another survey under way, which has been approved by the council, endorsed by the province and referred to the corporation. It will cost in the neighbourhood of $96,000. That approval has not been forthcoming.
It is my belief that such a survey is crucial in every large city from Vancouver to Halifax because we do not know how many housing starts are necessary. Very little consideration has been given as to the kinds of housing needed or the number of each kind. I think if the policy of C.M.H.C. and the minister continues we will spend an increasing number of the taxpayers' dollars to assist the better off people in our community. The people of moderate and low incomes will not get any help, or not as much as they should get. We will then have a situation in which socialism will provide for the rich, and free enterprise will

March 22, 1967
Supply-Labour
provide for the poor. The rich have decided that socialism is necessary in order that they may obtain C.M.H.C. loans and that the poor should be left to the tender mercies of free enterprise.
The president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation appeared before our committee on January 26 of this year and stated:
Nevertheless, Canada's housing policies in the past have been based on the assumption that the determination of a very large part of our housing production can be left to market forces.
He then went on to say that a very large and increasing proportion of our housing needs cannot be met by private enterprise alone. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent pointed out that we were told by individuals appearing before the committee that people with incomes under $6,000 per annum could not afford to own homes. I am sure that even the minister is beginning to realize, with reluctance, that even though a great number of homes will be built the people who need live in them will not be able to own them.
The Vancouver Housing Association prepared a brief for our committee in which it stated in respect of home ownership:
So far as home ownership is concerned, building costs, after remaining fairly static in the Vancouver area for several years, rose by 7 per cent between the springs of 1965 and 1966, and have since risen further. Prices of serviced residential lots have risen during the last five years by anything from 10 per cent to 100 per cent according to location, with an average increase of perhaps 25 per cent, and today it is difficult to buy serviced lots in suburban municipalities for much less than $5,000.
High mortgage interest rates aggravate the effects of rising building and land costs and, while no specific figures are available to us, there are indications that a good many families are tying up an excessive proportion of their income in housing outlays.
This statement is confirmed by what Michael Wheeler of the Canadian Welfare Council wrote in a submission to our committee. He said:
We have no reliable data on the number of families who are enjoying the pleasures of home ownership at the cost of severely strained budgets, nor do we know the actual cost of this strain in terms of other budgetary items that have to be sacrificed or its general impact on family well-being. This is a matter which, like so many other aspects of Canada's housing program, deserves more systematic attention.
I am urging that there should be more planning and an overall survey made in respect of housing needs. In respect of home ownership even the minister is now convinced that we are not going to meet the needs of a

great many people in lower and middle income groups.
This is what was said by the Vancouver housing association in its brief to our committee:
A canvass of leading real estate firm suggests that apartments falling vacant are renting for amounts from 5 per cent to 10 per cent higher than six months earlier, but in the low rental field increases have been much steeper. Within the last month elderly single persons applying for non-profit housing at the Central Housing registry operated by our association have reported the following increases in their rents:-
From $45 to $75 (excluding heat)
$45 to $80
$45 to $85 (shared bathroom)
Vacancies in rental housing, where families with children are accepted, are, according to real estate firms, virtually non-existent, so that it is difficult to quote any meaningful figures, but rents often appear now to be related more closely to what the traffic will bear than to the actual worth of the accommodation.
The greatest single need of Vancouver is low rental accommodation for middle and low income families. As a matter of fact, the director of the war on poverty made the statement as long ago as last fall to the Cou-chiching conference that Canada is spending more money on tinned dog food than it is on public housing. That certainly does not say very much for our degree of civilization.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
There is a tremendous need in Canada for housing for low and moderate income families. If hon. members need an example to underline this I would refer to the matter raised a while ago in this house when it was pointed out that the immigration officials in Europe are saying to would-be immigrants to Canada, "Yes, come to Canada by all means. But if you do come, and have more than three children, do not go to any major Canadian city." They named half a dozen, including Vancouver. They said, Do not go to any major Canadian city unless you have a guaranteed income of at least $7,500 a year.
This reminds me of the old nursery rhyme. I am emboldened to quote poetry after what happened last night:
"Mother, may I go down to swim?"
"Yes, my darling daughter.
Hang your clothes on a hickory limb;
But don't go near-
-Vancouver, Halifax, Toronto, Montreal or many of the major cities in between, because you will not find housing there." That is the situation in this country. We have only to consider places like Birmingham and others
March 22, 19S7

in Britain, to which people immigrated and where there was no adequate housing, to see what happens to the good feeling and good neighbourliness at all levels vis-a-vis people already living in those areas.
This further question concerns Central Mortgage and Housing. Family formation is going ahead by leaps and bounds these days. Not only are new families rapidly being formed but we are finding greater and greater mobility in Canada. Many young couples would not want to own homes even if they could afford them. They must have rental accommodation, because we are told that one family in four across Canada moves every year. We must have rental accommodation to take care of this situation.
Before I conclude my remarks I want to make a special plea to the minister and draw a special matter to his attention. In Vancouver's west end we are at long last apparently going to have a high-rise apartment block for elderly citizens. I do not know whether it will be available to the most needy among the elderly citizens. I hope it will be. But I believe a mistake, and a bad one, will be made in connection with this housing project unless something is done to prevent it.
In respect of any housing project for the elderly, of the type being built in Vancouver's west end, there should be not only self-contained apartments with kitchens but a main dining room with a kitchen attached, and there should be provision whereby elderly people can have meals taken up to their rooms in case of need. The last advice I received from Central Mortgage and Housing was that it does not propose to put these facilities in the new, high-rise apartment block being built in the west end of Vancouver. I would urge the minister to change his mind in this regard and see that these facilities are provided before the project is completed.
I would remind hon. members that the social welfare and housing people urged the minister and Central Mortgage and Housing to include recreational facilities in low rent housing projects in Vancouver, for example in Skeena Terrace and other low rental, subsidized housing projects. The minister did not do this. Now, after these projects have been lived in for a number of years, and after a great deal of trouble, inconvenience and agitation, at long last Central Mortgage and Housing and the city of Vancouver are trying very hard to find ways and means of including these facilities in the Skeena Terrace
Supply-Labour
development. The facilities should have been included when the development was being built. I am warning the minister that if he does not see that these modern facilities for the care of the aged are incorporated in the new apartment block being built in Vancouver's west end, he will have to do it in a piecemeal fashion later.
There is a good more I could say on this subject, Mr. Chairman. I hope we will have a better chance to discuss housing at a later time, rather than talking about this important matter in the dying hours of interim supply. However, I will have pity on the committee because I know everyone here is just about as tired as I am. I hope the Minister of National Revenue will draw these matters to the attention of the Minister of Labour.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that having listened with interest to the speeches made with respect to housing, I will be most pleased to bring the matters raised by hon. members to the attention of the minister under whose jurisdiction fall the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I assure hon. members that I will do this as soon as I return from the Easter holiday.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words on his vote, as it concerns Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in particular. As hon. members are well aware, I represent a constituency which is entirely rural. The question I wish to raise concerns small towns and in some cases small contractors. I emphasize as forcibly as I can that I believe Central Mortgage and Housing has fallen back into its old rut in this respect. In 1958 and 1959, when the Conservative party formed the government, we directed C.M.H.C. to move into the smaller centres of Canada in order to help the citizens in those areas as well as those in the larger areas of this country. C.M.H.C has now fallen back into its old rut and is now concerned with helping the large contractor to build numerous homes, helter-skelter and everywhere in the larger cities. It is paying no particular attention to the smaller centres in Canada, and to our smaller contractors.
In the absence of the Minister of Labour I urge the Minister of National Revenue to bring this matter to his attention. I hope the minister will see that the small rural towns do not suffer because of the policies of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and some misguided rules and regulations that the district offices set up. I will cite a particular

March 22, 1967
Supply-Labour
case where a contractor is building a home. Before he can obtain any money from C.M.H.C. he has to have the home 85 per cent completed. I know the minister will say this cannot be true. However, it is true. This contractor is building a home for a medical doctor in a town that has a population of 3,500. The home is perhaps a little better or more extravagant than the average citizen is able to afford. In any case, Mr. Chairman, the contractor told me he would have to have the home 85 per cent completed before he could obtain one cent from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I ask the minister to urge C.M.H.C. to get out of the rut they seem to be falling into and to pay particular attention to the contractor who builds, not 200 homes a year but 20 or perhaps only 10. The minister should remember that home building conditions are not the same in small areas. It might well be said that the small contractor has higher costs because he does not build a great many homes. Of course the more homes one builds, the cheaper it is to build them. But the direct reverse is also true, because in many of our cities land costs and servicing are higher.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The servicing costs, and by that I mean wiring, sewerage, street lighting and so on, are greater in the larger areas than in the smaller towns. Therefore while I readily accept the fact that a small contractor may need a proportionately greater amount of money to build 20 houses in a year than to build 200, there is not that much difference, and I would urge the C.M.H.C. in making its inspections to make special allowances for the small contractors building in rural areas.
I could cite 100 instances of such cases all across rural Canada. The C.M.H.C. money is not being made available in the smaller areas. Time and time again small contractors have said to me. We will build a house, but please do not make us build it under C.M.H.C. because we cannot get the money, the lumber yards are after us to pay them, and we cannot get anything out of C.M.H.C. I urge the Minister of National Revenue to ask the Minister of Labour to bring this to the particular attention of C.M.H.C. to redirect its thinking toward the rural areas of Canada. Rural Canada is a vast area which needs better homes. I do not think there is one hon. member in this house who would deny that fact.

It is all well and good for us to stand up in this chamber and say that we must carry out slum clearances in our cities. But what are we actually doing? Are we making a special effort to improve the living standard of people in the rural areas and the smaller towns all across Canada? I cannot honestly say we are. The C.M.H.C. is making no special effort to improve the slum conditions which exist in the rural areas and which are just as bad as those in the cities. This is why I say to the minister it is all well and good to talk about low cost developments in the cities. We in the rural areas are not specifically asking for low cost housing. We are asking the C.M.H.C. to redirect its thinking, as has been the case in 1958, 1959 and 1961, and to give the people living in rural Canada a chance to build their houses under the C.M.H.C.
One has only to look at housing starts in rural areas under C.M.H.C. to see that what I say is correct. The first housing starts in the farm areas carried out by the C.M.H.C. were made back in 1959 and 1961. Today this has dwindled to practically nothing. We must give equal treatment to all the citizens of Canada, whether they live in cities or in rural areas.
There has been much talk about paying special attention to slum clearances and low cost housing in cities. I urge the Minister of National Revenue to ask the Minister of Labour to redirect the thinking of the C.M.H.C. so as to give the citizens in rural Canada an opportunity to build houses and to improve their standard of living, as well as to give an equal opportunity to small contractors providing services in rural areas to that given the large contractor. There is a great disparity between the two. Housing inspections in cities are much less rigid. As one contractor told me, the big contractors building houses in cities under the C.M.H.C. can get away with much more because the inspections there are much less rigid and less stringent. We in rural Canada pay taxes to improve the slum areas in cities and to build what could be qualified as subsidized housing in cities, but no special consideration is given to those living in small towns or in farming communities. It seems to me that the C.M.H.C. has taken the line of least resistance, and we in rural Canada are not satisfied with this attitude.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that, as always, I have listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Acadia and I can assure him that I who came myself from a small town, have just
March 22, 1967	COMMONS
as much interest in small town housing as he does. Not only will I bring all of his remarks to the attention of the Minister of Labour but I will personally send a copy of today's Hansard to the president of the C.M.H.C.
Item 25g agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
30g. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for losses sustained by it during the calendar year 1966 as a result of the operation of public housing projects undertaken under part VI of the National Housing Act, 1954, $2,109,457.
35g. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for amounts loaned under section 36H of the National Housing Act, 1954, to any province, municipality or municipal sewerage corporation, and forgiven by the corporation during the calendar year 1966, pursuant to section 36G of the act, $7,898,965.
40g. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for grants charged to the consolidated revenue fund as established by section 23E of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of contributions made during the calendar year 1966, to any province or municipality for the preparation or implementation of an urban renewal scheme or pursuant to an urban redevelopment agreement, $6,632,832.


[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
5g. General administration, $282,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the Senate of Canada has already cost the people of this country nearly $3 million this year. I object to our being asked to vote another $282,500 for an institution that is not responsible to the people of Canada.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should simply like to explain what these additional expenditures are for. They include office stationery, sundries, and so on, which arise from the length of the sittings of the House of Commons, which of course causes the Senate to sit longer. They amount to $11,500. There is an increase in the printing costs of $41,000, which would indicate increased activity in the Senate and an increase in the activities of the joint committees on consumer credit and cost of living, divorce, immigration, and penitentiaries.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is item 5g agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Manpower and Immigration
[Stage Direction]
National employment service-
20g. Administration of the national employment service, $370,000.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks on immigration before we pass it. I will take only five minutes to show how amiable I am.
This item cannot be passed over lightly because, as I said earlier this afternoon when speaking on agriculture, immigration is one of the key problems and one of Canada's key assets. We can talk about our natural resources but we must not forget that our human resource may well be our greatest. What are we doing about it? I fear that the Minister of Immigration and Manpower has come to the conclusion that only skilled immigrants or immigrants with money and capable of establishing themselves in Canada, should be admitted to our country.
I am not a member of the committee on citizenship and immigration, not because I do not wish to be but because I have not had sufficient time to devote to it. However, one has only to examine where our immigrants have settled after their arrival to Canada and where in Canada are the greatest needs for immigrants. In other words, do we need skilled or unskilled immigrants, and which of the two categories can best be absorbed? As I said this afternoon, farm labour is very scarce in Canada to day. Nine out of ten farmers anywhere in Canada are prepared to accept unskilled labour and are prepared to train these people.
We are a young country with great natural resources. Whether we like it or not we are still hewers of wood and carriers of water. It does not take too much skill to do that job. I urge the government not to restrict immigration to skilled labour, because those are not the only immigrants we need in Canada today. I have already said that we could absorb more unskilled labour. The other day I spoke to a manufacturer in Winnipeg who employs 670 men in his manufacturing plant. I asked him how he hires his men, does he hire skilled welders and machinists? Believe it or not, he said: "No, we prefer them unskilled as long as they wish to work. We are quite prepared to train them." So let us not hastily
March 22, 1987

Supply-National Defence jump on a bandwagon and think that Canada is developed and cannot absorb any more unskilled labour. Canada is a young country with much development still needed, and we still have room for immigrants who are unskilled.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
That is the key point I want to make before this particular item passes, Mr. Chairman. I recall an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal about six months ago which listed the areas in which immigrants found jobs, and nearly 45 per cent entered what could be called unskilled labour areas. I think, for example, of the servicing industry. It does not take too much skill to put gas into the tank of a car from a gas pump, an occupation which could be regarded as part of the servicing industry. They also entered agriculture and the semi-manufacturing industry, and the three industries lumped together took almost 45 per cent of the unskilled immigrants who entered Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Minister of National Revenue to draw this situation to the attention of the minister of immigration. We may believe today that Canada is developed as a manufacturing country, and in the highly mechanized and technological world of today needs only skilled immigrants. This is not so. I urge the minister to continue to permit unskilled immigrants to enter Canada and to continue sponsored immigration for a few more years at least.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration-
30g. Administration, operation and maintenance -to extend the purposes of vote 30 of the main estimates for 1966-67 to increase the grants to immigrant welfare organizations from $20,000 to $28,000, $1.
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-[DOT]
15g. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment and development for the Canadian forces, $15,000,000.
Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, this is an item of $15 million for pay and allowances for the Canadian forces. Under the National Defence Act the Canadian forces consist of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Perhaps the minister would give us the breakdown of this amount of money for the three recognized services.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether we could move to the next vote and let this item stand for a moment. I will dig up the information for my hon. friend if I have it here.
Item stands.
Defence research-
35g. Research satellite program-to provide for the design and instrumentation of a series of satellites to carry out a scientific research program agreed upon jointly by the United States national aeronautical and space administration and the defence research board, $1,328,000.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether this is the appropriate item for the remarks I wish to make, and if it is not perhaps I can be corrected. This afternoon there was a series of questions asked on orders of the day relating to satellite research and development in the communications field, an area in which the Department of National Defence may be interested. I know the National Research Council is working in this field, and from conversations I have had with officials in the department this field is relatively new.
A search in the library indicates that Canada has not done too much work in this field and is presently not in a position and might never be in a position to do so, for the simple reason that communications satellites cannot be sent aloft without the necessary vehicle to put them into orbit and thus make service available to areas presently without service.
I realize the Defence Research Board is working on this problem. Whether or not they are working in conjunction with other countries I do not know and I am not in a position to say. I do not know whether anyone in this committee can enlighten us in this regard.
However, Mr. Chairman, telecommunications is a subject which is under discussion at the moment. About one year ago I placed several questions on the order paper which at the time related to the C.B.C. These were prompted by a series of articles appearing in various papers across the country dealing with this problem in an exploratory fashion, providing information, and entreating the scientists of this country to experiment in this new area of communications. My opinion is that we should move very rapidly in this field.
I am aware of the fact that national defence communications are important and that the department is interested in this question. I am also aware from the information that
March 22. 1967

has been provided me that eventually we will attempt to send a satellite aloft to provide telecommunication for defence purposes only. However, this subject can also be related to other fields of communication essential to the country.
I am very conscious of this question of telecommunications because some areas of the part of the country that I represent have very little television service, some have no television service and some have bad television service. The people in these areas would appreciate the opportunity of being educated along with the rest of the country which have this facility made available to them.
Someone behind me says that perhaps we are lucky, but I suggest that with a satellite service perhaps we would be luckier in the sense that we would not be restricted to one particular program. We would not be subjected to what is at times the corruption of the C.B.C, though there are other times when their programs are good. I must say that my impression is that some of the programming is not too good; but regardless of the type of programming this is an area which requires urgent investigation.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We must allow notional research or defence research boards, which have scientists trained in this field, to act. A few days ago the Prime Minister said that the Minister of Transport has the responsibility of co-ordinating work in this field. When talking with the minister I realized how unexplored the field is. We seem to be waiting to see what will develop. We have the technicians and the scientists to work in this field, and we have organizations such as Northern Electric and Bell Telephone which can be useful to us. We can create a vehicle to transmit messages, but we lack the capability of sending it into orbit. For this capability we must go to other nations. If the United States does not want to help us, or if it feels that our satellite may take up a spot in the heavens they might be interested in later, then we shall have to put up a satellite. In one sense we are at the mercy of countries such as the United States. At the moment I have no reason for believing they will not co-operate with us.
This capability is necessary for our defence, as well for the entire question of telecommunications. We must talk to nations other than the United States. Several have the capacity to send vehicles into orbit. From my
Supply-National Defence understanding of the problem, sending a vehicle into orbit does not require much more capacity than we now have. Nevertheless as satellites become more complicated they become heavier. We shall not have them in orbit for several years.
Our research at the moment is very limited. I understand that the attitude of our government is not to allow grants to those working in the research field in this sphere. I am thinking of the McGill University space research institute. It is essential, if we feel that communication between all parts of Canada is necessary, and if all parts of the country must participate in education, to consider carefully every aspect of this field. Whether they serve national defence or education, satellites are important. I do not know the technical problems, but I think that one satellite can transmit many messages simultaneously-telephone, television and radio messages, as well as others. In this area we should be more actively engaged than we are at present. More funds should be made available. Other countries are working rapidly in this field. If we wait patiently to see what will happen we might suddenly find another nation occupying that area we had thought to occupy in the first place.
We should have a vehicle to unite the north and south of our country, and to transmit from Vancouver to Halifax. It could transmit educational programs to our northern areas, where we are spending millions of dollars trying to provide an education for the inhabitants. The north is developing rapidly. When we think of the decline in the death rate, and increasing education among Indians, we must realize that our population will continue to grow. We must give our northern peoples an opportunity to see the rest of the country. We must show them that other parts of Canada welcome them. Only through this medium will they realize that. Once we provide those people with the opportunity to see the rest of the country, to see for themselves what exists beyond their own area of 50, 100, or 200 miles to either side of them, they will realize that they are part of the country. There can be no better way of spending money than on this type of research.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edgar John Benson: May we revert to vote 15g, under the Department of National Defence?
15g. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment and development for the Canadian forces, $15,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1967
Supply-Privy Council
Edgar John Benson: I was asked a question about this a moment ago by the great and distinguished member opposite. The information which I have, which does not break this down by services-and I am sure he is quite familiar with this-is that at the end of the year there are transfers in the Department of National Defence, not among votes but among various categories. More than this amount of $15 million is required for the provision of civilian wages and salaries in the Department of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
20g. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,970,000.
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
lg. Postal services, $12,700,700.
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
5g. Ministers without portfolio-payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $1,715.
Item agreed to.
15g. Expenses of the royal commissions listed in the details of estimates, $145,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this vote includes money for various royal commissions. There is a breakdown on page 17 of the supplementary estimates. The amount listed as expenses of the royal commission on the status of women seems small, as expenses of royal commissions go. Perhaps the minister could explain.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: As the hon. member knows, this commission was appointed only very recently and the amount included here is just a start. The bulk of the expenditure will be provided for in the estimates of 1967-68.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it, then, that in a full year we can count on the equality of the sexes.


Edgar John Benson: We shall find ourselves spending as much on the women as on the men, I am sure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B-Economic council of Canada-
20g. Administration, $120,000.
Richard Albert Bell: This includes an item of $19,200 under the notation "Special reference concerning the Department of the Registrar General". Would the minister indicate the nature of this special reference to the Economic Council of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: I can reply to this question from memory; if I am wrong I will correct what I am about to say. I believe this has reference to consumer affairs and combines. There was a special reference to the Economic Council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
lg. Administration expenses, $44,700.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the voting of this money for the fiscal year 1966-67 mean that the board has been fully constituted, and can the minister say whether the regulations under Bill No. C-170 which provide for this board have been promulgated?


Edgar John Benson: The board has been constituted as far as possible. The chairman and the vice-chairman were appointed immediately and I believe there have been two or three employee and employer appointments. There have been three each, I believe. Some difficulty has arisen in getting the kind of people who suit. The board is in operation, however, and I understand that the regulations have been promulgated-I am not sure whether they have all been promulgated. I would have to check and inform the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister hopeful that the timetable we had in mind will be met?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, I am very hopeful of that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
lg. General administration, $275,000.
Item agreed to.
5g. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, $1,010,000.
Item agreed to.
March 22. 1967
[Stage Direction]
Harbours and rivers engineering services-
30g. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $1.
Mr. Bower:: I should like to speak on this vote. The western end of the province of Nova Scotia is the area where the heaviest fishing is done, perhaps, in Canada, but we are still very short of the infra structure needed to maintain the growth of this industry, which is one of the mainstays of the province.
Last year, for example, a wharf of a new design was built in this area. I am not being critical of the use of a new design; but the design was unsuccessful. Some $1.5 million was spent on its construction, but on Christmas Day the wharf was incapacitated and the last I saw of it a fence had been built across it.
Serious consideration should be given to correcting this situation immediately. The money has been spent, but the facility is not operative. A large fish plant which has been expanding greatly in recent years-it is even going into whaling-is dependant on this wharf. I insist that steps be taken to correct this unfortunate situation. There are other areas in the western end of Nova Scotia where there is need for dredging. The Harbour at Meteghan River in Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare should be deepened, so that the shipbuilding plants can handle repairs of the draggers and other vessels which, as things are, must often waste time travelling long distances to undergo necessary repairs. At Yarmouth the fisheries have grown to such a point that more wharfage facilities are badly needed. The same can be said about Pubnico harbour, where bigger and better structures are required if the size and scope of the industry is to be improved.
I see no evidence of any moves in this direction in the new estimates, and this creates grave doubt in the minds of the people of the area from which I come, particularly when they note the amounts of money which are spent by the national government on projects which are not productive of wealth. The works I am talking about will of themselves create prosperity in an area where the per capita income is relatively low in the scale of income of a province which, in turn, has a low per capita income compared to the rest of the country.
Supply-Public Works
We hear a great deal about Cape Breton and its problems and I do not want to detract by one jot or tittle from the seriousness of those problems, not do I imply that the government should not proceed with the steps it apparently plans to take to solve those problems. However, I submit that the western end of Nova Scotia tends to be forgotten amid the publicity given to the problems of Cape Breton.


Edgar John Benson: The hon. member has made reference to a specific situation and since I am not the minister in charge I cannot answer what he has said. But I can assure him I will bring his representations to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National capital commission-
60g. Operation and maintenance, $473,000.
Richard Albert Bell: I forgo the pleasure of making a speech on national capital planning, in the interest of expedition, but I do want to say that it is intended to hold the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works firmly to their commitment to establish in the next session of parliament a special committee of this house to explore all aspects of national capital planning. In my view this should be done at the earliest opportunity next session.
I will merely add that I think the question of bridges across the Ottawa River is of vital importance, two of these bridges in particular, and that this is the crux of future progress in capital planning in this area.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
5g. Corporations branch, $5,900.
Item agreed to.
lOg. Combines Investigation Act-Administration, $100,000.
Item agreed to.
20g. Patent division, copyright and industrial designs division and trade marks office including contributions to the international office for the protection of literary and artistic works and the international office for the protection of industrial property and a grant of $4,000 to the patent and trade mark institute of Canada to assist in defraying the costs incurred in the production of a film on patents, $4,000.
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1967
Supply-Solicitor General
« (9:10 p.m.)
DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE Educational broadcasting facilities-
60f. To authorize the Secretary of State, with the approval of the governor in council, to procure the incorporation of a company pursuant to part I of the Canada Corporations Act, to construct or otherwise acquire and operate, subject to the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act, broadcasting facilities for the broadcasting by such company of programs for or on behalf of provincial and other Canadian educational institutions and authorities, and to authorize the Minister of Finance, on terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to make payments to or on behalf of such company for the purposes thereof during the 1966-67 and 1967-68 fiscal years-not exceeding in the aggregate $750,000, $750,000.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think this item has been called in error. If 60f is the item I think it is, I do not think it was intended that it should be called, and certainly that it would be carried without discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A firm undertaking was given that it would not be called.


Edgar John Benson: The ones we are carrying now are supplementary estimates G.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I apologize to the committee. This supplementary estimate F was mixed up with supplementary estimates G. It is not called.
Item stands.
(The following items were agreed to):
lg. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $125,675.
15g. Administration, operation and maintenance, $213,772.
27g. To extend the purposes of secretary of state vote 27a, supplementary estimates (A), 1966-67 to authorize, notwithstanding the said vote, payments in the current fiscal year of the remainder of the amount not exceeding $60,000,000 referred to therein, $21,600,000.
35g. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions for language instruction and citizenship promotion, $107,000.
50g. Payments to the national arts centre corporation to be used for the purposes set out in the National Arts Centre Act, $25,000.


[Stage Direction]
12g. Reimbursement of the penitentiaries industrial revolving fund for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $16,007.
Item agreed to.
25g. Payment in the current and subsequent fiscal years of a pension to Mrs. Helen Coleman, Mrs. Gladys Welfringer and Mrs. Annie Rosalie Laird in an amount equal to the amount that would be

payable in that year to each such person under schedule B to the Pension Act if each of them were the widow of a Lt. Col. (Army) and entitled, pursuant to the Pension Act, to payment of a pension in that year at the rate set out in schedule B to that act minus any amount payable to such person in the year pursuant to any other statutory authority providing for the payment of a pension in respect of the loss of life while engaged in the performance of duty; amount required for 1966-67, $1,068.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question or two of the minister piloting these estimates of over $300 million, or one third of a billion dollars, through the house in one evening. I gather that this item 25g has to do with establishing a little larger pensions for three ladies, of whom I know nothing, but I gather from the information given with the item that it has something to do with the R.C.M.P. I am still smarting under the recollection of what happened to Belec and Poi-tras, two men from Montreal who were the first commissioned officers in the entire history of the R.C.M.P. to be convicted of malfeasance when in office, with their conviction being upheld by the appeal court in the R.C.M.P. service.
I understand we are doing a little bit of legislating by supplementary estimates in order to increase the pensions of the three estimable ladies mentioned under this item, because the cabinet does not have the authority to issue an order in council to increase their pensions.
But if we have to pass this supplementary estimate tonight in order to give pensions to these three ladies and thus establish a new law, because the item refers to this year and subsequent years, I wish to recall, with respect to Poitras and Belec, that they would not have received any pension at all if they had got their just desserts. Under this Liberal government, however, the cabinet brought in an order to establish pensions for them, in one case of about $6,000 a year and in the other of about $1,900 a year. If the cabinet thought it wise to establish by order in council pensions for these two men who were convicted, and whose convictions were upheld, why did it not bring in a special order in council to establish the necessary funds for these three women?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I am not allowed to give legal opinions. I can merely assure my hon. friend, in the particular instance that is before us to increase these pensions, that the advice given to us by the law officers of the crown was that we must do this through a special item in the estimates or by
March 22, 1967

legislation, and we are choosing to do it this way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
lOg. Exhibitions branch, $111,800.
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
5g. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to increase to $27,016,900 the commitments for the current fiscal year for the Canadian coast guard service, $360,700.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister that recently there has been a serious loss of life on the east coast, when no less than three deep sea ships went down, with a total loss of 35 lives. The largest loss of life was due to the grounding of the trawler Cape Bonnie outside Halifax harbour. I am sure the minister is well aware of that happening. A large number of mariners, and fishermen in particular, have expressed the opinion that the navigational aids which are outside Halifax harbour should bear closer investigation by the Department of Transport.
At the present time the Sambro lightship is no longer on station. During the period that it was on station there was greater communication between the captain of the lightship and the officers in charge of both merchant ships and fishing ships, trawlers and draggers, entering and clearing the port. Therefore I would like to enter a plea that the minister and the government give consideration to restoring the Sambro lightship to its position outside Halifax harbour. This would be an act that would receive the commendation of all mariner interests, and in view of the importance of the matter I hope it will receive the government's favourable consideration.


Edgar John Benson: I most certainly will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport. I believe my hon. friend brought it to his attention on orders of the day recently, and that the minister indicated he would look into the matter of safety precautions at the entrance to Halifax harbour. Undoubtedly he is doing this, but I shall bring these additional representations to his attention.


John Oates Bower: I should like to supplement what my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg has said, but in connection with another lightship, that on the tremendously treacherous Lurcher shoals off Cape Forchu outside Yarmouth harbour. There is a report in the
S upp ly-Transport
area that the Lurcher lightship is to be replaced by radar buoys, and the feeling of the maritime people in the southwestern end of Nova Scotia is the same as that expressed by the people in the Halifax area, that it would be most injudicious and dangerous to remove the lightship. I make a plea for the maintenance of that navigation aid in its present position.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, it is unusual for a member from the west coast to support a position taken by members from the east coast, yet it should not be because all of us are interested in the maintenance of traffic in and out of Canadian ports. From personal discussions I have had recently I know the very real concern felt by those who are interested in the port of Halifax with respect to the matters which have been drawn to the committee's attention by my colleagues from Queens-Lunenburg and Shelburne-Yarmouth -Clare.
I understand one of the reasons for the reluctance to make a commitment to restore the lightship on the shoal upon which several vessels were lost, is a matter of money. Recently an automated signal has been placed there, but the authorities are concerned that if they restore the lightship manned by human beings it will cost them money to maintain the crew, provide sustenance, and transport them out to the ship on interchanges of duty. This is an improper consideration to allow to stand in the way of restoration of 100 per cent service at that station.
All that is really asked for is that the manned lightship with trained personnel be restored while another look is taken at the situation to see whether the automatic signal is really adequate to protect the lives and the safety of those in charge of the vessels coming in and out of that port.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue to give us a little more than the automatic assurance that he will bring this matter to the attention of his colleague. I would ask him to assure the committee that he personally will recommend to his colleague that, starting tomorrow and continuing until the further studies of the adequacy of the system are completed, or until an assurance is given that it is the best system which can be devised, the old system will be restored, because it is an indisputable fact that under the old system there was not this loss of life which there has been in recent months since the automatic system was installed. If the

March 22, 1967
Supply-Transport
minister would give us that assurance, rather than just say that he will bring it to the attention of his colleague-that is, that he will make a positive recommendation that the former system be restored-then this item can be carried with a good conscience. If, however, he is not prepared to give that assurance, then I do not think my colleagues from the maritime area would be prepared to let the item carry.


Edgar John Benson: First of all, may I say that I am not at all surprised that the hon. member from the west would support this very worthwhile plea which is being made by the members from Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: Queens-Lunenburg.


Edgar John Benson: However, I am not in a position to give him my assurance that I will tell the Minister of Transport what he should do in respect of his particular department. But I can give the further assurance that tomorrow morning I will get on the telephone and speak to the Minister of Transport about this particular matter so that he can give it his own special consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15g. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the company to the Minister of Finance to be applied by the company in the payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1966 in respect of the following services: Newfoundland ferry and terminals: Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals; Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A. ferry service, $1,176,000.
John Oates Bower: Mr. Chairman, on Friday, February 24 I asked a question of the Minister of Transport and I was declared out of order by the Speaker. I brought the matter up again on Monday, February 27 on the adjournment debate. I believe I am in order in bringing up the matter at this time, because I see in this vote specific mention of the Bar Harbor ferry. This is the subject in respect of which I should like to speak now. During the adjournment debate the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport simply talked around the subject. He was speaking of one ferry and I was speaking of another. I did not find that very satisfactory and probably he did not either. Therefore I wish to take this opportunity to bring up the subject again in an effort to obtain from the government some assurance that a situation which is very bad will be corrected.

The problem is that the ferry from Bar Harbor, Maine-the motor vessel Bluenose -to Yarmouth is so crowded during the summer months that people are unable to obtain passage on it. In this way tourists are discouraged from coming to Nova Scotia. Tourism happens to be just about on a par in importance, with our fishing industry. It is an other economic backbone of the province. In my remarks on the adjournment debate I endeavoured to receive an assurance from the Minister of Transport that this summer a second ferry-a supplementary service-would be available for service between Bar Harbor and Yarmouth, so that the tourist trade would not be throttled.
I had reason to believe that such a ferry might be available because last winter when the Bluenose was placed to go into drydock for overhaul, the Leif Eiriksson, which is a car ferry, was supposed to relieve her. At that particular time, however, the Leif Eiriksson was required to relieve the M. V. Cabot and therefore was not available to replace the Bluenose. I presume that now, or at least by early summer the Cabot will be back in service, and therefore I urge the minister to consider putting the Leif Eiriksson, or some equally suitable vessel, into use as a supplementary service. It is absolutely essential that our tourist industry not be restricted; it should, rather, be given a very opportunity to expand.
1	think the request I am making is a reasonable one. I am dealing now, not just with the town of Yarmouth but also with the interests of the province of Nova Scotia. I believe the people of this province have every right to feel that they should be given consideration in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
2	Og. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, dock and terminal facilities, including improvements to terminal facilities owned by Newfoundland, and of vessels and related equipment as listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects, $1.
27g. Canadian National Railways deficits, 1966- amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the company) arising in the calendar year 1966, which deficit shall be calculated after taking into account subsidies received by the company in 1966 in respect of the
March 22, 1967
[Stage Direction]
maintenance of lower freight rates In 1964 and 1965, and after providing for outstanding liabilities for vacation pay accrued in 1966, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund, $25,000,000.
30g. Administration, operation and maintenance, $339,000.
35g. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to increase to $37,800,000 the commitments for the current fiscal year for airports and other ground services, $5,300,000.
John Oates Bower: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak in respect of this item also. Again this is in connection with tourism in the province of Nova Scotia. The Yarmouth airport is the air gateway into Nova Scotia and indeed into the maritime provinces from such moderately populated places as New York city, Boston, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Washington and so on. A year or so ago the government improved one of the two runways at the Yarmouth airport but did not improve the other. I questioned the ministry on that and was informed that they would not do the work on the transverse airstrip because they did not expect to have DC-9 aircraft in use until 1970. It seemed therefore, that we were to be relegated to the position of having second rate landing facilities until 1970, and second rate planes to the same date.
I should like to repeat my point that everything should be done to encourage people to travel to the Maritimes. There is no limit to the ability of the people in the maritimes to entertain tourists, including people from central Canada, during the summers. I feel that consideration should be given to providing first rate treatment to the gateway to the area, and that this should include provision of a first rate airport and up to date planes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Edgar John Benson: I always do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I understand the original plan, it called for escalators both ways. In the meantime there has been some discussion about the possibility of having one of those telescope arrangements from the second floor to the aircraft level. I might mention that there is no problem confronting people leaving the air terminal to go to the aircraft. They do have to take an escalator up and then walk down. But people arriving find they have to go through this process of walking up the stairs for the fun of walking down, and this is a particular hardship for older people and people with children.
I hope this item includes money for this improvement. If not, I hope that the minister in his capacity as President of the Treasury Board-that man who says there is money for this and for that-will encourage the Minister of Transport to correct this deficiency.


Edgar John Benson: I should point out that the
improvement to the Winnipeg airport is not covered by this item. The Minister of Transport indicated to the house in answer to a question on orders of the day that this particular matter is under consideration. I assure my hon. friend that if he makes a recommendation to me, and we have any money, his recommendation will be looked upon favourably, at least by me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those are very nice words, but let me remind the President of the Treasury Board that the previous minister of transport, the present Minister of Public Works, was also looking into the situation when he held that portfolio. I hope this process of looking into the situation will some day soon produce results.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
35g. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to increase to $37,800,000 the commitments for the current fiscal year for airports and other ground services, $5,300,000.
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1967
Supply-Treasury Board
General-
73g. Reimbursement of the Department of Transport revolving fund for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $215,700.
B-Air transport board-
75g. Salaries and other expenses, $12,000.
78g. Subventions for air carriers as detailed in the estimates, $250,000.
C-Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
SOg. Administration, operation and maintenance, $35,000.
82g. Railway grade crossing fund-to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, an increase from $34,967,000 to $40,967,000 (in addition to any commitments in respect of which amounts are appropriated under this or any other act) in the commitments that may be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years, $1.
D-Canadian maritime commission-
90g. Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $2,081,919.
E-National harbours board-
104g. Payment to the national harbours board to be applied in payment of the balance of the deficit incurred in respect of the calendar year 1965 and the deficit expected to be incurred in the calendar year 1966 (exclusive of interest on advances authorized by parliament and depreciation on capital structures) in the operation of the Jacques Cartier bridge, Montreal harbour, $483,000.
F-St. Lawrence seaway authority-
105g. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the Governor in Council and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, the disbursement by the authority of revenues derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $549,000.
107g. Payment to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, upon application, approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the authority to the Minister of Finance, to reimburse the authority in respect of the Welland canal deficit incurred by the authority during the calendar year 1966, $10,150,000.
Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: That concludes the Department of Transport. We will now consider the supplementary estimates for the Department of the Treasury Board.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD Administrationlg. Departmental administration, $74,400,000.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for a number of hours, suffering with the minister, while he has laboured to explain these estimates and send them into the cold, hard world. I think this is an appropriate time to make a few remarks about our procedure of dealing with estimates. The minister I

am sure knows what I am going to say on this item, which includes the publication of estimates.
Perhaps I am preaching to the converted so far as the minister is concerned. It is his delinquent colleagues to whom I wish to address my remarks because they are delinquent through indolence, negligence or in attempting to slip these estimates through at the last minute.
The total amount involved in the supplementary estimates is $235 million and, if I may continue in the same vein in which I started, the period of gestation is all too short. These estimates were brought down on March 10, three weeks before the end of the fiscal year. The minister will likely say that this practice has been followed on many previous occasions, but in light of the fact that the estimates for the ensuing fiscal year show such a tremendous increase I do not think it is competent for us to let these supplementary estimates pass without registering a very strong objection.
It is a bad parliament that follows this practice. We have now no alternative because these estimates must be passed by the end of this month. It is an even worse government which brings down estimates at such a late date and indicates that the money has either been spent or committed. There have been problems but many of them have occurred because the government did not arrange its affairs as it should have by bringing these estimates down some 15 months ago. The government has gone forward, backward, sideways; it has wiggled, squirmed and jiggled like a go-go dancer with Saint Vitus dance. In my view this is not good enough.
I do not want to debate the reports of the standing committee on public accounts and on procedure, but we have attempted to deal with this problem. I hope we can go a step further. I mention this because the senior Minister without Portfolio made a speech the other day regarding procedure, in which he outlined what the government would like to see so far as the opposition is concerned. What the opposition wants to see so far as the government is concerned is some order in the way these estimates are brought down.
Some day I hope a fixed date will be set when the main estimates must be brought down, and a fixed date when supplementary estimates must be concluded in order that we will not have this situation occurring again and again. It is my hope that the procedure committee will have an opportunity to come to
March 22, 1967

grips with the situation because I think it is shameful and scandalous that we are being asked to approve estimates at this stage without an opportunity to give careful and anxious scrutiny to $325 million of expenditures. I hope that with the co-operation of all hon. members the procedure committee will accomplish something in this regard, because this problem has caused difficulty for everyone. It is my hope that we will be able to avoid any repetition, and I have spoken tonight to file a caveat to this procedure at this time.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, let me say in reply that the hon. member is preaching to a convert. I am one of those who believe parliamentary estimates should be dealt with in the early days of a session. Two things are involved in this regard. The government must present the estimates properly, and this year we have presented the estimates for next year as quickly as they have ever been presented. Second, committees to whom estimates are referred must not hold on to them for undue periods of time. This happens on occasion and we do not get them back quickly to the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Like within seven days.


Edgar John Benson: I cannot specify a time limit within which they should be considered by a committee, but they should be dealt with expeditiously and returned to the house as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Peace River. We are both members of the committee on procedure, and therefore are particularly conscious of the recommendations now before the house. I hope the President of the Treasury Board can sell this recommendation to his colleagues.
Having regard to the point made about committees not doing their jobs-


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not mean to be offensive. In respect of the point the minister made about the committee holding on to estimates and not allowing them to get back to the house, I simply say that one of our recommendations will take care of that difficulty.
The significant recommendation is to the effect that unless estimates are passed before the end of the 90th sitting day of the session
Supply-Treasury Board the government will suffer the penalty of loss of time. This is true also if the government has to bring in supplementary estimates after that period of time.
I think the hon. member for Peace River was speaking not only for himself but for most members of the committee when he said we should like soon to see the day that we have a calendar in respect of these things. In the meantime we have recommended that we adopt this rule, which we hope will induce the government to get the estimates through in the early part of a session. It is a good thing that we are preaching to one person who has been converted, and we hope that he will attend to the other ninety and nine.
0	(9:40 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. lg carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the committee system, because I think it is time we gave our attention to it. The idea of having standing committees to which departmental estimates are referred is an excellent one, and an improvement of course in our procedures. But I raise with the minister, the government and the committee the question whether we have not gone too far along the lines of referring every department every year to a standing committee. This means that we have 24 standing committees. That is fine, but you cannot man 24 standing committees all meeting at the same time as the house and its committees are meeting.
I think we are suffering, as it were, from an excess of bad conscience. Because in the past we did not refer enough departments for committee scrutiny, we are now making up for it by referring too many all at the same t'me. I make this suggestion for the consideration of the committee of the whole and the standing committee. We now have 24 standing committees corresponding roughly to each department of government. Could we not, on the basis that the normal life of a parliament is four years, refer, say, six departments a year for detailed scrutiny by a committee? Then in four years you would have had every department of government studied exhaustively in a committee. But you would have in each year only six committees sitting, and it would be possible to man those six standing committees in terms of work of the members, the committees staffs, the translation service, and so on; whereas at the present time, while
1	think the desire is commendable, the work

March 22, 1967
Supply-Treasury Board is suffering and committees are not able to do the job because they lack the staff, and members lack the time they would like to devote to these matters.
I would therefore ask this committee of the whole, the government and the standing committee to consider the idea that instead of having every department referred every year we should have, say, six departments referred every year, so that in the life of an ordinary parliament you would have all departments given one thoroughgoing scrutiny in a standing committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I just happened to come in at the appropriate time when someone was talking about the committee system of the House of Commons. I wish to add my protest in this respect. I think that the House of Commons has gone crazy over committees and the house itself has suffered accordingly. This is a committee of the House of Commons, a committee of the whole house, and should be used as it used to be used in days gone by, instead of hiving off small committees scattered all over the buildings on parliament hill.
You can be sure of maintaining a quorum in the committee of the whole house, but you cannot be sure of maintaining a quorum in some of our smaller committees. Time and time again we hear of committees meeting and waiting for a half an hour or longer for a quorum before they can proceed with their work. I say, Mr. Chairman, let us revert to half way between this system and the old, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops. Let this committee of the whole house deal with estimates to the fullest extent that is reasonable and from time to time refer estimates for more so-called detailed study by committees.
There is some advantage to this detailed study by committees once in a while, but not every year. Senior departmental officials have told me that burdensome as it is to appear before a house committee on estimates, nevertheless it is a spur and a help to them in their work because they are put on their mettle, they have to know their job and be able to answer the questions of interested members of the House of Commons. I would not subject them to this every year, but as the hon. member for Kamloops has quite properly said, perhaps six departments each year should be referred to our smaller committees. This system might very well satisfy the house.

As a matter of fact some years ago we had a committee on estimates. The idea with regard to that committee was just about what has been proposed by the hon. member. But I warn the House of Commons against the proliferation of committees. I have seen during the last two years the deterioration of the committee of the whole house and the House of Commons itself because hon. members have been occupied elsewhere. Of course the general public think we should be here in this chamber. For the last six weeks-and I am a fairly good attender in this chamber; I am either here in my seat or behind the curtains, and can generally be found-on the defence committee alone, with 23 other hon. members of this house. I have been attending twice and three times a day through the five sitting days of the week. Our only opportunity to be present in this chamber has been on the orders of the day. This is not right. Just think of the speeches the house has been deprived of hearing, because we have been absent on committee work.


Gerald William Baldwin: What about the benefit to the defence committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The defence committee has of course reaped the benefit. But a larger audience exists in this chamber. The present system is ruinous of the work of an hon. member; it is ruinous to the chamber itself and is putting too much emphasis on the committee system. The committee system has value, but its value is not as great as some outside observers maintain. Having done quite a bit of committee work over a great number of years, I come back to the point that here in this chamber more effective work generally is preformed.
There are special times and special investigations when better work is carried out by a smaller committee, but by and large this chamber is the place where the work should be carried out. I hope that instead of having 24 committees examining estimates, the bulk of the estimates will be covered here and the ministers concerned will stand up and disclose to us whether they know anything about the departments with which they are fumbling. We will soon find out. I support what has been said by the hon. members for Kamloops and others in regard to the committee system. It has gone too far too fast, and there should be a retraction in this respect.
March 22, 1967


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word or two with regard to the committee system with which we have been experimenting during the last year or two. I think it has advantages in many ways, but I believe many of the advantages are lost because of bad scheduling. This is the point I particularly wish to make, namely that the committees should be set up early and the scheduling of the meetings of the committees should be such as not to interfere with the sittings of the house or with the sittings of other committees. During the 22 years I have been a member of the House of Commons I have been trying to put this point over in the various committees of which I have been a member, and in this chamber. However, I am sorry to say that there has never been very much in the way of material advance made in that regard.
If you have two or three committees authorized to sit at a certain time, they will almost invariably hold their meetings on Tuesday mornings and Thursday mornings, and if they are meeting more than twice a week they will probably all meet at the same time. I believe that many of the difficulties which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has mentioned could be obviated by a reasonable scheduling by a house co-ordinating group.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. Ig carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government administration-
19g. To authorize the Governor in Council to amend from time to time schedule A of the Public Service Superannuation Act by deleting therefrom any board, commission or corporation named therein that has ceased to exist, and to deem, with effect from the 11th day of July, 1966, that persons in positions, as determined by the Governor in Council, in the whole or any portion of any board, eommission or corporation which has its own pension plan are not employed in the public service for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Public Service Superannuation Act while such pension plan is in force, $1.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, lest the President of the Treasury Board think that there is concurrence in the remarks which he made earlier about $1 votes, I merely wish to say that I think this item and the next one are not matters which are proper for the estimates and should be put in a statute. I believe this is particularly true of these two $1 votes, because earlier the house had before it the superannuation acts. I suggest that this 23033-910
Supply-Treasury Board is where these matters should have been dealt with. I will not reiterate the views that I have expressed before. I only wish to say that I am unrepentant so far as they are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
24g. To authorize as of March 31, 1967, the charging to the superannuation account and the retirement fund, as defined in the Public Service Superannuation Act, of the amount of all advances made pursuant to finance vote L100D of Appropriation Act No. 2, 1966, and L100E of Appropriation Act No. 4, 1966 to or in respect of persons described in those votes who were required to make contributions under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan in respect of remuneration received after December 31, 1965, and to provide that, notwithstanding the Public Service Superannuation Act, the contributions payable pursuant to that act to the superannuation account or the retirement fund by any such person shall be reduced to the extent that the combined effect of that act and the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan result in a requirement to contribute in respect of that remuneration at rates in excess of 6.5 per cent in the case of a male contributor and 5 per cent in the case of a female contributor prior to his or her ceasing to be employed in the public service, $1.
Item agreed to.
25g. To authorize the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts due, and claims by. Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $15,133,978.33, $1.
_ Mr. Bell (Carleion): Mr. Chairman, vote 25g is a very large sum of money. I think that perhaps it is the largest item which has ever been written off. One sees that in relation to the National Revenue taxation the average amount of write-off is $10,456, which would indicate that there are some very spectacular claims. Similarly, in Defence Production the average write-off is $13,289, and in Unem-polyment Insurance there are two claims averaging $25,300. The minister has been kind enough to give me, in accordance with past practice, a list of the items which are being written off, which I have not had an opportunity to examine.
However, I would like him to assure the house that he has given them his careful consideration and that he believes that all these items, totalling over $15 million, are in fact uncollectible.
Edgar John Benson: Not only do I believe this but, as my hon. friend knows, before a write-off takes place an inter-departmental committee examines it and decides whether the amount is absolutely uncollectible. I would point out that the largest amount is in the Department

March 22, 1967
Supply-Treasury Board of National Revenue. This is quite normal because after all that department is responsible for collecting most of the money collected by the government. I think that over the years the efficiency of the department has been demonstrated by the relatively small amount which ultimately has had to be written off, and the officials in my department should be congratulated for the work they do in collecing accounts. When one considers that they are collecting between $10 billion and $11 billion a year, the write-off of $15 million is not as significant as one would think. One hates ever to have to write off accounts as bad debts, but people do go bankrupt.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the minister concerning vote 25g under the Treasury Board. I know the minister well and I know he is truthful in his answers. He and I became members of this house together in June 1962, when our party was in opposition. No doubt he will remember the time when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was sitting then in opposition, assisted by some newcomers to the house, was pressing the government of the day for a statement concerning all amounts over $1,000 that had been remitted by the government, as required by the Financial Administration Act. The minister will remember that there had been some hanky-panky or sleight of hand by the government of that time whereby they raised tariff rates on a large number of items and reduced them on another large number. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre drew the attention of the house to the fact that when there is remission of more than $1,000 it must be published for the information of the members of parliament.
In vote 25g we are asked, under a $1 item, to authorize the Treasury Board to delete from the accounts certain debts which are due. I should like to ask whether this language has been picked deliberately in order to get around the requirement under the Financial Administration Act, according to which amounts remitted in excess of $1,000 must be published. It seems to me that this item should be covered by the Financial Administration Act and not by supplementary estimates for $1 authorizing the Treasury Board to delete from the accounts certain amounts due. When I take a stand in opposition I remain with it even when I am on the right hand of the Speaker. I believe the Minister of National Revenue acts similarly. However, I would like to know whether the
IMr. Benson.]
cabinet has used the word "delete" in order to get around the provisions of the Financial Administration Act.


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case. Section 22 of the Financial Administration Act allows the governor in council to forgive amounts of indebtedness under certain conditions. If the amount of indebtedness is in excess of $1,000, it has to be published in the public accounts. In this instance we are not forgiving or remitting anything. Every possible effort has been made by the government to collect the money, but it has not been possible.
So there is no object in keeping it in our accounts as an account receivable and inflating the balance sheet of the government of Canada by showing an amount which we cannot collect. It is the same as a bad debt in ordinary business. Remissions under section 22 of the Financial Administration Act are a different matter, where an indebtedness is forgiven. Here we are not forgiving anything, and indeed, if we had a chance to collect the amounts, we would not be writing them off.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I should like to ask the minister one question: Does the debtor come out the best when the indebtedness has been remitted or when it has been deleted?


Edgar John Benson: It is being written off as a bad debt. The governor in council did not decide that this was an unfair amount for someone to pay, and that therefore it should be written off. In this case we made every effort to collect it but were unable to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, can the minister give an indication of the reasons for the write-off in some of these cases? Are the 1,300 write-offs under National Revenue, taxation, individual income tax debts, or are they corporation income tax debts? In either case why are they being written off?


Edgar John Benson: In some cases they are corporation debts. Under customs and excise the total amount is $1,073,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the other taxation?


Edgar John Benson: There are many of them here and in each case the reasons are indicated beside them. In the first case there are deceased debtors with no estate. Then there are untraceable debtors, that is taxpayers who may have left Canada. We may have searched for them from six to ten years, after
March 22, 1967

which the debt is written off because we cannot find them. Then there are cases of people who are no longer resident in Canada and from whom we cannot collect. They do not cease to be indebted to the crown merely because we write them off as a bad debt. Another large number of cases are bankruptcies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then there is a difference between these cases and the cases referred to by the hon. membr for York-Humber? If one of these persons who has left Canada were to come back, would he still owe us money?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So the amount has been written off because we cannot get it, but he has not been forgiven.


Edgar John Benson: Yes.
Item 25g agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to:
6g. To provide, notwithstanding the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, that Martin Merlihan, Mary Merlihan, Sheila Merlihan and Patricia Merlihan, children of the late Francis J. Merlihan who died on the 7th day of June, 1965, while under treatment for a pensionable disability, be deemed to be students on and from the 8th day of June, 1965, within the meaning of the said act, $1.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Pensions-
20g. Administration, $70,000.
Treatment services-
30g. Operation and maintenance, $900,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
40g. Administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $210,000.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to:
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-
L5g. Advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, subject to such terms and conditions (including the delivery to Her Majesty, in satisfaction of the advances, of obligations or shares of the company), as the Governor in Council may approve, to finance the construction in Quebec of a Candu-BLW 250 nuclear power station, $3,000,000.
Defence production-
L13g. To extend the purposes of the revolving fund established by loans, investments and advances vote L18e, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1966, to include (a) the procurement of insurance coverage at bulk rates on the movement of household effects; and (b) the financing, in the 1966-67 and
23033-910£
Supply-Veterans Affairs 1967-68 fiscal years, of the cost of hotel accommodation in Montreal during the period of the Canadian universal and international exhibition, Montreal, 1967 under arrangements approved by the treasury board, $1.
External affairs-
L24g. Additional advance to the working capital fund of the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization in an amount of $23,460 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1967, which is, $25,000.
Finance-
Comptroller of the treasury-
L29g. To authorize the operation of a working capital advance account, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the treasury board, for the purpose of providing to federal government departments and agencies standing travel advances, advances for petty cash expenditures and imprest bank accounts, and such other accountable advances as may be approved by treasury board; advances made shall be charged to the account and refunds of advances credited thereto, the amount outstanding at any one time not to exceed, $17,000,000.
Indian ariairs and northern development_
1,51 g. Indian housing assistance account-to extend the purposes of Indian affairs and northern development vote L51a of the supplementary estimates (A), 1966-67, to authorize loans and advances to Indians for the acquisition of houses and land for housing purposes in areas other than Indian reserves, $1.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two comments on this item. About a month or so ago I saw a television program which indicated that the department of Indian affairs had set aside a certain amount of money for housing projects for Indians. A difficulty had arisen in that the amount of money allocated for these homes was insufficient to complete them. As a result, we are now awaiting action by the department of Indian affairs.
My question is this. Is this item to meet this particular situation, and can the minister give us an indication whether this is a serious problem? Or is this just an isolated case.


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I can read this particular item so as to give the explanation of the department for the amount of this vote. Item L51a that was the original item-was approved so as to provide money for the construction of houses for Indians moving off reserves. Unfortunately, the vote that was approved provided only for the construction of houses off reserves and did not provide the authority to purchase land for the construction of houses or for the acquisition of houses. It is felt that Indians will in some cases prefer to acquire houses rather than proceed

March 22, 1967
Supply-Veterans Affairs with the construction of houses, and it is necessary to extend the wording of the vote to provide the branch with the necessary authority.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am sure the minister does not have all of the details, but has the problem that I have indicated been corrected and the houses completed? In other words, have sufficient funds been made available for the homes but not the land, or is this a fund which did not provide sufficient money to construct these homes?


Edgar John Benson: All we are doing here is changing the vote wording so that not only can Indians moving off reserves build houses with a loan from the department of Indian affairs, but they can also get a loan to buy a house. In other words, they can do either.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
Labour-
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
Li38g. Advances charged to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by subsection (4) of section 35A of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of provinces during the calendar year 1966, $19,500,000.
L39g. Advances charged to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by sub-section 2 of section 36H of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of loans to any province, municipality or municipal sewerage corporation, for construction or expansion of municipal sewage treatment projects during the calendar year 1966, $32,500,000.
Manpower and immigration-
L41g. To increase to $500,000 the amount that may be charged at ainy time to the special account established by vote 626, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1955, as amended by vote 526, Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, for advances to posts and to employees on posting abroad; additional amount required, $225,000	
Public Works-
L56g. To authorize the operation of a working capital advance account in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, for the purpose of making payments in respect of construction and repair projects undertaken by the Department of Public Works on behalf of other federal government departments and agencies; the payments to be charged to the account and refunds by federal government departments and agencies to be credited thereto, the amount outstanding at any time, after deducting therefrom all amounts due by federal government departments and agencies, not to exceed, $10,000,000.

Solicitor general-
C-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
L7Og. To authorize the operation of a working capital advance account in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the treasury board, for the purpose of operating RCMP messes; expenditures for such purpose to be charged to the account and receipts for mess services to be credited thereto, the amount outstanding at any time not to exceed, $80,000.
Transport-
L81g. Loans to Canadian National Railways in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve for maintenance, repair and acquisition of passenger equipment, $200,000.
L83g. Acquisition of two Twin-Otter aircraft for leasing to Leeward Islands Air Transport Services Limited, in accordance with an agreement to be entered into with the approval of the governor in council, at a rate that will reimburse the crown for the cost of acquisition, and that will include an option to purchase the said aircraft, notwithstanding anything contained in the Surplus Crown Assets Act, $771,757.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this item is a little unusual. It calls for the acquisition of two Twin-Otter aircraft for leasing to the Leeward Islands Air Transport Services Limited, which operates in the Caribbean. This is in accordance with an agreement to be entered into with the approval of the governor in council, and so on. This is a little different from the normal loans, investments and advances which we make and approve in this house.
Could we have an explanation from the minister as to this item? Is the Leeward Islands Air Transport Services Limited owned by one of the islands in the Caribbean, or is it a privately-owned concern? Is there any connection with the Canadian government?


Edgar John Benson: This is subject to correction, Mr. Chairman, and if I am wrong I will let my hon. friend know, but the Leeward Islands Air Services is controlled in large part by the government of Trinidad. These two aircraft are to assist them in a capital way to carry out the inter-island air service which is very necessary down there. It is really a type of foreign aid which is not going to cost the Canadian government money. We are providing these very necessary aircraft for our friends in the Caribbean, sister Commonwealth countries, and the cost is amortized over a period of years. I have been assured this amortization will be made and that this money will be recoverable. As I understand
March 22, 1967

the situation, in the case of default the government of Canada is completely protected in that they will maintain right of ownership in the aircraft.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would it not have been better to have some sort of government arrangement? If the Trinidad government owns the Leeward Islands Air Transport Services, would this not have been better?


Edgar John Benson: They control them. I believe there was some difficulty because some people had a minority interest in the company. I am not fully cognizant of all the facts in this case and the Minister of Transport would know much more about it than I. As I understand it, it was necessary to make this arrangement in this particular manner and it is now before parliament as a loan item to be authorized to enable the Department of Transport to provide, in effect, aircraft for the use of our fellow Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean which are short of capital to buy these aircraft.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not disapprove of assisting our fellow Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean by any means whatever, but here we are making a loan to a company which is now disclosed to be partly controlled by the government of Trinidad and partly a private enterprise organization. To say the least, this is an unusual arrangement. There may be companies in Canada that would like to make an arrangement like this with the Canadian government.


Edgar John Benson: The Minister of Transport, who has just come into the chamber, says that the agreement has now been made and he would be more than pleased to show the agreement to my hon. friend so he could consider the details of it. He does not have it with him but he would be more than pleased to show it to the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, much as I like dealing with the Minister of Transport I would rather do this in public. Will he disclose the details to this house so that everyone will know about it, instead of this being private information provided on a confidential basis?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very glad to lay the agreement on the table at the first opportunity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that would be satisfactory and I regret that we had to suggest
Supply-Veterans Affairs this indirectly to the minister. He should have done this before the estimates were put in front of us.


Mr. Monleilh:: Is that an undertaking?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This will be done on April 3 or thereabouts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L82g. To authorize, notwithstanding sub-section 5 of section 58 of the Financial Administration Act, the retention within the Department of Transport revolving fund of credits arising from the introduction of a system of standard pricing, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is another of the dollar items. I think there are 18 of them in this set of estimates. I should like to put this question to the minister. What is his attitude toward the complaints that have been made on both sides of the house of the extensive use of dollar items for the purpose of legislating? Does the minister just regard these protests as something he has to listen to, or is he going to do better next time?


Edgar John Benson: I think one would find, Mr. Chairman, that on the last two occasions when supplementaries were presented to the house the government did much better than it had previously done in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are 18 in these votes.


Edgar John Benson: As I understand the situation, there were almost as many last year. However, that is neither here nor there. As I explained earlier, many of these items are not legislative items, inasmuch as they only change a vote wording. I read into Hansard a little earlier this evening an explanation of all of them. As I recall it there were only three which were really legislative items, two of them with respect to the pension plan and superannuation contributions of civil servants.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Perhaps I might take the blame for there being an oversight. Were that not provided we should have to amend the Superannuation Act. This is a once and for all item, and may be dealt with in this manner. I can assure my hon. friend that I do not like this because, no matter what department comes before the committee I have the responsibility for getting it through, and I know how difficult that is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1967
Ways and Means
L83g. Acquisition of two Twin-Otter aircraft for leasing to Leeward Islands Air Transport Services Limited, in accordance with an agreement to be entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council, at a rent that will reimburse the crown for the cost of acquisition, and that will include an option to purchase the said aircraft, notwithstanding anything contained in the Surplus Crown Assets Act, $771,757.
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Veterans affairs-
Treatment services-
LlOOg. To authorize the operation, in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act, of a revolving fund for the purpose of financing the acquisition and storage of materials and supplies by departmental hospitals and other facilities in Canada, including the central medical stores maintained in Ottawa; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $5,000,000.
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

Edgar John Benson: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Edgar John Benson: RESOLVED, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1967, the sum of $324,983,578 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-282 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st day of March, 1967.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Edgar John Benson: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.

On clause 2-$324,983,578 granted for 1966-67.
Edgar John Benson: I rise at this time to assure hon. members that the bill is in the usual form, that the items contained therein are exactly the same as the items which were included in the resolution, based on estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask, for the purposes of certainty, whether it is clear that item 60f is not in this bill.


Edgar John Benson: It is not in the copy I have. If it is I shall move that it be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Commitments.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: May I ask how many millions of dollars have been voted in this bill under contingencies?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is a good question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for York-Humber is asking a very sensible question. How much is in here for contingencies?


Edgar John Benson: There is nothing in here for contingencies. This is money which must be spent by the end of the month, by the end of March. No contingency reserves are being built up.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.

Edgar John Benson: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $583,621,688.93, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1968, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $499,354,305.59;
March 22, 1967

(b)	an additional ten-twelfths of loans, investments and advances item L40 (schedule A) of the said main estimates, $16,666,666.67;
(c) an additional four-twelfths of the total amounts of atomic energy item 5, energy, mines and resources item 10, and national research council of Canada, including the medical research council, item 10 (schedule B) of the said main estimates, $23,778,000;
(d)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amounts of energy, mines and resources item 80 (schedule C) of the said main estimates, $2 -543,000;
(e) an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of energy, mines and resources item 30, external affairs item 35, loans, investments and advances item L25 (schedule D) of the said main estimates, $27,544,166.67;
(f)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amounts of industry item 15, legislation item 20, national revenue item 5, solicitor general item 15, and trade and commerce item 29 (schedule E) of the said main estimates, $13,735,550.
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1968.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I report the resolution?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: I wish to say that the proportions requested in this bill are for one month's interim supply to last to April 30, 1967. In no instance is the full amount of an item being released by this bill. The form of the bill is the usual one for interim supply bills, and this goes for the resolution, as well. The passage of this resolution and the following bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to criticize any item of the estimates when it comes up in the committee of the whole house, and an undertaking is given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The only thing that saves the government from a prolonged debate on interim supply is the fact that we have been engaged in this lengthy session of the house for 231 days, which is an indication of serious bad management on the part of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If there are any complaints,
I will explain that statement.
Interim Supply
The other fact is that the hour is late and the members of the cabinet want to have an Easter break. Out of compassion for them we do not propose prolonging the debate on interim supply. But we have a very serious complaint to offer, and I propose in just a few minutes to state that complaint, so that there may be no misunderstanding in future and no one on the government side will be able to say we raised no objection at this time. This is the first opportunity we have had to raise the objection, as the new estimates are before us.
On Tuesday, March 14, the hon. member for Edmonton West, the hon. member for Calgary North, myself and several other members of this house drew attention to irregularities in the defence estimates. On that occasion we raised a question of privilege and Mr. Speaker decided that because the estimates had not been referred to the house they were not before us for discussion, and that a question of privilege was not in order. But he did leave the door open to us to raise the matter on the appropriate occasion and the appropriate occasion is, of course, right now.
If the situation were different, the estimates would have to be withdrawn and rewritten as far as the Department of National Defence is concerned. I feel the greatest regret that this has not been done by the government. We pointed out the error to hon. gentlemen opposite, but they are so accustomed to taking up inflexible positions that we are continually placed in the position of having to plead with them to do what is right. It should be the other way round. They should be setting an example as the government of this country. But it is we who have to point out their errors and urge them to do what is proper and within the law.
They have broken the law by submitting the estimates for 1967-68 in their present form in connection with the Department of National Defence. They had no authority to present those estimates in the way they have done, contrary to the practice in the past. If the Treasury Board or the cabinet is to have the right to alter the wording of items in the estimates at their whim and pleasure, it becomes almost impossible for this house to do what it is duty bound to do, namely to examine the estimates with care, make comparisons with other years, and present a clear picture to the public showing how the money is being expended.

March 22, 1967
Interim Supply
The mistake which was made was smuggled into the book of estimates for the year ending March 31, 1967, the fiscal year which is now coming to an end. My recollection is that during the last two years, in 1965 and 1966, the estimates of the Department of National Defence were put through the house by the use of the guillotine. There was a very restricted debate and it was not noted that in the estimates for 1966 the introductory paragraph to vote 15 had been materially altered as compared with previous years. This is where the trouble arose. I now want to refer to the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966 where the introductory formula to vote 15 reads as follows:
Operation, maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment for the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Now the book of estimates for the coming fiscal year, 1967-68 repeats the introductory paragraph which was smuggled in last year, and is again in error, because according to the National Defence Act the Canadian forces consist of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Heretofore the estimates have appeared under these appropriate headings and a comparison has been made between the new fiscal year and the old fiscal year. In the estimates now in front of us for 1967-68 there is no possibility of discovering what amount of money the government proposes to spend on the Royal Canadian Navy or the Army or the Royal Canadian Air Force for the coming fiscal year, in order to relate these sums to the amounts spent in the past fiscal year. They have all been grouped together, and we have a new division into the commands which the Minister of National Defence has set up.
I have no objection to the expenditures of those commands being set out separately, but they should have been listed in addition to the information supplied with regard to the cost of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. This was the substance of the question of privilege we raised on March 14 and I raise it again, now, not as a question of privilege but as a warning to the government that although we propose tonight because we are co-operative, to pass interim supply for one month, we reserve the right to raise this question again and obtain a settlement of this matter before the fiscal year is consumed.

e (10:30 p.m.)
We think it is absolutely wrong to do this without the approval of the house and without consultation with the standing committee on public accounts. It is absolutely wrong to fail to give the house and the people of Canada an exact assessment of the proposed expenditures in relation to the three armed services which are still in existence. These three armed services will remain in existence until the Canada Defence Act is altered. It has not been altered yet.
This house has not changed that act, and even if the proposed amendments to that act which are to abolish the three armed services pass this house later on this year, we have the word of the minister himself that four to six months will elapse before the new act will be proclaimed. At a rough guess, that means that anywhere from five to eight months will elapse before the three armed services are completely abolished, and before the new set of estimates would have application to their changed formation. So, for a great part of the coming fiscal year, the estimates presented to us give a false picture. This is what I am objecting to tonight, and I am reserving for my party the right to raise this question again, whether it be during the course of some other debate, or when the next application for interim supply comes before us.
Meantime I give a friendly warning to the government, this sometimes inflexible, sometimes immovable government, to change its ways and make the alteration which we are now suggesting. It would be a simple matter on an issue as important as this to delay the operation of this house until the change is made, but I am counting on the good sense of the Minister of National Revenue and of the Minister of Finance to have this change made.
It is not too difficult to do. We are not asking for the whole group of estimates to be altered. We are asking for these few pages dealing with the Department of National Defence to be set up in the form in which they were a year ago. That is not impossible for the Department of National Defence and the Department of Finance to arrange. It is a simple request and I hope when the estimates finally come before the house they will be in the proper form. If that happens, when the next request is made for interim supply we will not raise the objection I have been raising tonight, and which I raise with regret because of the long and hard session we have had, and the long hours. But, always staunch in doing my duty, I bring this to the attention of the House of Commons.
March 22. 1967


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to comment on the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg
South Centre, but I would like to say a word or two on another point. I have not checked the history of the last hundred years to be absolutely sure of this point, but I believe this will be the first time in which three different sets of estimates have come before one session of parliament.
That is what we have done in this 1966-67 session. We have passed the main estimates for 1965-66, although we did it at a time when most of the money had been spent. Then we dealt with the estimates for 1966-67, including all the supplementary estimates which we finished just half an hour ago. Now we are starting on the estimates for 1967-68. Without assessing any blame I suggest that this robs sessions themselves of their meaning and it also downgrades the question of dealing with estimates.
In the course of a year we are never sure whether we are dealing with money already spent, and therefore can do nothing about it, or whether we are voting money for the future and doing it on the basis of an advance, and therefore feel we must restrain ourselves from going into any discussion. I am not going to repeat what was said earlier about the recommendations which came from the public accounts committee and from the special committee on rules and procedure, but I hope all of us in this house, government and opposition, cabinet ministers and private members-and this calls for co-operation-will do our best to get the work of parliament on a more regular basis so that there will be meaning to our procedures with respect to the voting of money.
As I have said, in this session we are now attacking our third set of estimates, and in almost every case we have done this under some sort of special circumstances. It can hardly be said that we are ever dealing with the expenditure of money at the right time. I therefore hope the government will take seriously the suggestion of the committee on rules and procedure that we try to deal with the estimates during the first 90 sitting days of a session, so that we will be dealing with them before the money is spent, and dealing with them in a meaninful way.
I could berate the government for the mistakes it has made in the past. I could turn this into a lecture to the government, but at this point I merely suggest this is something
Ways and Means
of concern to all of us and I hope we will soon get things on a more regular basis.


Mr. Leboe:: I think it is essential, Mr. Chairman, that estimates are dealt with early in a session so that the government itself can get control of a situation. There is one factor in connection with the situation that has been outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have had the experience of fighting six elections in 12 years. In such a situation we naturally get behind with legislation and estimates. This is one of the reasons why I think it is time all of us took cognizance of the situation in Canada today, and forgot about elections for a little while in order to get along with the business of this house.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this resolution calls for an expenditure of $583,621,688.91. So that there will be no misunderstanding and lest anyone think that this is the total amount of money which will be spent during the month of April, I wish to point out that there is probably an equal amount of money which is statutorially provided for, and which is not being voted at present. As a consequence, with the huge expenditure forecast for 196768 of approximately $11.2 billion, the actual amount which is going to be spent in April is closer to $1 billion than the amount specified in the resolution.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)



WAYS AND MEANS INTERIM SUPPLY

Edgar John Benson: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Benson in the chair.


Edgar John Benson: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1968, the sum of $583.621,688.93 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-283, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1968.
[Stage Direction]
March 22. 1967
Ways and Means
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and Mr. Bell (Carleion): Therefore, we now are second times and the house went into com- granting a borrowing power of approximately mittee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.	$1,400 million?
On clause 2-$583,621,688.93 granted for 1967-68.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, can the minister give the assurance that this bill is in the standard form and contains nothing that is not customary in a standard bill of this type.


Edgar John Benson: The bill is in the normal form. I am told there is a slight variation as set out in section 5(2). I perhaps misrepresented the situation unintentionally in respect of the previous bill dealing with final 1966-67 sup-plementaries. There was a change in section 5 of that bill to allow journal entries at the end of the year in order more accurately to report the accounts. That change in the bill was based on a criticism by the Auditor General, but essentially it was in the standard form of other final supplementary appropriation bills.


Thomas Miller Bell: What is the change?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the change in the form of the interim supply bill is to be found in clause 5(2) which has been inserted here. The reason is that on April 1, 1967, $325,000,000 government of Canada bonds and $72,300,000 Canadian National Railway Company bonds mature and the government is in the process of floating a new loan to provide the necessary funds to retire these maturing issues, and to provide funds for general purposes of the government. Since the government must take decisions concerning a new issue two to three weeks in advance of the issue date, which in this case is April 1, 1967, it was necessary to make commitments in connection with this issue under the existing borrowing authority. The wording of section 5(2) of this bill accordingly provides that the coming into force of this new act cancels only that portion of the outstanding and unused borrowing power in respect of which no action has been taken by the governor in council pursuant to section 42 of the Financial Administration Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, are we to understand that in addition to the $1 billion borrowing capacity which is granted by clause 5, that there is the unused capacity amounting to something in the category of $400 million?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct.


Edgar John Benson: The $450 million already has been granted.


Thomas Miller Bell: But it would expire, were it not for this?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct.


Thomas Miller Bell: So, we are renewing the $450 million, granting $1 billion, and in effect the total borrowing capacity would be $1,450 million?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A, B, C, D, and E agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: That, when this house adjourns at the end of this sitting, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, April 3, 1967, at 2:30 o'clock p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we will not attempt to transact any other business and that there is a desire to suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair. Before doing that perhaps I might be permitted, in the absence of the house leader and in the unusual capacity, being the senior minister in the house, of Acting Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
March 22. 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to express in my usual modest fashion the appreciation that all of us feel on the eve of Easter for the services of his honour, Mr. Speaker, the other officers of the house, the staff, and all those associated with our labours. Perhaps I should even go so far at this moment, in an expansive spirit, as to say a kind word about the opposition.
While I realize that we are not even at the end of the session, which has been a long and exceedingly productive one, I should like to feel that we will all come back on April 3 refreshed and ready to quickly terminate this session and get on to the next, which I hope can he terminated also, or at least part of it, very quickly so we can really have some fun during this centennial year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, as the senior surviving member tonight on this side of the house may I express my congratulations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) on his temporary, and I hope short, term of office as Acting Prime Minister. We have had sufficient trouble from his immediate predecessor, and it is perhaps a good thing that this part of the session is coming to a close.
I join with him, however, in expressing our thanks to those who make it possible for this institution to survive, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, and all those associated with you. I congratulate the Acting Prime Minister for his suggestion that it has been a productive session, but the work we have done this session could have been done in two other sessions, with proper organization. If the Acting Prime Minister will use his brief authority to straighten out things on that side of the house perhaps the next session will be conducted along better lines.
I am afraid I cannot agree with the Acting Prime Minister, that the balance of this prolonged session will necessarily end very quickly following our return, because I note that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) is in moderate health and may wish to take part in a debate with us when we return after Easter. If in the interval, refreshed from a Caribbean cruise or some such vacation, he has a change of mind, the session will end very quickly. We will then be able to begin the long awaited centennial session in the best of humour. I do not mind on this occasion, and this may not often be repeated, extending my congratulations to the government side of the house.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be an evening for senior members. As the senior member in this corner of the house, and perhaps the senior non-privy councillor here tonight, I should like on behalf of this party to express our thanks to the Acting Prime Minister for the very generous felicitations he has conveyed on behalf of the government to all members of the house. We are happy to reciprocate those good wishes.
The break that is apparently about to take place will be a very short one but we trust it will be very recuperative for us all and that we will come back prepared to do a good amount of work in the remaining part of this session. Let us hope it will not be followed by just a pro forma kind of centennial session, but one during which we will do some real work for the people of Canada whom we represent.
We join with others in expressing our good wishes to all members of the house with a special word for perhaps the most long suffering member among us, namely Your Honour.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like on behalf of the members of the Social Credit party to briefly express our appreciation for the services rendered and the direction given by yourself and those associated with you. We also want to extend greetings to everyone as we are about to recess for the Easter season. We are all looking forward to this recess because we feel that perhaps it will help clear away some antagonisms that have built up. Certainly it will assist us in getting back in touch with reality, upon our return to our constituencies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let me thank all members opposite for their k.nd words. I wish to reassure the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that my tenure as Acting Prime Minister will be very brief. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) assured me he would be back before midnight.
I should now say something that perhaps I should have said before. This coming Sunday, which is Easter Sunday, is the anniversary of the election to this house of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith). In view of the fact we will not be sitting on that day we should perhaps just note this fact and in doing so, since the Minister of Public Works is not here, I can

March 22, 1967
Royal Assent
spare his blushes and express our appreciation for the indefatiguable and successful efforts he has made to facilitate the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I briefly thank hon. members for their kind words and assure them that I am sure my colleagues at the Chair and at the table appreciate the generous co-operation which has at all times been extended to us.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
I should like to mention to hon. members that the house will reconvene at the call of the bell. In the meantime hon. members, members of the press and officers of the house are invited to congregate in room 16 in a spirit of unification and integration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The sitting is suspended until the call of the bell.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
[DOT]	(12:30 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 22, 1967
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable J. R. Cartwright, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Administrator, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Wednesday, March 22, for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be. sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy of His
Excellency the Administrator, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate Chamber.
[DOT]	(12.50 a.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy to his Excellency the Administrator [Mr. Pickersgill.l
had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1968.
An Act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
An Act to make provision for appeals to an immigration appeal board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration.
An Act respecting pension plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses.
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.
An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
An Act respecting Banks and Banking.
An Act respecting Savings Banks in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order adopted earlier this day this house stands adjourned until Monday, April 3, 1967, at 2.30 o'clock p.m.
At 12.54 a.m. the house adjourned, without question put.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
17g,	20g, 35g, 40g, 45g, 65g, 90g.

[Stage Direction]
lg, 10g.

[Stage Direction]
lg.

[Stage Direction]
lg.

[Stage Direction]
log, 15g, 40g, 45g.

[Stage Direction]
lg, 20g, 85g, lOOg, 105g.

[Stage Direction]
lg, 5g, 6g, 15g, 35g.
[Stage Direction]
lg, 3g, 25g.
[Stage Direction]
lg, 15g, 17g.
[Stage Direction]
lg, 23g.
[Stage Direction]
lg.
March 22, 1967
[Stage Direction]
3g, 15g, 20g, 30g, 35g, 45g.
[Stage Direction]
15g.
[Stage Direction]
1 g.
[Stage Direction]
lg.
[Stage Direction]
25g, 30g, 35g, 40g.
[Stage Direction]
5g.
MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION 20g, 30g.
[Stage Direction]
15g, 35g.
NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE 20g.
[Stage Direction]
lg.
[Stage Direction]
5g, 15g, 20g.
[Stage Direction]
lg.
PUBLIC WORKS lg, 5g, 30g, 60g.
Royal Assent
[Stage Direction]
5g, lOg, 20g.
[Stage Direction]
lg, 15g, 27g, 35g, 50g.
[Stage Direction]
12g, 25g.
[Stage Direction]
log.
[Stage Direction]
5g, 15g, 20g, 27g, 30g, 35g, 73g, 75g, 78g, 80g, 82g, 90g, 104g, 105g, 107g.
[Stage Direction]
lg, 19g, 24g, 25g.
VETERANS AFFAIRS 6g, 20g, 30g, 40g.
LOANS, INVESTMENTS AND ADVANCES Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, L5g. Defence Production, L13g.
External Affairs, L24g.
Finance, L29g.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, L51g. Labour, L38g, L39g.
Manpower and Immigration, L41g.
Public Works, L56g.
Solicitor General, L70g.
Transport, L81g, L82g, L83g.
Veterans Affairs, LlOOg.