1967-10-25

Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the standing order, I gave you notice this morning of my intention, at the opening of this sitting, to raise a question of privilege affecting parliament in general. So that my question of privilege may be well understood, I should like to quote two excerpts from the Globe and Mail of October 18 last as follows-

A strongly worded criticism of government monetary and fiscal policy by Neil J. McKinnon, chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, was delivered yesterday to an international conference of the Financial Executive Institute.

Later, Mr. McKinnon is quoted verbatim and I quote:

It is not too much to say that government deficit spending, combined with a permissive monetary policy that allows continuous inflation really involve a massive swindle-a swindle perpetrated on the great majority of the populace who are least able to protect themselves against the consequences.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I have clippings from several newspapers. I shall simply quote one sentence from he Devoir of the same day to place on the record a French translation of this text which I deem objectionable and defamatory to parliament in general. It is translated as follows in Le Devoir:
-en fait, une gigantesque duperie, duperie com-mise contre la majeure partie de la population.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that if the government can be accused of such flagrant dishonesty, this intimates that the entire membership of the house is accessory to this dishonesy, that they have not protested at the
proper time. That is where I claim there is a breach of the privileges of all members who are entitled to their good reputation and to see that their integrity is not lightly attacked. If I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt by a few brief remarks, to prove my point.
First-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I invite the hon. member to state as quickly as possible the question of privilege of which he gave me notice. I have had the opportunity to study it and I shall be in a position to make a ruling very quickly. I ask the hon. member to co-operate by stating his question of privilege as briefly as possible.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to exercise restraint and I promise you that it will not take me very long, but I feel that this is a matter which involves the honour of all hon. members. Therefore I think that it is worth taking two or three minutes to state my argument.
I say that the seriousness of that accusation of dishonesty, swindle, by the government is due, first of all, to the high position held by the person who made it. Coming from a mere nobody, I would suggest that we forget about it, but it was made by the president of a bank who usually does not talk through his hat, who prepares his statements or has them prepared by qualified people and who reads them carefully. Therefore, he did not overlook the word. I say further that the words he chose are of a very great consequence, since in the Oxford dictionary, I read this:

The Oxford dictionary defines swindle as:
An act of swindling: a fradulent transaction or scheme; a cheat, fraud, imposition.

The Larousse dictionary gives as synonyms of "duperie":
escroquerie, fourberie, supercherie, tromperie.
It is unquestionably a serious charge. Moreover, the formal character of the occasion, since he was speaking before an outside

October 25, 1967
Question of Privilege
organisation-namely the International Institute of Finance Officers-makes the charge even more serious and casts even greater doubts upon the integrity of all members of parliament, who would be accused of collusion in such an odious action. The possible repercussions of the whole thing must be kept in mind.
Mr. Speaker, if the government is guilty of such a vile action, it no longer deserves the confidence of the house and I cannot imagine any member who would still be willing to put his trust in it. If not, then Mr. MacKinnon should agree to explain or correct his statement which may have gone beyond his thoughts. And that is why I move, seconded by Mr. Latulippe, that:
The committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, or any other committee empowered to deal with the matter, should meet as soon as possible to summon Mr. Neil J. MacKinnon, president of the Imperial Bank of Commerce, and to enjoin him to justify and specify the charges he made against the government and indirectly against parliament as a whole in a speech delivered at an international conference of the Financial Executives Institute when he said:
And here I quote him verbatim.
Mr. Speaker, I am sending you copies in French and in English of those two documents and I repeat that, in my opinion, this is a serious attack against the integrity and honesty of parliament as a whole which finds itself accused of complicity in a deliberately fraudulent action, which would not be so otherwise, since there is talk of swindle and trickery.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the hon. member's grievance-and I insist on the word "grievance"-is acceptable as a question of privilege. The hon. member is well aware of the provisions of section 110 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which I quote:
Any libel reflecting upon any member of the house for or relating to his service therein was a high violation of the rights and privileges of the house. But to constitute a breach of privilege, a libel upon a member must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member and the conduct or language on which the libel is based must be actions performed or words uttered in the actual transaction of the business of the house.
The remarks complained of by the hon. member relate more particularly to the government, in my opinion, than to the personal conduct of members in the transaction of their business and in their responsibilities in the house. For that reason, I do not think that this question is acceptable and that the motion presented by the member for Trois-Rivieres can be accepted.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I add a word?
I find it a little strange that when the integrity and honesty of all the hon. members are concerned-


Mr. Speaker;: Order. The hon. member cannot discuss a ruling of the Chair on a point of order.



MR. CHOQUETTE-FRENCH CANADIAN REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY

Mr. Auguste Choqueiie (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a question of privilege in order to point out that the French staff in the press gallery is numerically deficient.
There are only two French speaking reporters out of a total of more than 20, which affects the privileges of the members of this house in the following way. All too often, newspaper reports of speeches made in French in the house are based on a translation which is not always faithful as to the basic content of the speech.
The purpose of my question of privilege is to urge the authorities concerned to correct a hardly acceptable anomaly and to increase the French services of the Canadian Press.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is obviously no question of privilege there. The hon. member recognizes it himself, I am sure, since he did not see fit to follow up his intervention with a motion. May I remind him of the provisions of citation 113 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the house. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION OF POLISH PARLIAMENTARIANS

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished delegation of Polish parliamentarians. For the last week these distinguished colleagues have been our guests in Canada while visiting various parts of the country. It is my hope, and I am sure the hope of all members of the house, that our visiting colleagues will have received in Canada the same warm hospitality which
October 25, 1967

was extended to our own delegation when it journeyed to Poland last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the head of the delegation, Mr. Wycech, a high dignitary of the Seym, for his visit to the parliament of Canada, and I wish him and his colleagues a happy return to Poland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



TABLING OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table in French and English texts of the international grains arrangement, 1967, concluded in Rome on August 18, 1967. It is the intention to place this arrangement before parliament at the appropriate time for approval.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. minister have leave to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-171, to amend the Criminal Code (air and water pollution).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would make it a crime to release pollutants into the atmosphere or public waterways of Canada which cause or are capable of causing undue harm to the health of persons. The new paragraphs would fall under the section dealing with criminal negligence.
This was prompted by the recent information to the effect that pollution in our large cities, in particular Montreal, has increased to extremely dangerous levels. This is one attempt to deal with the problem. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was prepared and submitted before the debate which started in this house on Monday.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Ormiston: 1.	Does the government of Canada receive a monthly trade statistic return from the O.E.C.D.?
2.	On the basis of O.E.C.D. trade statistics and any other information available to the government for the period January 1. 1967, to September 1, 1967, what has been the percentage increase in exports from Germany, France, Japan, E.E.C. as a whole, E.F.T.A. as a whole, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands and the United States to Rhodesia as compared to the period January 1, 1966, to September 1, 1966?
3.	Has the government of Canada made representations to the governments of France, The Netherlands and Japan with particular reference to the large increase in exports of motor vehicles to Rhodesia?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1. Yes.
2.	The following data were taken from the O.E.C.D. trade statistics, series A, July 1967 and supplement August 1967, which are the most recent figures available on a comparable basis.
Exports (f.o.b.) by selected countries to Rhodesia ($U.S. million)
January-May Absolute
1966	1967	changeWest Germany	3.8	5.5	+ 1.7France	1.2	2.0	+ -8Italy	2.1	.7	- 1.4Netherlands	1.8	1.9	+ -1Total E.E.C.	10.5	10.8	+ .3E.F.T.A.	6.8	3.4	-3.4Spain	.1	-	- .1Japan	3.2	4.6	+ 1.4U.S.A.	3.8	2.1	-1.7
3. No.


AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION IN NORTH
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How much was spent (a) in the Northwest Territories (b) in the Yukon, for the construction or improvement of airfields during the years 1965-66 and 1966-67?
2.	What sum has been set aside to be spent on the same items during the year 1967-68?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1.	1965-66	1966-67
(a)	Northwest Territories $897,296 $345,426
(b)	Yukon	$178,222	$401,447
Questions

October 25, 1967
2.	1967-68
(a)	Northwest Territories $1,226,650
(b)	Yukon	$ 113,600
In so tar as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned:
1.	(a)	1965-66	$8,200.00
1966-67	Nil
(b)	1965-66	Nil
1966-67	Nil
2.	The following provision has been made in vote 20 of the estimates for 1967-68:
Contribution of 50 per cent of the cost of establishing or improving airstrips for development purposes, Northwest Territories, $50,000.
Contribution of 50 per cent of the cost of establishing or improving airstrips for development purposes, Yukon Territory, $50,000.


CANADIAN TELEVISION ADVERTISING FIRMS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 389-Mr. Maiher:

Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many (a) silent (b) French (c) English films were destroyed in the fire of the N.F.B. stores in Beaconsfield, Quebec, during the summer of 1967?
2.	What is the estimated value of the loss?
3.	Are any other films and records being kept in non-fireproof facilities?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. National Film Board films lost in Beaconsfield fire: (a) silent, none; (b) French, 27; (c) English, 535.
2.	Estimated value when new, 1940-50, $4,800,000.
3.	No other National Film Board master films are being stored in non-fireproof facilities.


COST OF HEALTH CARE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 447
Mr. Isabelle:: 1.	What is the estimated per capita cost of health care in Canada (medical and surgical treatment)?
2.	To the government's knowledge, what is the per capita cost of health care, medical and surgical treatment, in each of Canada's provinces?
1.	In 1966, how many of the top 50 advertising firms on Canadian television were subsidiaries of United States concerns?
2.	How many were wholly owned Canadian companies?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1 and 2. I am informed by the C.B.C. that available statistics for the Canadian television industry as a whole show 35 of the top 50 advertising firms in 1966 as subsidiaries of United States parent companies. Of the remaining 15, nine are listed as Canadian owned and six are foreign owned.


USE OF PLYWOOD FOUNDATIONS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Are plywood foundations, as tested during research projects Mark III and Mark IV of the N.A.H.C., recognized and approved by C.M.H.C.?
2.	Have loans been granted or guaranteed by C.M.H.C. for construction of houses resting on foundation walls made of plywood?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1. Plywood foundations for houses are not recognized nor approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
2. To facilitate field testing, the corporation has agreed to make loans on a limited small number of houses with treated wood and plywood foundations; to date two loans have been approved.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. $27.85. The estimated per capita costs are based upon payments made to physicians engaged primarily in private fee practice. Payments to physicians providing personal health care services on a salaried basis are excluded except for an estimate of the earnings of physicians in Newfoundland employed under the Cottage Hospital Medical Service and by subsidized voluntary plans.
Newfoundland	$11.75
Prince Edward Island	17.06
Nova Scotia	20.33
New Brunswick	17.59
Quebec	22.99
Ontario	33.43
Manitoba	28.69
Saskatchewan	27.78
Alberta	26.57
British Columbia	34.21
Yukon and Northwest	
Territories	13.21


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS BY YUKON RESIDENTS
Mr. Nielsen: How many Yukon residents claimed unemployment insurance benefits for each of the months in 1966 and for each of the months of January to September inclusive in 1967?

October 25, 1967


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The number of claimants for unemployment insurance benefit at the end of each month in 1966 was as follows:
January	383
February	352
March	301
April	229
May	96
June	68
July	45
August	32
September	32
The commission's Whitehorse local office was closed in September, 1966 and since that date no individual statistics are available with respect to claims made by Yukon residents.


PURCHASES OF C-141 TRANSPORT PLANES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is the Department of National Defence purchasing the C-141 Lockheed transport aircraft and, if so (a) how many are being purchased (b) what will be the total cost of these aircraft?
2.	Will the C-141 be used as a tanker for escorting the CF-5 on trans-Atlantic flights and, if so, will it have to be converted for this purpose and at what additional cost?
3.	When is it anticipated the C-141 will go into service?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, subject to negotiation of a satisfactory contract; (a) four; (b) not available pending completion of contractual negotiations.
2.	Yes, the specifications include a removable inflight refuelling installation.
3.	Approximately 1970.


SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the government received a recent request from the Canadian Dairy Council recommending the setting up of a school milk program?
2.	If so, what response has the government made to the request?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK GOLF COURSE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1. What has been the revenue from the Riding Mountain national park golf course each year since 1960?
Questions
2. What have been the expenditures on maintenance over the same period?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In so far
as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned the answers are as follows: 1. Revenue: 1960, $31,900; 1961, $43,400; 1962, $41,700; 1963, $42,800; 1964, $43,500; 1965, 43,000; 1966, $46,900; 1967, $48,600.
2. Maintenance costs: 1960, $27,540; 1961, $31,205; 1962, $36,621; 1963, $34,487; 1964, $41,525; 1965, $41,351; 1966, $50,647; 1967, $45,559-to October 15.


SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the government given any consideration to the establishment of a social science research council to promote and support research in the social sciences?
2.	If so, what are the intentions of the government in this respect?
3.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to the report of the committee on social studies under the chairmanship of Lord Heyworth in the United Kingdom?
4.	If so, what consideration has been given to the general applicability to Canada of the principal conclusions and recommendations in this report?


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. The government has been giving continuing consideration to the support of research in the social sciences and to promotion of more effective co-operation between government and non-government interests which are concerned. Both experience abroad, including the Heyworth report, and discussions with representatives of voluntary organizations form a part of this consideration.
2, 3 and 4. Answered by part 1.


RECIPIENTS OF OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	How many persons are receiving old age pensions (a) in Canada (b) in each province?
2.	How many of the pensioners are receiving the supplement of $30 per month (a) in Canada (b) in each province?
3.	How many are receiving only a portion of this supplement (a) in Canada (b) in each province?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Number of persons receiving Old Age Security as of August 31,
346$

October 25, 1967
Questions	
1967: (a) In Canada, 1,241,261	; (b) In each
province:	
Newfoundland	23,518
Prince Edward Island	9,734
Nova Scotia	54,944
New Brunswick	40,973
Quebec	278,832
Ontario	457,373
Manitoba	71,936
Saskatchewan	71,254
Alberta	83,073
British Columbia	148,723
Northwest Territories	565
Yukon	336
2. Number of pensioners	receiving the
Guaranteed Income Supplement in the	
amount of $30.00 per month,	as of August
31, 1967: (a) In Canada, 435,284; (b) In each	
province:	
Newfoundland	16,182
Prince Edward Island	4,971
Nova Scotia	24,614
New Brunswick	19,420
Quebec	121,262
Ontario	126,492
Manitoba	24,664
Saskatchewan	22,270
Alberta	28,904
British Columbia	45,888
Northwest Territories	437
Yukon	180
3. Number of persons	receiving the
Guaranteed Income Supplement in amounts	
less than $30.00 a month, as	of August 31,
1967: (a) In Canada, 265,967; (b) In each	
province:	
Newfoundland	3,527
Prince Edward Island	2,397
Nova Scotia	12,383
New Brunswick	7,939
Quebec	55,644
Ontario	97,703
Manitoba	17,541
Saskatchewan	17,214
Alberta	19,296
British Columbia	32,237
Northwest Territories	36
Yukon	50


USE OF NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	What was the total number of visitors to all of Canada's national parks in 1966?
2.	What was the comparable figure for the years 1956 and 1961?

3.	Is consideration being given to geographical extension of national parks at the present time?
4.	If not, for what reason?
5.	If so, what is the present status of such consideration?


Arthur Laing: In so
far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned the answers are as follows: 1. As visitor attendance is recorded on the fiscal year, the period which would include the 1966 vacation season is 1966-67, when there were 11,367,912 visitors.
2.	Similarly, for 1956-57 there were 3,529,976, and in 1961-62 there were 5,491,663 visitors.
3.	Yes. Negotiations are under way with a number of provinces for the establishment of new national parks.
4.	N/A.
5.	These negotiations are continuing.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Forrestall: What are the current pay schedules for officers and crews of government ships operating on the west coast, the lake area, and the east coast?
Return tabled.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to rise on a point of order, and I address my remarks through you to the Prime Minister. After subtracting the questions answered today it is my understanding there are 124 unanswered questions still on the order paper, five of which are starred questions which should be answered as quickly as possible. Some of these questions have been on the order paper since May of this year. In my opinion they have remained on the order paper unanswered much too long. Perhaps I should point out that many of them were placed on the order paper as a result of Your Honour's guidance and instruction.
I ask the Prime Minister to prevail upon his cabinet ministers to give some attention to their duties to this house, particularly in respect of the questions which relate to their departments, in order that they may be answered as soon as possible.
October 25, 1967


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should call the attention of the house to the fact that during this session 540 written questions have been asked of which 416 have already been answered. There have been 52 starred questions asked of which 46 have been answered. Having regard to the unanswered questions, particularly those dating back to last May referred to by my hon. friend, many of them will take some weeks yet to answer because of their nature.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the same point of order. I directed a question to the Prime Minister which was placed on the order paper. It relates to the task force studying labour relations, and simply requests a list of the subjects being studied and the people conducting the studies. This question was placed on the order paper four months ago, and I am wondering whether the Prime Minister will check to And out what the situation is in respect of an answer.


WINTER WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the government reduced its winter works program to five months from last year's period of six months, and will the program now start on December 1 instead of November 1?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the program may begin either on November 1 or December 1, according to the choice of each province, but the period will be restricted to five months.


James Ernest Pascoe: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Last year the winter works program included brush clearing, which is an important winter farm operation in many parts of Canada. Is brush clearing included in this year's winter works program?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that may very well be included in winter works provided that is related to more important works
Inquiries of the Ministry in accordance with the winter works program. In other words, we will not accept programs having to do with clearing fields or cleaning sewers, etc., unless they are related to an over-all construction program.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River on a supplementary question.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: This is not quite a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but it is related to the winter works program because it refers to lay-offs. Did the minister receive a petition from the international brotherhood of railway electrical workers in Calgary protesting the lay-off of 400 men by the C.P.R. due to the tie-up of shipments of grain-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and will the minister have the manpower office in Calgary look into this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FARM MACHINERY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that some months ago the drastic increase in the prices of farm machinery impelled the government to order an investigation, and in view of the fact that the problem is still besetting our farmers, I should like to ask the minister what progress is being made in this connection, how soon he expects a report on the investigation into the prices of farm machinery, and when we may expect the report to be tabled.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, when the royal commission was set up it indicated that to undertake a comprehensive survey which would be meaningful and useful would take some two years. The work of the royal commission is on schedule, but it has not been able to cut down that period of time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At the time the minister set up the royal commission he asked the farm implement companies to voluntarily accept guide lines regarding price increases. Can the

October 25. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry minister tell the house whether the companies have complied with his request, and whether they have kept within the guide lines outlined by him at that time?


John James Greene: At the time, I believe it was about this time last year, the problem was very serious and I called in representatives and executives of the farm machinery companies. The general basis of contemplated price increases was under 5 per cent, which seemed to be justifiable in view of the increased labour and material costs that they were able to present to me. Until very recently I believe they operated within this framework. I have recently received complaints that they have gone beyond this framework, and the matter is being investigated by my office at the present time.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us whether subsidies were paid to Quebec potato producers for surpluses in storage in the spring of 1967 and, if such is the case, what was the amount paid or available for that purpose?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that this question could easily be placed on the order paper.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is a matter of great urgency since the crop for the current year is already available, and if last year's subsidies have not yet been paid, I think it is about time to do so.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works, but in his absence I will direct it to the minister's parliamentary secretary and ask him to bring it to the minister's attention when he returns. Would the minister give consideration to presenting at the earliest possible moment the

government's plans for the construction of the new complex to house the Department of National Defence here in Ottawa. The architects and consulting engineers working on the program for the government describe it as a $100 million construction project to start in the next fiscal year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government use its good offices to obtain from the United States, either at the United Nations or in the forum of world opinion, an explanation of its decision to resume arms shipments to Israel and five Arab countries in the Middle East?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Yes, sir.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I ask the minister whether he has any plans to lend part of his expert personnel from the P.F.R.A. offices to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in order to conduct the Saskatchewan-Nelson rivers study, thus avoiding the duplication of personnel within departments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a submission. I do not think it should be made in the form of a question.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I point out with all due respect that unless some definite answer is given immediately the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could resort to employing people right now, which might not be necessary.


Stanley James Korchinski: I should like to direct a question either to the Minister of Finance or to the President of the Treasury Board, and ask either of them whether in the course of their study of the estimated expenditures their attention was drawn to the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is
October 25, 1967

setting up a duplicate service, and whether they approve of this practice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The second question strangely resembles the first one, but certainly if the minister can answer it I will allow it.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, no government has done more than this one to eliminate duplication in the government service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is related to public health and may possibly lead to some saving of the time of the house. Would the minister consider encouraging the referral of the subject matter of various private members' bills, all dealing with cigarette smoking and advertising, to the committee on health and welfare where the whole matter could be appropriately considered?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have already
agreed to consider the possibility of sending this general subject matter to the committee, and I will be glad to consider whether this particular technique is the most suitable one.



MEDICARE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of reports in the last week or so regarding the starting date of medicare which have created in the minds of the people of this country uncertainty, turmoil and doubt, will the Prime Minister issue a statement or assure those interested that no change is contemplated in the original plan to put medicare into effect on July 1, 1968?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman should not be disturbed by such reports.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Then I shall put the direct question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether medicare is to start on July 1, 1968.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is so under the law and the legislation we passed, in which no change has been made.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Is he trying to discourage the provinces from taking up medicare on July 1, 1968?


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



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase the question I put earlier to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and ask him whether he has received a petition or a protest respecting the 400 men who were laid off in Calgary, and whether he will contact his manpower office there to suggest alternate employment for these people. It is a very serious matter.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice and answer it tomorrow, if possible.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. One month ago, on September 25, I directed a question to the Prime Minister in relation to the government's policy regarding the reinstitution of the roads to resources program. The Prime Minister said he was not in a position to make a statement that day but would look into it right away. In view of the fact that I have been asking this question for two and a half years, and the Prime Minister has indicated that the cabinet have had it under consideration, I wonder if I could get an answer.


Mr. Fairweather:: That is not a long time for that cabinet.

October 25, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope to be able to answer the question shortly. I am sorry to have kept the hon. gentleman waiting lor two and a half years.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he advise this house and the nation if the government will take the necessary steps to see that the shore line of Diefenbaker lake, created by the construction of the Gardiner dam, will be cleaned up and not left in its present polluted and hazardous condition?


John James Greene: We are always very careful to keep anything with the Diefenbaker name as clean as possible.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been informed of the decision of the British Columbia government to set a ceiling of $12,000 per unit in regard to participation in low rental housing programs in Vancouver and the surrounding area? If so, has the minister any comment to make? I should like to ask the minister whether this action of the British Columbia government will make federal funds unavailable for low rental housing.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my attention was first drawn to this recent action on the part of the government of British Columbia through a newspaper article. I immediately got in touch with officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I also called the provincial minister responsible in the housing field.
There had been a suggestion that an average amount of $12,000 per housing unit be fixed. I had not been able to get details as to whether that figure includes land, but I was informed that the figure was not $12,000 for any particular unit, but an average of approximately $12,000. I have asked for further details.
I also wish to say that so far as these projects in British Columbia are concerned

-they number some 1,000 units altogether- not just as the minister responsible for the administration of the National Housing Act but as a member of parliament for a British Columbia riding and therefore having a special interest in the matter, during the past several months I have put some suggestions to the provincial government through the municipal authorities concerned to induce them to take action. I am glad to see that some initiative is now being shown. I might also say that federal funds are available for these projects.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Labour is in a position to announce to the house the date of the special federal-provincial conference on housing, to which he referred when he spoke on this matter several weeks ago, in view of the continuing need for further action on housing.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, at that time I stated that an invitation would go out before the end of October. The invitation has gone out in the name of the Prime Minister to the ten provincial premiers for a conference, suggesting the date of December 11.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell us whether the provincial premiers, or their representatives, who have been invited to that conference, have already sent him their answer?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would think not, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether his attention has been called to the rather extraordinary procedure in British Columbia where an accused person was placed under a hypnotic trance in court, and whether he has instructed his officials to examine the facts in the case and report back in order that we may ascertain whether changes should be made to the Canada Evidence Act so that such iniquitous practices may not develop.
October 25, 1967


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: have not heard of the case but will look into it, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for the suggestion.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Postmaster General took notice of the question three or four days ago, I should like to ask him whether he is now in a position to explain why certain medical supplies which were sent by parcel post by the Canadian Menno-nite committee and were accepted by the Canadian post office were turned back at the point of shipment in San Francisco. Does the minister know whether this action contravenes in any way the undertakings of the world postal union?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Posimaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question two or three days ago.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the clear statement in the speech from the throne of May 8 that the report of the committee on election expenses would be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for study so that legislation might be introduced on the basis of that study, can the Prime Minister say when this report will be referred to the committee so its work can proceed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to look into that question and see if the matter could be dealt with shortly.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



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


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The house again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development for the fiscal year ending March 31,
DEBATES	3471
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development 1968. Vote No. 1 will be found on page 182 of the blue book and the detail of services on page 184.



DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $1,714,500.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall this item carry?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Chairman, the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development considered the estimates of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development for 1967-68 during seven sittings, and on July 6, in its report to the house, it recommended that the department's estimates for 1967-68 be approved.
At the sittings of the committee, I was able to explain to the members the objectives of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development and some of the department's senior officials explained in turn each of the department's programs and answered numerous questions which the members of the standing committee saw fit to put to them.
I do not intend today to deal at length with the department's objectives and policies. I think that the report of the committee and the minutes of the proceedings enable hon. members to understand what the department is trying to do.
However, I should like to make a few remarks in order to allow all the members to study the estimates in the light of what seems to be the policy of the department.
May I at the beginning of this session pay tribute to my predecessors who assumed, since 1960, the political direction of the department. I am referring to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), who was head of the department from October 1960 to March 1963, to the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), who has been appointed minister in March 1963, and to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. John R. Nicholson), my immediate predecessor, who was the minister from April 1963 to February 1964. Those three ministers have given the department that kind of leadership which, I hope, I will be able to continue, and I know I have their entire sympathy when it comes to the discussion of the estimates of the department, especially today.
In the forestry division, we must remember that the department is concerned with research only; in other words, we are not responsible for forest management which
Ociober 25, 1967
3472	COMMONS
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
I think all will agree that the department is leading the way in all aspects of research. In fact, we receive every day tokens of appreciation and also many visitors who come to see our methods and work. Although we are restricted to scientific research in the field of forestry, we have nevertheless taken a number of initiatives, including that of convening the first national conference on forestry which took place in Montebello, in February 1966. All the members of this house received a report of this conference, and I know that several found the information it contained interesting.
Following this conference, there was a meeting of the committee which had been set up to organize the conference, and we agree that we could hold other meetings on a national level in which administrators, deputy ministers and high officials of the provincial governments would participate and consider together what measures the provincial governments could take to improve forest management.
I should like the hon. members to understand the role we play and the measures we are taking. We are able to do this because the provincial governments trust us to take certain very limited measures. There has been recently, as always, some criticism of the inaction of the department in the field of forest management. I do not have, any more than my predecessors, to explain continuously the limitations imposed upon us by the British North America Act with regard to our role in the field of resources, and I shall simply say that thanks to the very good relationship between the officials at the federal and provincial level, and also because of my personal relationship, as was the case for my predecessors, with the provincial ministers of forestry, we can still take certain initiatives which, although of an unofficial nature, have been very successful. I am also satisfied with the co-operation received at all times by the department from provincial and national organizations. And when steps were taken under the leadership of my predecessor to reorganize the department structure, we thought of developing a consultation system whereby all concerned, namely provincial governments, research institutes, universities or private enterprise, are represented. Since those advisory bodies have been set up in most parts of Canada, the results in our opinion have been very gratifying.


[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I could speak at great length on the work performed in the department, but I think that most of my colleagues will dispense me from giving all these technical details which are very interesting indeed but which would extend the debate unduly.
The department of forestry, created in 1960 by the government under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and whose first minister was the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, was transformed in 1964 when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) decided to add certain responsibilities in the fields of rural development and administration of transportation charges for livestock feed.
As far as rural development is concerned, what is known mostly under the name of ARDA, hon. members receive practically every day from the provinces or the federal government press releases which explain the work we are doing.
It is a member of this legislature who, in 1961, initiated that legislation-as I said previously when the department's budget was discussed or when amendments were made to the act-but allow me to recall very briefly that the legislation covering ARDA has changed considerably since then.
At first, it was thought that the legislation was concerned mostly with agriculture; then, as time went on, it was realized that it was impossible to solve farm and the rural problems solely with legislation on farming, that it was necessary to go further. The provinces and the federal government then directed their action toward the development of the physical and human resources in rural areas.
Finally, last year, a third step was taken when parliament approved the $300 million Fund for Rural Economic Development, commonly known as FRED; its purpose is to enable the ARDA administration, jointly with the provinces, to engage in rural development.
Indeed, my colleagues are aware that since that time, since that act was passed by the house, we have signed agreements with two provinces, namely, New Brunswick and Manitoba; and we are currently negotiating vast rural development programs with Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
The administration of ARDA is no easy matter, because the act is based on agreements between the provincial and federal governments. Each province is free to
October 25. 1967

undertake certain types of programs and the federal government may not take the initiative of proposing to them what type of programs they should undertake and develop, so that, in some provinces, certain aspects of the ARDA agreements have been emphasized more than the others. In fact, the programs provided for in the agreements with the provinces have been implemented, in most cases, very successfully and sometimes in spite of lots of red tape. Unfortunately the results have not always been most satisfactory. I am not surprised at that and I believe that most members will realize that such a complicated legislation as that of ARDA, which tackles almost all the rural problems, cannot always be interpreted or implemented as firmly as we would like.
But it is not because in some cases-and I expect a few members of this house to mention one case or another this afternoon-administrative weaknesses or wrong interpretations of the agreements have occurred, that we should come to the conclusion that the program has not been successful. On the contrary, the ARDA program-passed without dissent by both houses in 1961, when the portfolio of agriculture was held by the present member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) -has received the widest acclaim, because it symbolizes perhaps a new concept in federal-provincial relations, where each province and the federal government are partners in a project affecting a definite part of the population, namely those living in rural areas.
On the whole, I think we have made some progress. As you know, the act was amended last year, by the addition of the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act, which made the sum of $300 million available to the department. It is now possible to get to the root of the rural problems.
However, we cannot do everything by ourselves. Until such time as a national agricultural policy is developed, that is, until the federal and provincial governments, in cooperation with farmers' agencies, agree upon a number of targets to be attained in the agricultural field within 5 or 10 years, ARDA will not fulfill its purpose as effectively as it should, and though we have the right to step in the fact remains that a number of requirements over which the ARDA administration has no control, have to be met.
In order to help us carry on our work, we have established, as hon. members will remember, the Canadian Council on Rural Development. It is a rather unusual organization in that it is not under the direct control 27053-220
DEBATES	3473
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development of the minister or the department. It has its own budget, its secretary, and even though its members are appointed by the minister, they act independently, that is, they meet regularly; they make comments, hold discussions, and they criticize the work of ARDA, in a constructive manner, of course, but they are not bound by the minister's decisions.
This is a federal organization of a new type which, I believe, performs its duty effectively. It will soon be called upon to assume other responsibilities, since it has given satisfaction up to now.
Certain members will possibly want to know what is happening to the development program suggested by the eastern Quebec development board and which was turned over to the provincial and the federal governments in July 1966.
It will be recalled that several times last year and this year, I spoke of the federal government's concern with the implementation of this development project which seems most important to me and at Riviere-du-Loup, at Chandler or at Riviere-au-Renard, last month, I undertook, on behalf of the government, to carry out this project. I have the pleasure to announce that last week, I received a letter from the acting premier and finance minister (Mr. Dozois) saying that he wanted to proceed immediately with the practical and definite negotiation of an agreement to implement this development program.
That is very good news which will surely please everyone interested in the pilot area because the implementation of this large development program is awaited impatiently.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In addition to forestry and ARDA, I am also responsible for the Canadian Livestock Feed Board created under legislation passed last year.
The president and the senior members of that board took up their duties on May 12 last, that is a few months ago; they have since considered several problems arising from the administration of that legislation whose object, as you know, is to provide for the transportation costs of livestock feed from the great lakes to the eastern provinces of Canada. They have already reached a certain number of decisions which I announced in the house last week and which are proof of their competence.
They are also reviewing the over-all problem and I hope that in the near future I will be in a position to communicate to the members of the house the stand which they have
October 25, 1967
3474	COMMONS
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development taken and the decisions which they suggest to improve the application of that important legislation.
The department is also responsible for the administration of the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, which has a very limited scope and which will expire in 1970, since the provinces concerned, that is New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, will then assume all the administrative responsibilities provided by the act.
This was a short overall view of the department's activities.
In the presence of two of my predecessors at the head of this department, may I pay a very special tribute to Mr. Rousseau, the deputy minister who retired on September 1 of this year. Mr. Rousseau, whom you know very well, was not only a forester, a scientist, but also a humanist. I think that my colleagues who have worked with him have been able to appreciate in particular his talents, his kindness and his understanding of problems.
Under his leadership, the department has adopted a course which I am sure it will pursue, and my colleagues in the house will certainly wish to join me in paying tribute to this great servant of the state.
Mr. Rousseau has been replaced as deputy minister by the vice-president of the Economic Council, Mr. Couillard, who took up his duties on September 1. There is no need to describe Mr. Couillard here-he is well known, having served on the Economic Council of Canada since its creation. He has had a career in the civil service, and he is known for his administrative ability.
We have also lost this year to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources the assistant deputy minister responsible for ARDA, Mr. Davidson. He has become head of the water resources division of that department. Mr. Davidson, whom several hon. members know, has left his mark on the administration of ARDA and I was very sorry to see him leave.
He was replaced by Mr. Saumier whom most of the committee members have met and who has shown a remarkable understanding of ARDA problems. It is pointed out in the committee report in which a special tribute is paid him.
During the year, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) announced that the headquarters of the department and the research laboratory would be built one in Hull and the other in Lucerne. These buildings


the plans and specifications of which must be submitted, will start soon I suppose. That is almost a new departure for the federal government to try to build on the Quebec side a certain number of federal buildings and I suppose this is preliminary to the establishment of a true national capital.
There, dear colleagues, you have the essence of what I wanted to say to you. I hope to be able this afternoon to answer all your questions. I know that you too believe in the work of the department and that you are most interested in the ARDA program and in the regional development program.
I will accept the criticisms you will make in the same spirit as I have in my remarks, that it to say that I hope they will help to improve the work of the department.


Mr. Hamilton:: I think it is fitting to say at the outset that the members of the opposition taking part in the committee hearings were relatively pleased by the efforts the minister and his officials made to answer their questions in connection with both forestry and rural development. Nevertheless I must say with equal frankness that there is grave disquiet not only among members of the committee but among farmers, certain of the farm leaders and some of the newsmen who have taken a constructive interest in ARDA over the years. They keep asking me: What has gone wrong; why have the expectations of this legislation not been achieved?
Listening to the minister speaking today, I realized he was telling us that progress is being made but that certain limitations were hindering the success of what in theory is sound legislation. I gathered from what he told us that in his view those limitations were, first of all, those imposed by the terms of the British North America Act. In the second place they arose because the federal government could take no initiative in proposing programs and, third, because of the fact that the federal government was obliged to carry out its work in co-operation with the provinces.
The suggestion was made, though it was not expressed directly, that there is a great variety in the ability to understand the purposes and techniques of this legislation, though such understanding is of great importance.
If this is a fair assessment, I think I should spend the few minutes available to me in this debate by making a further attempt to reach
October 25, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	3475
out and identify the obstacles to progress- the factors which have accounted for the progress to date. What distresses us all is the attitude taken in a constant series of articles appearing from time to time in learned magazines as well as in daily newspapers. I cannot deny the accuracy of the assessment made in these articles. I wish to read a portion of one article which happens to be the most recent-it is dated October 17, appeared in the Ottawa Journal, and is written by James Gray, a man with at least 40 years experience of reporting in western Canada, a good deal of it in close proximity to the agriculturists of that region.
The headline of this report states in black type for every city reader to see: "ARDA Floundering in Alberta". Listen to this:
The gulf which separates the ideas of the Ottawa deep thinkers from the realities of life is being boldly etched in Alberta these days. In no place is the process more apparent than in the efforts of Ottawa to get its ARDA program off the ground.
The Agriculture and Rural Development Administration was spawned in the days when Alvin Hamilton was minister of agriculture. It was set up to eradicate rural poverty all over Canada. The basis of rural poverty is the existence of submarginal people on submarginal land.
The writer then goes on to describe the training program being offered in Alberta to induce people obviously in serious economic difficulties to move from their present holdings to the city of Edmonton, receive training there, and eventually And jobs more likely to provide a reasonable living for themselves and their families. I believe this is a fair article, one which does justice to the department inasmuch as it assumes that the department is trying. Yet, further on, we read that after two years of effort all that has been achieved is the signing up, in connection with this program, of 35 families-the great majority of those concerned having refused to co-operate, mainly because they are reluctant to exchange a type of poverty with which, at least, they are familiar, for a new type of poverty in the city about which they know very little.
Here in this article is evidence of the uneasiness which I believe is present in the minds of most members of this house who were unanimous in 1961 in supporting the ARDA legislation. I do not know whether my own remarks will do much good, but for better or worse I will make them, and put forward a few ideas in the hope that the minister will consider them, and possibly make some changes.
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
First, knowing something about the administrations responsible for ARDA in each of the provinces, it is only fair to say that knowledge of ARDA, its purposes and techniques, varies a great deal from province to province. I do not think that lack of knowledge at the provincial level should be held against the minister. In some cases there is that lack of knowledge, but by contrast in other provinces the effort and the appreciation are superb. I will give you an example of that in a moment, but this is one difficulty which we have to consider in our analysis of what the minister is doing. However, having said that I immediately hasten to say that a great deal of the responsibility for the situation that I have described does fall on the minister, because it was he who stood up in this house and stated the principle, which was at complete variance with the original principle I enunciated concerning the right and the power of the federal government to initiate programs and ideas.
In our original statement of ARDA purposes we accepted the fact that because there was division of constitutional authority, and because in solving the economic problems of the traditional farmer we had to seek answers through all forms of resource use, a matter which crossed federal and provincial jurisdictional boundaries, we should have to seek a new type of mature sophistication and work together, first of all to find the answers and then solve the constitutional problems later.
In my opening remarks on the ARDA legislation I emphasized that the initiative should lie at all three levels, these being (a) the federal government, (b) the provincial governments-and I accept the fact that with respect to most resources the legal constitutional responsibility does fall on the provinces-and (c) in the rural development part of the legislation, under which the people themselves propose projects.
If the minister reads my speeches again he will find out that I put my opinion flatly on the line, that the success or failure of this brand new concept of self-help legislation, in contrast with the hand-out type of legislation, would depend on the ability of local people to find their own answers. All that governments were to do was to provide the advice, the surveys and the knowledge upon which they, the local people, could base reasonable proposals, and the second thing that governments were to do came under the conservation part of the act by providing social
3476	COMMONS
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development capital beyond the competence of individuals or groups to provide themselves. The success or failure of this ARDA concept will Anally rest on the ability of the several hundred local ARDA groups across Canada to solve their own problems.
I could relate many pieces of evidence to show that farmers want to be independent, to show they have demonstrated that if given a little bit of leadership they can solve their own problems without great expenditures of public money. Mostly what is involved is a lack of information; mostly it is a question of marketing, not production; mostly it is a question that the world has moved on. For example, our agricultural businesses in Canada and the United States are both guilty of acting in a strait-jacket, of thinking that the only market for the farmers' products is in the local city. They cannot see the evidence that with our ability to produce far beyond the ability of the consumer to consume in our cities, our natural markets are no longer in our cities, are no longer in Canada, but are all over the world.
Here we have this ridiculous conundrum of two billion people in the world wanting what we can produce, and yet we are asking people who call themselves farmers to use their human and natural resources at quarter or half speed simply because there is no market in Canada. I am only trying to dramatize the fact that this is the place for the federal government, without any interference with provincial rights, to let the people of Quebec for example, know where the world needs something; and this is something that can be done through the responsible minister.
I suggest the minister should read the recent report accepted by the Ontario government, of the conference at Kemptville two months ago. What was the Arst recommendation about agriculture in Ontario made in those reports to the provincial department of agriculture? It was to the effect that there is no answer for the farmer in Ontario, generally speaking, and that the richest farm province in our country will have no answer to these problems until the federal government sets national goals.
The national goal is not to kid the farmer that he can any longer save himself by increasing his efficiency. The national goal that must be first and foremost is that the world needs food and we have the people here who can produce it. The provinces which have no machinery to cope with this have to be asked and challenged to help meet

DEBATES	October 25, 1967
this national goal. The provinces have to be asked and challenged to get together.
Any person who goes through Gaspe today, who goes through New Brunswick, parts of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and who does not realize the tremendous capacity of the people in those provinces to produce-people trained in everything they need to be trained to meet the world's needs, yet still living at a very low economic level-that person who cannot immediately see the opportunities should stop walking around, in order to save funeral expenses, and jump in the sea.
I feel very deeply about this because the institutional framework has been set up for ARDA. Governments have done a good job in setting up that institutional framework. All that is necessary is to get rid of this refuge of the B.N.A. Act; all that is necessary is to suggest the answer, and then wherever the constitutional responsibility lies, let that group move.
But going back to my original thesis, the success will depend on the full teamwork of the federal government, the provincial governments and the local people. Yes, the final success will depend on the local people, but in the beginning there has to be this concept, this idea to encourage, to drive, to get around all the difficulties of the federal government. Therefore my first proposal to the minister is that he should reconsider the statement he made three years ago when he said the responsibility lies on the provinces to make the proposals. Let him take his courage in his hands, see the market opportunities, and deliberately set out to achieve those objectives. Let him set a goal.
The second matter I want to mention has to do with the province of Quebec. There is no question in my mind that every Canadian recognizes the efforts made within a period of four or five years by two governments to set up the development area in Gaspe. It has been successfully established. I have talked to the officials down there. I do not think anyone would question their enthusiasm, their clear thinking, and the logic of what they have set up, but on questioning them closely they are ready to admit that in the Gaspe development, which is one of the best examples of what we can do between governments, working as a team, all they are concerned with is increasing productivity without any thought of the end product, which is marketing.
October 25, 1967

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I can see the trouble coming now if we get the farmers all steamed up and enthused about increasing their income by increasing their productivity, and then find that the market for their product is not available. The trouble is already apparent. This does not mean that the Quebec program should be stopped; not at all. I believe the federal government should jump in and say that they know that under the F.A.O. reports of 1949, 1959 and the special report of 1954, there is a world demand for an immediate all-out effort to increase the production of fibres. Let us call this by its simple name, pulp and paper. In this area the farmers are trained. They know how to work in the bush. This is part of the production plan in this area. But somebody must bring the Gaspe area and the four eastern provinces together in a single market operation because the companies which ordinarily handle the products have been oriented to the single newspaper to which they sell. They are quite happy with the contracts they have, which run for years in advance with some of the newspaper companies in the United States and in Europe.
These companies do not see the world as a market place so long as their particular mills have full sales. There is a job here for an imaginative minister. He must realize that here is an opportunity to bring together the five provinces, Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces, and forget for a while that there are provincial boundaries. He should see that here is an opportunity to take the word of the scientists, that the production can be multiplied if the trees are grown by the use of scientific techniques instead of in the natural way which is presently used. Three or four times the amount of wood can be produced off an acre if the farmers will take advantage of the technology available. All this knowledge is available to the government of Canada and has been for 30 years. We all know that it takes 30 or 35 years to grow a tree, but we must consider what other things can be done in this area.
All these farmers some time or other have had an opportunity in respect of cattle. We have heard from departmental officials and others that Canada and the United States are moving toward a crisis in respect of beef. We have heard there is a possibility that in the next few years Canada will have to import beef, because we cannot supply it from the present grass supply on the prairies, and the little that is available in eastern Canada. It is
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development embarrassing enough to have a country like Canada import butter, but it will be even more embarrassing if we have to import beef. This country could step up its production of beef. Alongside beef there is the matter of the production of the fish from the river, the gulf and the ocean. When the World Food Organization three years ago asked Canada for more fish, we were unable to provide it because they could not take our fish in fresh form and send it to the Far East; they could not take it in the dried form in which we produce it. However, we do have the necessary technical knowledge. This was demonstrated five years ago in the pilot plant in Newfoundland. This operation could use the low grade fish which ordinarily would not sell, process it, and ship it all over the world. It could be sold commercially without any subsidy to the taxpayers.
While we have the potato producers crying because of the lack of markets, here we have the fish producers crying because GATT has not given them as much as it had expected. When two billion people want proteins in the form of fish and meat, what would be more natural than to combine the whole Atlantic region in respect of the production of fish, the products of forestry and the products of agriculture? In the type of operation I have been talking about, for example, each one is done seasonally. In the production of beef there is not an intensive labour content. You can watch the cattle grow without looking at them every minute. Somebody, however, must introduce the idea and show how this should be done. Actually the question of getting production organized is not difficult. The people of the Gaspe have made progress in the development program they have shown me. No one, however, is doing anything but marketing; no one has established national goals.
Therefore I suggest that the minister should move on his own, as the minister responsible for forestry and rural development. He should take the bull by the horns, because if he waits for the present Minister of Agriculture to come up with a national agricultural program we will all be dead. Let him speak for the people who need help in the marginal areas. Under the act he has full power to ask the provinces for their co-operation.
My third proposal has to do with rural development itself. When I introduced this legislation in 1961, indicating that I thought it would take 20 years to bring the complete rehabilitation program into being in all the areas which needed it, I had hoped in five or
October 25, 1967
3478	COMMONS
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development six years to see 500 or 600 local ARDA groups. How many are there? There are about five or ten. I know there is good work being done in the valleys of British Columbia and in each of the provinces, but in respect of this essential part of the legislation there is no leadership by anyone, provincially, federally or locally.
There should be field teams under the federal administration for each of the disciplines represented, which will go out and work with the provincial people, not to interfere with their constitutional rights but to show them that we at the federal level are anxious to work with them and learn how to use the available techniques. Larger provinces like Ontario and Quebec should have four or five pilot operations going. They may be big ones, like the Gaspe operation, if you like. But what about the Renfrew area in the Ottawa valley; how about Lanark in the Ottawa valley? These are two types of areas which have different types of redevelopment possibilities. The people in the maritimes and in the Ottawa valley have the necessary human resources and the willingness.
This brings me to my final point. I think the officials must bear some of the blame for the slow movement of ARDA. I shall be straightforward in my criticism by putting it this way. Nearly all the economists who deal with agricultural economy today are talking about this nonsense, which the people in the press who know nothing about it repeat, that the only way to revitalize agriculture in Canada is by having bigger and bigger farm units. I describe this myth as nonsense, because I know what I am talking about. This may be necessary in a few areas where commercial production is possible, or in the almost desert areas of southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. In such areas a few larger units may be necessary. The idea for four or five years now has been to move toward intensive rather than extensive agriculture. We see the smart farmers reducing their acreage so that two pairs of hands, such as a man and his wife or a man and son, can handle the work and achieve greater productivity for the two pairs of hands.
We are getting away slowly from the inefficient and expensive type of program which the economists talk about. They talk about this simply because someone enunciated this theory about 30 years ago. This is evident in the prairies where more wheat is being produced today. It is not the big farms but rather the small farms which are getting more production per acre. My suggestion to


the officials is that they should get off this kick that every farm should be bigger and bigger. The bigger farmer, in the long range, cannot compete with the smaller efficient farmer. I am talking about efficiency in production per unit. Any person who digs down into this will soon find the truth in these remarks. The officials have to get off this kick that the agricultural economists have been following for 40 years, because they do not have the courage to change it even when the evidence supporting a change is developing in front of their eyes. We will eventually see a change when the officials untie themselves from the myths of the past.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I have put forward one or two concepts this afternoon in respect of field teams, cooperation between the provinces, and the minister taking the initiative whenever an opportunity appears. I am sure if the department follows this advice it will find that the provinces will be more than anxious to co-operate.
Let me say one final word about feed grain. For reasons that none of us will ever know, the federal government last year, when Mr. Pickersgill was in charge of the Department of Transport, sold a grain elevator in Quebec city to Bunge, a South American company. That elevator was making a good profit and protecting the farmers of Quebec in that area in so far as a supply of feed grain was concerned. We are now hearing rumours which bear out our fears regarding the Quebec government's warning. The dealers no longer can get their grain into this elevator.
I know the government is aware of this problem but I do not know whether this minister was involved in the deal. I do not even know what the deal was or why it was made. Perhaps this was the result of the cut-off in respect of the Seven Islands elevator. All I know is that the government is now in trouble in so far as feed grain in Montreal and Quebec city is concerned. Perhaps the government was wise in allowing Mr. Pickersgill to get out of the cabinet and into the Canadian Transport Commission. Maybe these funny deals will no longer occur. In any event 1 warned the government about the difficulties resulting from the sale of that grain elevator, which to my mind was a very serious blunder. If the Quebec farmers suffer as a result we will know where to lay the blame.
October 25, 1967


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I speak
under some handicap this afternoon because I have a bad cold, but I cannot resist making some remarks in view of the fact that forestry, farming and rural development have been lifetime interests of mine. I can truthfully say I know something about all of these subjects. I staked my first timber limit when I was 17 years of age. I got a man who was over 21 years of age to actually stake the limit for me, and he sold me the limit back when I was 21 for $1. I had an early interest in this operation.
I have operated a tree farm for some 50 years on a sustained yield basis, so I have more timber today than I had 50 years ago. I am sure the hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton will know something about this. I look forward to that hon. member's speech during this debate because he knows what it is to meet a payroll and handle a sawmill operation. I had some experience for a number of years in the operation of a small sawmill. This mill cut about 30,000 feet of lumber during an eight hour day. I know of the difficulties in connection with such an operation.
For some years I have been interested in farming generally, tree farming in particular, and in raising cattle. I have always been interested in rural development, as have other like minded people who live in small communities. Even today I find a number of people living in the district from which I come who are interested in these subjects. They are particularly interested in the rural development operations which fall within the minister's responsibility. I speak as the president of the Canadian Tree Farmers Association, which is really a group of individuals who have a philosophical approach to the development of natural resources which come from the soil, the forests and the water. The majority of our members are not primarily interested in forestry to make their living. Mainly they are individuals with an income who have purchased property in the country for development along sound resource management lines.
For many years I have been interested in the public and private sectors of the development of forest economy. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, to whom I give full credit for all he did when he was minister of agriculture. His department undertook the most progressive program of any department of that government in respect of resources, and he was directly responsible for calling the
DEBATES	3479
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development resources for tomorrow conference, as well as for the establishment of the ARDA program.
Let me thank the present minister for his personal attention to the matters I have brought to his attention. I have appreciated the work done by his staff in respect of forestry and rural development. The estimates now under consideration involve a total expenditure of some $50 million, so we are discussing matters of considerable importance. In years to come I am sure we will find that these estimates will increase as a result of the knowledge that these moneys are being spent for the sound development of our economy.
The committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development studied these estimates and had every opportunity to listen to and ask questions of the minister and his officials. The meetings of the committee were among the most interesting I have attended in recent years. That committee, the sittings of which were both interesting and informative, recommended the approval of these estimates, I think rightly so.
The tone of the minister's speech was pleasing because he was non-partisan in his approach and willing to compliment former ministers for what they had achieved. We do not often find ministers taking this attitude, but I believe when someone has done something of value he should be complimented. The minister was generous enough to do that today.
The minister said today that the federal role of the forestry department is largely restricted to research. He is right in that contention, but I believe that the officials of his department could, as a result of obtaining this knowledge and without transgressing upon the rights of the provinces, give further leadership in the development of the programs in which they are interested. I am sure they could do so and retain good relations with the provinces.
The minister said that his officials are developing technological consultations with the officials of the provincial governments. I should like him to explain why vote 23 was dropped. For the information of hon. members vote 23 related to contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of forest inventories, reforestation, forest fire protection, forest access road construction and stand improvement. I would like to hear an explanation of why this item has been eliminated, and I look forward to what the minister has to say.
October 25, 1967
3480	COMMONS
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development
In dealing with this subject generally I should like to quote briefly from volume 2 of the resources for tomorrow conference held between October 23 and October 28, 1961. What is said at pages 735 and 736 emphasizes what I wish to say about the situation which exists today in some forms. The part to which I refer is as follows: e (4:10 p.m.)
There is a basis of fairly solid forestry concepts common to the whole country, but as yet this is only a framework containing many weaknesses. This framework must be critically examined to ensure that each component member is sound and appropriate to the finished structure. It is also eminently desirable, especially where the owners are large groups or communities of people, that there be some formal statement of the policies affecting forests and forest land.
That means by the federal government. This report goes on to say:
In the absence of formal statement of over-all policy, owners, owners' representatives, and even administrators, must improvise on each occasion when a situation arises which is new to them-
Then the report says:
When a resource is abundant and population scarce, there are few problems because there is a surplus of values and the minimum of managerial and technical skill is required. Hence policies are simple.
Those conditions existed some 40 or 50 years ago. They do not exist today. The report continues:
When a resource or all resources are scarce and population is abundant the demand for values is greater than the supply; then the highest production of values must be attained, technical and managerial skill must be of the highest order and policies must be adopted for a complex of activities.
Canada is rapidly moving from the first situation-
That is the simple situation in a pioneer society.
-toward the second. That is why the time is ripe for a searching look at our accumulation of forest legislation and forest practice to determine wherein it falls short of constituting a forest policy compatible with our present and future needs.
I believe the federal government can give greater leadership in this direction because of its knowledge as a result of research, its association with all the provincial governments and the prestige which it enjoys as the federal government, without transgressing in any way at all the rights and responsibilities of the provincial governments.
I recently attended a very interesting session of the joint annual meeting of the Canadian Institute of Forestry and the Society of American Foresters. The convention
[Mr. Herridge.l

was held last week. Because this is our centennial year the meeting was held at the Chateau. I enjoyed attending a couple of these sessions and found them most informative. I wish I had been able to attend during the whole of the four days or so that the meeting was held. From reading the Ottawa Citizen of October 17, I noticed that a very interesting paper was read by Canadian and American foresters. This newspaper article says:
"Forestry failed to keep abreast with economy."
Forests must become more productive and also develop into better playgrounds for city dwellers, a convention of almost 1,000 foresters was told at the Chateau Laurier Monday.
The article goes on to say that the federal and provincial governments-it talks in terms of the government of the United States as well-have to pay stricter attention to various matters if we are to have in this country forestry policies that will meet the needs of present times and circumstances. I know that in recent years a great deal has been done in this area, particularly since the passage of the forestry act in, I think, 1953, and with the co-operation of the provinces with respect to research and other programs with which I expect the minister will deal later.
I believe we have to continue and expand research so far as the growth, production and utilization of our forests is concerned. The forest products laboratory has done an excellent job in this respect. I suggest that we have to obtain the co-operation of the public on a wider basis than is the case at the present time. I think we should begin to teach the principles of co-operation and the value of resource management in the primary grades of our schools. We should inculcate in our children the value of the resources of this country and let them know that if we are to improve our standard of living and act fairly to generations to come we must practise to a much greater degree than we have to this time resource management in all its fields, whether it be land, water, forests or wildlife.
I suggest to the minister that this important question should be discussed with the provincial governments, because I have been shocked on occasion to learn of the attitude of some people on the subject of our natural resources. Not long ago I was talking to a school teacher in a small community in my district. This is a beautiful community in which to live. There are in the area small farms on which people are quite happy to
Ociober 25, 1967

live; they are living under reasonably good circumstances, with modern conveniences and all that sort of thing. This school teacher actually suggested: 1 suppose these children all look forward to the time when they will have the opportunity to get out of this dump. This was not said in school but in a private conversation, but to say this sort of thing to school children shows, in my opinion, a complete lack of understanding of our responsibilities.
I believe that something can be done to promote education in our primary and high schools on the importance of this question. Let us get our young people to focus their attention on this important area. Let us give them a purpose in this field. Let us give them an interest in it. They will then have an interest in the land, they will understand water conservation and forest conservation and will have an interest in wildlife. They will join rod and gun clubs. They will understand what recreation and park development are, and so on.
I believe we have overlooked the education of young Canadians in the value of the resources which are at our disposal. We have overlooked educating them as to the proper management of our natural resources in the years ahead. I also believe that greater use could be made of the newspapers and periodicals in this respect. We should seek the assistance of interested groups in our communities.
I suggest to the minister that if he finds there are groups that wish to hear about federal policy with respect to forestry or rural development his officials should whenever convenient have the opportunity to address these groups, whether they be of farmers or trade unionists. I have been very disappointed at the lack of attention paid to this important question by our trade unions. They have not been very concerned about the management of our natural resources. We have looked into the records of the trade unions in this regard. I think Dr. Forsey did this for me. I believe that over a period of 25 years there were only two resolutions passed with respect to the conservation of our resources.
The leaders of all groups have a responsibility in this regard. The trade union leaders must get their members interested in the subject. I have often said in my own district that this is not a matter just for chambers of commerce or farmers organizations to discuss; it is a matter for all organizations to
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development discuss, and to accept some personal responsibility in support of a positive and constructive program.
I wanted to say a word or two about the question of rural development, although the hon. member for Springfield will deal with the subject at greater length. It is one in which we have always been interested.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In this connection I want to quote from the Christian Science Monitor of October 3. The editorial is entitled "A halt to megalopolis" and it reads as follows:
One of the most discouraging brainwashings ever put across is the conclusion that everybody-or most everybody-must soon be living in cities.
People come to accept as "inevitable" what a passel of planners assumes is unavoidable. But the prospect that the United States, or almost any modern country must soon become solidly city-settled-a cement-bound metropolis, for instance, from Maine to the confederate capital of Richmond-doesn't have to materialize. Not if people don't want it to happen.
But it will take a lot of effort to reverse the tide-
Why then this "laissez faire demography," this unplanned population drift cityward? The prime cause is of course economic, and more the pinch of rural poverty than the publicized pull of city benefits-
Running a poor second as motivation is the argument that the cities provide better cultural and educational opportunities. But in a century when educational television can bring learning to any hut with a high-rise antenna, when rural shopping areas sprout up, when bookmobiles travel and good highways reduce the farm-to-town distances, the cultural lure of the city should lessen.
If the trend is to be reversed, the effort must begin at the rural end. There is need for welfare concepts that reach the hillside disadvantaged. For better rural schools. For rural industries. For more farm co-operatives-[DOT]
I read that editorial because I think along those lines myself. It is not sufficient for the government or any organization to accept as inevitable the gradual drifting of populations into the large centres. I think we should have a policy related to this rural development program which indicates we are going to try to turn the tide. I believe we should decentralize the population and decentralize industry if people are to enjoy the sort of life they are entitled to in a country such as Canada.
These policies, whether forestry or rural development policies, must be developed in co-operation with the provincial government, the municipalities and the organizations I have mentioned. There is a lot to be done in this respect in the days ahead.
October 25, 1967
3482	COMMONS
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development
You will notice when you pick up your daily paper that much space is devoted to some movie star who is getting a divorce under certain circumstances, but I will guarantee you will not see much of import in this debate reported, even though the member for Kootenay West is speaking. This is an indication of the values in our society, and with the exception of three or four of the gentlemen of the fourth estate who are interested in this question, most of them would get much more news out of my getting up and denouncing the minister and calling him some unmannerly names.
Before I sit down I want to bring to the attention of the minister that, as I have mentioned, I have been keenly interested in the work of the Canadian Tree Farmers Association for a number of years. It is not a large organization numbering less than 400 members at the present time, but it has been a delight to work with these people, some of whom are professors in forest management in various universities. Others, with a little money, and a philosophical interest in this subject, have bought farms. They have planted trees and are doing conservation work. At the same time they are using the farms as summer homes.
Some are actually tree farmers, and doing general farming at the same time. I want to bring to the attention of hon. members that we presented a brief to the special committee of the Senate on land use in Canada which dealt with the whole question of the taxation of private forest lands. We dealt with the question of forestry improvement, management and production, the grading and scaling standard for wood cut on private lands, and so on. If anyone is really interested in this question I suggest he would be well advised to read that brief, because it was composed as a result of co-operation between some scientists and technical people and persons who have a long personal experience in the operation of privately owned tree farms or wood lots.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? I have heard so often that the lot of the farmers is not a very interesting one. Would he please tell the house if forest farming is a paying proposition?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well now, the hon. member has put me in a spot. Let me explain that prior to being elected a member of parliament I lived for 50 years in complete independence and security on a tree farm slightly above the social welfare level, and


enjoyed every moment of it. Does that answer his question? I must explain that if you live under these circumstances you do not require $10,000 or $12,000 a year to live comfortably, because in addition to what we get from our timber we smoke our own bacon, raise our own cattle and burn our own wood in our own furnaces. We also make our own cider and wines. In fact I might tell the hon. gentleman that I am the only member of parliament who lives in a log cabin, and I am proud of it.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do want to thank the minister for his co-operation in connection with the interest that has been shown in the Kootenays with respect to the ARDA program. The two regional boards within Kootenay West are very interested in this matter, as are the cities, the towns and all the villages. I am grateful to the minister for informing me that people in these areas should write to Dr. L. E. Pratt, director of rural development-western region-rural development branch, Department of Forestry and Rural Development, Box 981, Winnipeg 1, Manitoba. Also he gave them the names of the provincial officials.
They have had two meetings since then and they are getting the federal and provincial officials to come in and discuss with them a planned development on a regional basis of certain projects within our district. I must say they seem very enthusiastic about it and we are looking forward to the time when the construction of the Columbia dams will be completed and a program of this sort will be required to supplement the smaller farms and the forest industry which will continue from that time on, as well as the tourist and recreation development.
I also want to thank the minister for sending out copies of his speech. I see the latest one was on the need for federal-provincial co-operation in regional development. I am sending a photostat copy of the speech to the various villages and towns. As I have said many times, I meet many people who are not happy. Happiness does not depend on money entirely. One has to have enough to live decently, educate one's children and ensure some security in one's old age, but real happiness is found in working in association with other people with a purpose that has a communal inspiration, on programs of this type and on other programs.
In concluding my few remarks I should like to say that I wish the minister every
October 25, 1967

success in all he undertakes to develop this rural development program in Canada, and to secure the participation of the provincial and municipal governments, the organizations and the persons willing to work in this sort of program and do something for Canada at the same time.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity at this stage, to make a few remarks about the department responsible for ARDA. We are very happy that this legislation was passed, but less satisfied with its results, because in Quebec, and specially in my area, those results are anything but outstanding. When ARDA was introduced, it was mainly for the development of farming, the rural areas and the marginal areas. The benefits of ARDA were expected to help many areas and several sectors of our economy. Now, it is realized that the sectors where ARDA was expected to operate are more and more limited. And the higher the expectations of the people through ARDA, the more bitter their disappointment.
My constituency, one of the largest in Canada, which comprises about 100 communities, lies within a designated area, but up to now, since ARDA has been set up, I do not think we have received a single penny from this agency.
Committees have been formed in several communities, where farmers, workers and boards of trade have studied ARDA programs. With ARDA assistance, it had been planned to develop various types of agricultural, touristic and industrial facilities in those underdeveloped areas, but we have come to realize we are powerless to do anything.
One can realize that the whole administration lies with the province of Quebec and that the federal minister has nothing to say on those questions. However, since we pay taxes, I feel that we should have our say in the matter.
Such is the situation in the province of Quebec now, that the federal minister cannot even have his say or express his opinion; in fact, he can no longer suggest some projects or some developments he would wish achieved. As he cannot make such suggestions, perhaps we had better withdraw from that joint program.
If the province of Quebec wants to go it alone, well let her foot the bill. The federal government is prepared to pay its share, that
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development is 50 per cent, but the minister is just allowed to pay, to sign cheques and to hold his tongue.
One can well realize that nothing can be done, in any respect, in the province of Quebec, regarding all the necessary developments. Roads should be built around lakes to make them more accessible to tourists and improve fishing, hunting and camping conditions there, but nothing can be done because the province of Quebec has decided not to contribute. It will contribute only for provincial parks, in other words, for what is exclusively its own.
There are no provincial parks in my district nor are there any elsewhere in the province. Yet, millions of dollars are spent on provincial parks. And those who can benefit from the ARDA developments in certain parks will be found only amongst the people who can afford to live it up, so to speak, in short amongst the people who can pay $100.00 a day or even more for the pleasure of catching trout in those lakes or rivers, while members of the common herd cannot afford to do so. And so, the parks in the province of Quebec are used only by a few rich or extravagant individuals who can afford to visit them and benefit from what has been done with the taxpayers' money, with the money paid by the little fellow.
I think that ARDA should be extended a little in every constituency. All the money should not be spent in one spot without doing anything elsewhere. It should be spread and the minister should have a word to say about it.
In the province of Quebec, ARDA has not accomplished much, I assure you. Millions of dollars have been spent and I think that the budget this year amounts to 61 million dollars. Millions of dollars have been spent and there is nothing to show. Where does the money go? A good part of it is certainly spent for administration but the remaining is not useful and develops nothing among the people. The people who pay taxes are entitled to their share and to live as anyone else. There are several beautiful spots in the area where I live which could be developed with contributions from ARDA.
If the principle of ARDA legislation had been what it should have been when it was passed, we could get certain benefits. But there is no benefit for several constituencies in the province of Quebec, in fact, very few ridings have benefited from ARDA up to now and the future will tell what it is all about. I

October 25, 1987
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development believe that ARDA should render enormous services, that it should bring about enormous developments through the millions of dollars that are expended. To my mind, we should at least see some achievements, some developments somewhere, but we do not see much. Those funds should be used for the development of tourist centers, for instance ski slopes or other similar developments. I think that ARDA has contributed in different areas but not in mine. Several areas of our economy need assistance and should have their share.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
My constituency is as much agricultural as any other in the province of Quebec, and I think that not one cent has been provided for land drainage or any similar undertaking. Yet, we have made several requests, we have put considerable pressure on the Quebec government. As a federal M.P., I was subjected to considerable pressure in this matter and the only answer I could give was: We are not managing those programs, ask the Quebec government and if it agrees, then I think the federal government will pay its share. That was the only answer I could give.
I do not blame only the minister in this connection, but I feel he should convince Quebec authorities to extend ARDA activities to larger sectors of the economy. If the federal government pays its share, it can surely have its say, but if the citizens have no say in the matter, it is then better to withdraw. If the province of Quebec is unable to do more than it has done in the past, I think it might as well withdraw. I feel that it should be left to the people to administer and develop their own projects and that better results would be obtained than with ARDA as administered at present.
I would have much more to say, but I do not want to bother the minister further. I realize that he cannot do everything, but I ask him once again not to yield to provincial governments, and to convince them to accept the suggestions made by Ottawa. There should be at least some practical results in the province of Quebec. I think that directives given for developments now carried out under ARDA should not only benefit the wealthy to enable them, for example, to complete studies or spend holidays in planned parks.
If taxes must be levied and if taxpayers must be fleeced just to satisfy the appetite of a few individuals, I for one think that we should withdraw from those programs.
[Mr. Latulippe.l
I know that ARDA is destined to play a great part in the economy but it is limited at the present time. I do not know why. Is the province of Quebec short of money? Is it unable to pay its share of 50 per cent? Is that the reason why all plans peter out? If the province of Quebec is short of money, let it say so. When we meet ARDA authorities, they tell us that they are not short of money, that they have enough funds to spend. If there is money to spend, it should be spent in the proper areas to the benefit of the population and the citizens, and that will contribute to the economic development of each area in need, of each underdeveloped area of the province which pays its share of taxes like all the other areas.
Once again, I ask the minister to make the necessary representations to the provincial authorities to extend the scope of ARDA in the best interests of the nation, the taxpayers and the economic development of our areas, particularly those which are underdeveloped.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly in the debate on the forestry department estimates. Another speaker earlier this afternoon spoke of the good work the department had done in some valleys of British Columbia. Representing the Okanagan valley, I can testify to the truth of his words. Our area appreciates the efforts that are being made under the auspices of ARDA. Those efforts principally have to do with rebuilding irrigation systems that were built many years ago when the valley was first developed and when costs of labour and material were lower than at the present day. Because of the changed cost picture the reconstruction project needs government assistance. That reconstruction is progressing well. Its effects are markedly felt in the valley and are appreciated.
One expects the work of this department to bear fruit, literally, and to be practical in the agricultural area. In British Columbia it took a long time to get any of the department's projects going since projects were inaugurated after long studies had been made.
Because of the preliminary work the department had undertaken one could prophesy some time ago that its work would be useful and significant. The farmers need the kind of assistance that has brought into being these irrigation projects. They do not need the sort of announcement which the Department of Agriculture made in the spring, when it announced a national dairy
Ociober 25, 1967

policy. The Department of Agriculture in some areas works closely with this department. The announcement of the dairy policy originally had a most shattering effect, particularly on the farmers in the north Okanagan area. Though policy may be changed, it takes the farmers a long time to recover from the effects of such an announcement, which can easily alter or undermine a farmer's credit base. Though the department might rectify the error of its policy, the effects of that policy cannot be rectified so quickly. The effects may last for a long time and the loss of morale in the farm population can be serious. As ARDA projects currently under way are completed I hope that other projects will be developed, in order to paint a brighter economic picture for the province.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. He spoke of the need to shift the emphasis in agriculture; that the concept of the smaller, extremely efficient farm operation ought to replace the present rush to the constantly expanding farm operation. This sentiment is exactly reflected in the bulletin that was given to me during the week end. It is from the Deep Creek Farmers Institute, which is close to home so far as I am concerned. The bulletin which I shall now read, does not quarrel with the policies of some years ago:
-while the farm was a self-supporting and sustaining unit, but with the advent of one crop farms, machinery, and the multitude of services necessary, fertilizers for farms without livestock, the loss of home abilities and the refusal of labour to give "a day's work for a day's pay", even when such labour deigns to come on to a farm, more and more farm wives and families are working machinery to harvest crops .. . The solution is not bigger farms and more expensive and larger equipment. It is smaller units that one man can handle with a large enough return on produce to ensure a good living.
If farm machinery becomes much larger the rural roads in the mountainous areas of British Columbia will need to be widened. Increasingly the farm is becoming a larger operation. The important consideration for a farmer, as the bulletin says, is for him to organize himself in such a way that he can obtain a fair return from his produce. The government can help the farmer in this area of need, and through the ARDA program the government is providing the kind of assistance that it can best provide.
We await with interest some of the future developments within this department. Those will not be as popular as the rebuilding of our irrigation system, yet they will be necessary. Presently, rural development work is
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development done in parts of Canada that are far from British Columbia.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I think it should be brought to the minister's attention that there are areas of British Columbia where the population is engaged in marginal operations and where there is a great need for assistance of the kind which is being designed and prepared in other parts of the country. I trust that when these plans and policies have been brought to fruition and when the department has learned a great deal about rural development, some of this knowledge will eventually be used for the benefit of the western provinces.


Mr. Flemming:: My comments in connection with the estimates of the department of forestry will not be extensive; rather, I see that the time is getting close to five o'clock. I should like to thank the minister for his kindly reference to his predecessors. He was good enough to refer to us all in complimentary terms, so I must congratulate him on his good judgment and thank him for his kind remarks.
I agree that in the committee we dealt with the forestry estimates in some detail; generally speaking, I think we covered the subject fairly well. However, there are one or two matters which I should like to bring to the minister's attention-points which were difficult to bring out during the committee hearings, and which perhaps were scarcely suitable for discussion with the officials. Incidentally, I would feel myself derelict in my duties toward the department itself and the basis upon which it was established if I did not refer to the excellence of the personnel. I speak with personal knowledge of the staff, and I am sure there is no more dedicated group of public servants than is contained in the department of forestry.
My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle devoted most of his remarks to the subject of the ARDA program and to rural development. He is, I am sure, recognized as an authority in this field. I can agree with everything he has said, having some knowledge of the fact that an agreement has been made with the provinces of New Brunswick and Manitoba in connection with the ARDA program.
As far as the New Brunswick program is concerned, I think the minister will agree it is correct to say it is only in the first stages of its operation and that it will require very close attention. I have no doubt that it will receive close attention and I am equally sure
3486	COMMONS
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development that the program as outlined for that province will prove of great benefit, particularly in the rural communities.
The minister referred in his introductory remarks to the policy of the department and it is in this connection I wish to make a few concrete observations. In the estimates for the coming year ending March, 1968, I noticed that the special contributions in connection with items which were specifically indicated as being subject to performance by the federal department and the provinces in co-operation, have been eliminated. I refer particularly to the items of forest inventories, reforestation, forest fire protection, forest access road construction and stand improvements. I realize that the arrangement made with the provinces is of such a nature that the work will possibly go forward in any case-indeed, I should say "undoubtedly" because this is part of the deal with the provinces. However, since the items are no longer pinpointed, no longer so specifically a part of the arrangement, there is a danger that they may lose their place as far as priority is concerned.
It is the importance of this priority that I should like to draw to the minister's attention in order that, to the extent he is able, he might see to it that the provinces carry out the original undertakings which are included under the headings to which I have referred.
I see no reason why a province should be able to say: We have received so many millions from the federal government, but we do not place these five items in a top priority classification because we feel there are other items which should be dealt with earlier.
The minister should not listen to such nonsense. He should reply that the $8 million or $10 million, whatever it was, had been earmarked for these specific purposes, and though provision was not made for them specifically when the change in the federal-provincial financial set-up was carried out, nevertheless provision for these things was made by inference, and it was understood that these important programs would be continued. I bring this to the minister's attention hoping that to the extent he is able he will see that the provinces give these items the priority they deserve.
I am sure everyone within the sound of my voice this afternoon will agree with me that there is nothing more important than the prevention of forest fires. I have had some experience in the so-called fighting of forest

DEBATES	October 25, 1967
fires and I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there is no such thing as fighting a forest fire. One can circumscribe it-prevent it from spreading to a certain extent; but one cannot fight it.
I see you are looking at me, Mr. Chairman, as though it might be five o'clock. If you wish to interrupt, I suppose I have no choice.


Maurice Rinfret: It being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, has the time now come to ask the unanimous consent of the house to continue the debate on supply until six o'clock, in the hope of completing it before adjournment? I understand the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) would probably agree to it.


Maurice Rinfret: According to standing orders, the hon. minister must make that request when the Speaker is in the chair.

Progress reported.


Maurice Sauvé: Would the house give unanimous consent to continue the work in committee until six o'clock, in the hope that the study of estimates of my department might be completed? I think the hon. member for Chapleau, whose notice of motion was to have been discussed during the private member's hour, would be agreeable if the other members agreed also.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I accept the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the private members hour be suspended for this sitting and that the house revert to committee of supply to deal with the estimates of the department of forestry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
October 25. 1967	COMMONS



[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
1. Departmental administration, $1,714,500.
Maurice Rinfret: Vote No.
1 will be found at page 182 of the blue book. The details thereof are listed on page 184. Shall this item carry?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, to continue the remarks which I had begun previous to interruption of committee of supply, may 1 repeat that I was calling the minister's attention to five items which are to be found on page 191 of the blue book detailing the estimates for the current year. These five items total something in the order of $8 million, covering forestry inventories, reforestation, forest fire protection, forest access road construction and stand improvement. I made reference to the importance of preventive measures to combat forest fire outbreaks. All of us read with great dismay about the tremendous fires which took place last summer in the interior of British Columbia, and thus cannot help being impressed by the importance of continuing preventive measures through co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments.
I have no doubt these measures will continue in operation, but 1 draw the minister's attention to them because I have confidence that he can emphasize their beneficial effects.
With respect to forest inventories, quite often we are requested to give some idea of the amount of timber standing in certain areas in certain provinces. The federal government participates with the provinces in making such inventories. This is a most essential operation, especially when we consider that the forest industry in general makes the greatest contribution towards equalizing our balance of payments through its exports, and when we consider the contribution which the industry in general makes to employment in Canada. Therefore nothing could be more important than to have up to date information on forest inventory for the benefit both of governments and of the industry itself.
I will not go into the question of reforestation because everyone knows how important it is. In my opinion forest access road construction is something which will help bring about more productivity. Day by day speakers in this chamber emphasize the importance of greater productivity, and quite properly so. Increased productivity is essential to
DEBATES	3487
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development our country, and forest access road construction can open up new timber areas which are at present undeveloped because of economic reasons. Funds for forest access road construction will relieve the burden carried by timber companies, and will open up hitherto inaccessible regions.
Stand improvement is also most important. We all know how beneficial a program of maximum growth can be. I know the officials of the department are experts on this, and that they are very conscious of its importance. This is another area which requires a great deal of co-operation between land owners, and in most cases in our country these are the provincial governments and the federal government. Efforts should be made to maintain a good standard of growth year after year on land which, if it is neglected, will not produce anything like the potential of which it is capable.
When we compare the results we have achieved in this respect in Canada with similar results in other countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries, the comparison is not very favourable to us. Therefore I feel the importance of stand improvement is something which should be emphasized to the minister, and subsequently by him to the provincial governments, and of course to anyone who has an interest, both economic and national, in maximum productivity.
I have nothing more to say at the moment, Mr. Chairman. I believe the estimates have been dealt with pretty well in committee. I appreciate the opportunity to make these few remarks and I will not trespass on the indulgence of the committee any longer in connection with this particular item.
* (5:10 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, at the very beginning I should like to say that during his occupancy of the portfolio he now holds the minister has given the impression that he is enthusiastic in respect of the function, responsibilities and further prospects with regard to his department, particularly as it relates to the ARDA program. Like many other members in this house I was very enthusiastic when the ARDA program was first discussed and when the legislation was passed. I believe most people who had read about this program had high hopes in respect of ARDA when it was first placed on the statute books. However, during the past few years I believe we have had quite a number of reasons for feeling somewhat disappointed about the program because, at least in some
October 25, 1967
3488	COMMONS
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development parts of the country, it does not seem to be translating into actual projects or works which will have the effect of improving the productivity of our agricultural industry.
I must confess, however, that in the past when I spoke so critically of ARDA I was wrong, because I find that in one's analysis of that program he must bear in mind a very simple fact, and that is that in some parts of the country, in certain provinces, it is working out quite well. The studies, surveys and investigations which had been carried out in past years now, in some provinces, are being translated into actual works and projects of one kind or another. In other provinces this is not the case. These seem to be the plain facts of the matter. From my reading and research I find that in provinces like British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec significant and important works directly related to agricultural production and income are under way; some have already been completed. Because I do not think one should try to be too diplomatic, I shall mention the provinces in which such works are not under way. In Alberta and Manitoba-for whatever reason, and perhaps the minister can help shed some light on this-the federal expenditures or contributions to the ARDA program still seem to be bogged down. They seem to be occupied with an endless round of surveys and studies and the works are not being put into effect.
One can sense this by taking a quick look at the ARDA catalogue for the most recent year for which this is available. For each of the provinces in which ARDA is in effect there is a summary of the amount being spent by way of federal contribution, the amount that is left to the provinces to take up, the nature of the projects that are being undertaken, the number of projects, and so on. One finds that in certain of the provinces there is a very poor performance, to date. There may be some very good and legitimate reason for this being so. Surely after the passage of six years now, since the enactment of this legislation, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be a greater degree of activity in so far as actual works in the field are concerned. By actual works in the field I do not mean a continuation of the surveys, feasibility studies and other studies of one kind or another.
I realize that those who are charged with the responsibility to administer this program and to try to translate it into effective action are often faced with the problem of not having sufficient data and information.


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take a few minutes to have a voice from Quebec heard on this side of the house and to say a few words about the estimates of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development.
Before dealing with the matter at hand, I would like to endorse the tribute paid by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) to the deputy minister, Mr. Rousseau, who has just retired. I have had, for some time, the opportunity of working with him and I greatly appreciated his knowledge, his dedication and the work he accomplished within the department. I therefore join the minister in expressing my best wishes to him on the occasion of his retirement.
I want to thank the minister also for welcoming the farmers from Charlevoix who came to Ottawa last year to submit their grievance about the feed grain freight cost problem. The minister will recall that a discriminatory situation existed as far as the farmers of my constituency were concerned; they came to Ottawa to see him and he solved their problem in no time at all. I must tell the minister the farmers of my region are highly satisfied with his work, and I am sure that if he ever came to my constituency, he would get a tremendous welcome from them.
Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the minister defined for us the objectives of his Department of Forestry and Rural Development. Of course, the field of action of this department is rather restricted. As we all know, the main objective is research. He told us that his department had developed this field to the highest degree and that since its establishment, research work has become so highly valued that the provinces, as well as forestry organizations, consult our research experts to learn about developments in the field of forestry.
Of course, with the additional responsibility for rural development, the chief objective of the department of forestry agencies now is to administer the ARDA act.

DEBATES	October 25, 1967
As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), the minister of agriculture at that time, introduced this act in the house and piloted it through to its enactment in 1961, we all heard a sigh of relief from our rural communities. At last, it was said, the government has made a legislative effort to raise the depressed status of our rural class, which, as we know, often lived in disquieting grey areas.
On January 27, 1966 to be exact, when addressing the Canadian Forestry Association in Toronto, the minister defined how he understood ARDA and stated:
ARDA is based on the following concept: the fact that hundreds of thousands of rural people live in social and financial hardship is a discredit to our ability to bring about changes. The great objective of ARDA is to increase rural employment and income opportunities of the rural people, but not by resorting to unnecessary work programs, welfare assistance or subsidies.
The main objective of ARDA, as stated by the minister-I entirely agree with his definition of the aims and objectives of ARDA-is to create employment by bringing forward planned programs.
Of course, even if the minister persuades the federal government to vote $300 million for programs which first are to be censored by the provinces, the powers of the minister are nevertheless severely restricted by the constitution since all he can do is sign agreements with the provinces and provide subsidies to the provinces for the implementation of programs under ARDA. The federal Minister of Forestry and Rural Development often finds himself in a false position. Naturally, one can argue that, under the constitution, the federal government has jurisdiction only over research in matters relating to forestry, but I think that this is such an important question that the provinces and the federal government will have to get together in order to define what comes under the federal and provincial jurisdiction in this field. I would be agreeable to the federal department of forestry having joint jurisdiction and responsibilities, just as agriculture shares its jurisdiction with the provinces. What is the point of the federal government making available to our provinces huge amounts for rural development if the provinces cannot afford to contribute to these programs? This is what happens most of the time. And this is why there are complaints that the provinces seem, from time to time, to indicate that they do not want to co-operate fully with the federal government
October 25. 1967	COMMONS
in spending these amounts we make available to them.
As far as our constitution is concerned, when we say that it must be renewed, changed and amended so as to deal with the respective jurisdictions of the provinces and of the federal government, it clearly shows, I think, that a thorough study of the constitution is necessary in order to introduce the amendments which are required in a great many areas.
The minister told us earlier that the Canadian Advisory Council he had set up was at work and was doing a tremendous job. This is an important and necessary body which will help considerably the minister to reach his own objectives and those of his department.
But there again, Mr. Speaker, what would be the use of the Canadian Advisory Board giving advice and making suggestions to the minister if he lacks the constitutional power to implement them? Therefore, I repeat that the minister often finds himself in false situations and I say that the delay in implementing the programs under ARDA is precisely the result of the constitutional conflict between the provinces and the federal government. I say, therefore, that the time has come, in my opinion, to think of giving in that area joint jurisdiction to the provinces and the federal government to try to pursue the objectives of ARDA more fully and more efficiently.
As far as the ARDA legislation is concerned-I think that the minister mentioned it earlier and I also stress that point-I feel that we should set up priorities. In Quebec, a lot has been done. There is talk about the Lower St. Lawrence Development Board, but for the last three years our people in the lower St. Lawrence region have been studying the situation, experts have been trying to promote social action, social education, and bring together the possibilities of our natural and industrial resources in order to work out an over-all plan. That was called a pilot project.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This pilot project has obviously entailed considerable investments and expenditure. I think that it may serve also in other areas, not only in Quebec, but elsewhere in Canada. If this legislation is to be implemented and taxpayers enabled to see its results, priorities will have to be taken into account, and every county has its priorities.
DEBATES	3491
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development
We are now told in some countries: Set up an economic council which will make representations to provincial authorities-in the province of Quebec, it is the only body entitled to make recommendations on rural development, on area development-and then, we will undertake studies.
Therefore, it may take three years to perform the studies and we will not have any practical plan, under the ARDA legislation, to implement in the interests of all taxpayers.
I still believe, Mr. Chairman, that the inhabitants or taxpayers of a specific area are still much better aware of their own needs and that their advice should be sought in order to establish priorities in depressed and under-developed areas which would especially benefit from ARDA.
Here is an instance. During the past 4 or 5 years, we have been working to obtain a marina in Pointe-au-Pic. We have an excellent location to build it and, during the summer, we see hundreds of sailing boats which cannot make fast, because the necessary facilities are not available
For a long time now, we have asked ARDA officials to build us a marina, and their only reply has been: Put up 50 per cent, and we will put up the rest. Now, I think that if we proceed in this way, we will get practical and necessary results in those areas where the need is greatest.
I shall close my remarks immediately, for I know that the minister would like to see his estimates passed before six o'clock. Nevertheless, he should avail himself of the survey made of this pilot area by the Lower St. Lawrence Development Board and ask the provinces to speed up their activities, in brief, to show leadership for the implementation of immediate priorities.
If more studies and expert advice are always required, it will take three or four years before the minister, with the co-operation of the provinces, can manage to establish projects that are absolutely essential to the economic survival of our rural areas.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I had to say at this stage. I say to the minister that he can rely on our co-operation, because we know that ARDA is an essentially social legislation. We shall co-operate with the authorities in order to make it easier to administer as soon as possible. In addition, the minister can be assured of the co-operation of members on this side of the house when he introduces projects for the benefit of our people.
October 25, 1967
3492	COMMONS
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development [English]


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and the ministers are leaving. However, there is one matter which I would like to bring to the minister's attention, having to do with the ARDA program. This has application in my particular region but similar circumstances could prevail in other places across the country. I am sorry that I do not have the full particulars on this, but it has recently come to my attention-I have not had time to gather the information, but the problem is that if I wait until I gather information the minister's estimates will be passed and I will have no chance to raise these matters-that in the Matheson-Val Gagne area, which is known as "the little clay belt of the north" a program has been established under the ARDA program for the assembling of land for cattle ranches. The Timmins riding is known mostly for its mines but I want to point out that it also has fertile agricultural lands. The local farmers are incensed at this program, and I think for very good reasons. We must realize that these men have spent their lives in clearing this land and bringing it into production. They have always been faced with the double problem of a small population involving a small market locally, combined with the high cost of transportation.
Another problem which has faced the farmers in that area is the fact that they have been frozen out of local facilities. In fact the last dairy in the region is now on its last legs, and trying desperately to keep the operation running. At the same time these farmers, in common with most small farmers in the country, have been faced with the problems of trying to modernize their operation in spite of the high costs involved. The result has been a desperate shortage of capital. They have had to struggle along on their own. They realize that with the present trend, where valuable farm land in southern Ontario is being overrun by factories, it will not be too long before their land will become much more valuable than it has been in the past.
The program which I mention involves the joining of the two governments to supply capital to some outsider to squeeze them out at fire sale prices. They feel very bitter about it, holding the view, and possibly justifiably so, that if this capital were made available to them they would be able to do the job themselves. Unfortunately they cannot get the capital to operate, modernize and enlarge their operation to make it an economic unit.
[Mr. AsselinJ

As one farmer told me, the government is prepared to supply the capital to some joker from the south to buy the farmer out, but they will not give the farmer the opportunity to do the job himself. I do not know how widespread this is.
As I mentioned earlier, I do not have the details of this particular program, but if we wait until we get them we will not have an opportunity to raise this matter under the minister's estimates. I think this is something which should be looked into in considering the success of the program, because surely the minister and his officials must realize that if anybody can cope with the weather conditions during the long winters and with other conditions, it will be the man who has spent his life on a farm in the north. Someone who may be an excellent farmer in the south may come up there and, not being used to the conditions, can come quite a cropper.
I am raising this point in the last few minutes available so as to bring it to the minister's attention, with the hope that this particular situation can receive more study than it has in the past.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, to share in the spirit of co-operation which has prevailed from the start in the debate on this bill, I shall speak only two minutes and cut down my remarks to concentrate on one specific suggestion I should like to address to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) in the hope that he might eventually graft that idea on the legislation which governs the ARDA program.
This is what I should like to suggest to the minister, which he might look into in conjunction with the provinces. Two or three months every summer, countless students are free, in need of work; they flood the labour market with the result that several of them cannot find work, cannot earn the money they need to help defray the cost of their studies, especially at high school level. Might it not be possible to implement a project, for instance, for massive reforestation, or something similar to give work to these young students who can work?
I feel the minister would be killing two birds with one stone: reforestation or similar work would be taken care of; in addition, students would be kept busy who otherwise would stay idle during the summer months; it would help others to earn money to defray part of the cost of their studies, thereby 
October 25. 1967	COMMONS
lightening the load on other budgets such as that for scholarships or student loans. I repeat that two or three birds would be killed with one stone and I make my suggestion to the hon. minister for what it is worth, knowing that he will want to study it. If he eventually finds a way of incorporating it under the ARDA legislation, everybody will be very happy about it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
3. Construction of extension to research laboratory in Pointe Claire, Quebec, for use by the pulp and paper research institute of Canada, $253,000.
Forestry-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $16,943,500.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,952,000.
23. Contributions to the provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the details of estimates, $1,750,000.
Rural development-[DOT]
25. Agricultural and Rural Development Act program, Rural Economic Development Act program and Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act program-administration, operation and maintenance, $2,256,500.
30. Agricultural and Rural Development Act program and Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act program-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the province of New Brunswick of the cost of the Petitcodiac river dam project, $1,608,700.
35. Payments in respect of projects and programs under the Agricultural and Rural Development Act, and payments to provinces pursuant to agreements entered into under that act, $22,000,000.
B-Canadian livestock feed board-
40. Administration and operation, $156,000.
45. Freight assistance on western feed grains including assistance in respect of grain storage costs in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, $22,000,000.
DEBATES	3493
Supply-Forestry and Rural Development
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the department.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister would have liked to explain vote 23, but it was carried so quickly I did not have an opportunity to rise.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the house for their co-operation. I would have liked to say a few words in reply to some questions, but I shall just answer the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West. The forestry agreements between the federal government and the provinces came to an end on March 31, 1967 because the federal government, at the tax structure conference, announced that the cost sharing programs would not be renewed in the future. This was one of those programs. Consequently, it was terminated and not renewed.
We have undertaken also to pay the full cost of any project in connection with forestry within our jurisdiction, and will not ask the provinces to pay 50 per cent of the cost. We feel that in that way both the provinces and the federal government can fulfil their obligations much better.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee want to proceed now with the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it would be better to call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise and report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
1, 3. 15, 20, 23, 25. 30, 35, 40, 45.