Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):

should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of a speech which he delivered in Saskatoon within the last week. It has to do with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Having regard to the fact that the drought area in the western provinces was worse last year than -ever before, has the government in contemplation amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in order to provide for an increase in the amount payable, the alteration of the qualifying boundaries, or, generally, amendments to remove certain anomalies that have been found in the operation of the act; and if such amendments are made, will they apply to the 1949 failure?

Righi Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):

The gathering which I attended in Saskatoon was, as my hon. friend knows, the mee.ing of the municipal association of the province of Saskatchewan, with representatives from Manitoba and Alberta also in attendance. A number of their resolutions had to do with possible amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I told them that at this session I would be introducing an amendment to the effect that the area reduced by the amendment of last year, from nine seotions to six sections, both of which were to be rectangular, would not need to be rectangular. That applies on the taking in and putting out of areas.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

That will be very helpful.

Mr. Gardiner:

That provision will be introduced. So far as I recall, that was the only proposed amendment I discussed with them. There were, of course, suggestions made that there should be other amendments. I was asked the direct question whether we were going the change the amounts. I did not give any encouragement in answering that question. As a matter of fact, so far as I can remember at the moment, I said there would be no change in payments.

Mr. Argue:

Since I have asked the Minister of Agriculture a question identical to that asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre, except in one particular, would the minister mind saying whether any amendments will be introduced to make the half-township provision apply to all parts?

Mr. Gardiner:

We brought in an amendment last year which to all intents and purposes, does that.

Mr. Argue:

No.

Mr. Gardiner:

We may have a difference of opinion about it, but there is no further amendment on that point.

Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I have sent him. Have instructions been issued by officers of the Department of National Defence to the effect that families of servicemen occupying emergency quarters at the Sea Island, British Columbia, R.C.A.F. station, are to vacate these quarters by April 1? If so, will the minister authorize an extension of the time limit to those who are unable to find other suitable accommodation?

Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):

There is no information on this subject available at national defence headquarters. Since receiving notice of the hon. gentleman's question today I have caused inquiries to be made by the R.C.A.F. at Vancouver, and just as soon as information is received I will communicate it to him. If the information indicates the desirability of taking action such as he suggests, that action will be taken.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Cenire):

should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question arising out of the answer to a question which is to be found at page 1003 of Hansard. In that question I asked:

Was a submission made to counsel following delivery to the Minister of Justice on the McGregor report on the milling industry for an opinion to ascertain whether the recommendations were such that proceedings either under the combines act or the Criminal Code should be taken?

Inquiries of the Ministry

And also:

Was a legal opinion secured from the law officers of the crown or other counsel on the question as to whether the limitation of actions provided for in section 1141 of the Criminal Code applied to prosecutions under the combines act?

The answer was yes, and the counsel were named. Will the minister table the replies given by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Phelan?

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will refer back to Hansard he will see that a question almost identical in substance to the one he has just asked was asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Having received no notice of his question, I am sorry I cannot give him the exact page in Hansard. The answer which I gave on that occasion will answer exactly the question which my hon. friend has asked.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I ask the minister this: Instead of filing the submission or the answer given by counsel, will he say whether prosecution was recommended, or whether in their opinion the limitation of actions actually applied?