1950-05-19

Mr. J. S. Sinnoit (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of personal privilege. Following a lengthy telephone conversation last night with a group of my constituents, I wish to announce that a huge benefit bam dance will be held at my farm early in June, and that the total proceeds will be turned over to the Manitoba flood relief fund.
My point of privilege is this. We are flood-conscious, and wish to stress the need to help those people who were so unfortunate as to be forced from their homes by this disastrous flood.



EXCHANGE OF TELEGRAMS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTERS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND CANADA

Hon. Brooke Claxfon (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the following telegram has been received from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
through the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
On behalf of my colleagues and myself I should like to convey to you the deep concern with which we have learned of the serious floods in Winnipeg. Please express our heartfelt sympathy with those who have suffered in the catastrophe.
The following telegram was sent by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to Mr. Attlee:
My colleagues and I deeply appreciate the United Kingdom government's message of sympathy for those who are suffering from the serious floods in Manitoba. Your message reached me just before I went into the House of Commons today and I made it public from my place in the house.
Subsequent to those messages we received from the Secretary of State for External Affairs and our high commissioner on the other side the report of an interview with Mr. Attlee, at which Mr. Attlee asked if there was any way in which the help of the United Kingdom government or its people could be extended to the people of Manitoba. That offer was very warmly received and has been communicated to the premier of Manitoba.
Mr. . George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to
associate myself with the statement made by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Claxton) as to the appreciation which I am sure is felt by every member here as a representative of his constituency, of the generous and sympathetic offer made by the government of the United Kingdom. Undoubtedly the way in which this offer was made will help to continue and to emphasize the warm and friendly association which exists, and I hope will always exist, between this country and the United Kingdom.



HANDICAPPED PERSONS


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, for the information of hon. members and the interested public I feel I should announce that the dominion-provincial conference on rehabilitation of the handicapped, which was scheduled to be held in Ottawa May 25 to 27, has been postponed on account of the Manitoba flood. Upon the suggestion of the premier of Saskatchewan, and after consultation with the health authorities of Manitoba and Alberta, this action was found advisable. Many of the delegates from these three provinces who would like to attend the conference, are busily engaged in looking after sufferers and evacuees from the flood area. The interdepartmental committee, made up of representatives of the departments of labour, health and welfare, and veterans affairs studied the situation at a special meeting, but were unable to suggest another suitable time for the conference because of the difficulty of getting accommodation. However, it should be clearly understood that the conference will be held as soon as circumstances permit.



NAVAL SERVICE


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to call the attention of the house to an item which appeared in a daily paper a few days ago. It says that the strains of "O Canada" have been selected to replace "Rule Britannia" as the formal salute by navy bands to the chief of the Canadian naval staff, the

Naval Service-Formal Salute naval board of Canada, admirals of the fleet, admirals and commanders in chief. I say to the house that there are many Canadians whose forefathers-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -and the strains of "Rule Britannia" are very dear to a large number of Canadians.


Mr. Lesage:: So is "O Canada".


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: When the German submarines were sailing up the St. Lawrence river during the last war, the people of Quebec and of Canada were glad to hear the strains of "Rule Britannia". The insidious propaganda that is constantly being put out by government civil servants and some French-Canadian members of parliament to take tradition from Canadians should be stopped now. "Rule Britannia" means as much to us as "La Marseillaise" means to Frenchmen. I have marched behind the strains of "La Marseillaise", and would be glad to do so again.


Mr. Abbott:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: But this has to be stopped-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It occurs to me that from time to time members rise on questions of privilege when there is no question of privilege involved. I am not referring particularly to any of the members who have risen today, but I would ask that, in the future, members make sure they are rising on questions of privilege before doing so.

On the orders of the day:


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was he aware of the change in the martial air "Rule Britannia" in connection with the navy, and was the change carried out with his full sanction?


Brooke Claxton: Entirely. I think the substitution of "O Canada" for "Rule Britannia" will be a change greatly to be desired by all Canadians.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Breathes there the man with soul so dead!



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will be aware, the North Atlantic council, which has been meeting in London since May 15, completed its sessions

yesterday. The following is the text of the communique issued by the council summing up the decisions taken in London:
The North Atlantic council established in accordance with article 9 of the treaty has so far only met twice at the ministerial level and on two other occasions when members of the council have been represented by their governments' diplomatic representatives in Washington.
But under article 9 the council is the principal body of the North Atlantic treaty. It is therefore the paramount duty of the council to put itself in a position to exercise its full role as the central and most important of the various organs of the treaty by taking the most effective steps to keep itself informed of all matters which fall within its competence, by taking the necessary decisions and by ensuring the execution of such decisions.
A year's experience has shown that on the political side the meetings of the council have been too infrequent to permit a sufficient exchange of views on matters of common interest within the scope of the treaty. On the military side the strategic concept of the treaty has been adopted and a defence plan drawn up and the corresponding estimate of the necessary forces is being established. The next step is to put these plans into effect by taking further measures in the direction of common defence, the division of financial responsibilities and the adaptation and development of the necessary forces.
In view of this situation, the council will in particular undertake the following task:
(a)	Study the interrelationship of the various programs to support the plans for the defence of the north Atlantic area and ensure co-ordination of the work of the defence committee, the defence financial and economic committee, and all other bodies established under the North Atlantic treaty organization.
(b)	recommend to governments the steps necessary to ensure that effect is given to the co-ordinated plans prepared for the defence of the north Atlantic area.
(c)	Exchange views on political matters of common interest within the scope of the treaty.
(d)	Promote and co-ordinate public information in furtherance of the objectives of the treaty while leaving responsibility for national programs to each country.
(e)	Consider what further action should be taken under article 2 of the treaty, taking into account the work of existing agencies in this field.
To enable the council effectively to carry out its responsibilities and to exercise them continuously, each government will appoint a deputy to its council representative. Each deputy will be in a position to give whatever time may be necessary to ensure that the responsibilities of the council are carried out effectively.
In the intervals between meetings of ministers, the deputies, duly authorized by their respective governments, will be responsible, on behalf of and in the name of the council, for carrying out its policies and for formulating issues requiring decisions by the member governments.
The council, having considered the reports of the defence committee and the defence financial and economic committee, issued directives to guide them in their future work. These directives emphasize that the problem of adequate military forces and the necessary financial costs should be examined as one and not as separate problems.
In formulating their directives the council proceeded on the basis that the combined resources of the members of the North Atlantic treaty are sufficient, if properly co-ordinated and applied, to

ensure the progressive and speedy development of adequate military defence without impairing the social and economic progress of these countries.
The council, recognizing the indispensability of self-help and mutual aid among the treaty powers in making progress towards an integrated defence, and convinced that further mutual assistance is essential to rapid progress towards the strength required for the common security of the north Atlantic area, recommended that each party make its full contribution through mutual assistance in all practicable forms.
The council unanimously agreed that if adequate military defence of the member countries is to be achieved it must be along the lines of the most economical and effective utilization of the forces and material at the disposal of the north Atlantic countries. They accordingly urged their governments to concentrate on the creation of balanced collective forces in the progressive build-up of the defence of the north Atlantic area, taking at the same time fully into consideration the requirements for national forces which arise out of commitments external to the north Atlantic area.
In furtherance of article 9 of the treaty the council established a North Atlantic planning board for ocean shipping, to be composed of representatives of the participating countries concerned. This board will report directly to the council and will work in close co-operation with other bodies of the treaty organization in all matters relating to the factor of merchant shipping in defence planning.
The ministers believe that the decisions they have taken here in London represent a marked advance towards the practical realization of the objectives of the North Atlantic treaty.
It is evident that this has been the most important meeting of the North Atlantic council so far. Decisions have been taken which should ensure that the gathering strength of the North Atlantic treaty nations is organized in the most efficient fashion for the defensive purposes of the treaty and that progress will be made in the fields of political and economic co-operation. We have taken a long step forward, and I know that hon. members will fully realize the importance of these developments in building up a stable and prosperous north Atlantic community.


Mr. Pearkes:: Will Canada appoint a deputy to that permanent committee?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: The announcement which we have just heard, Mr. Speaker, and which we read earlier in the press, as to the unanimous decision of the representatives of the twelve nations of the Atlantic community is an announcement of what is undoubtedly the most momentous decision that has been made since the summer of 1945. Until this decision was reached yesterday, the Atlantic treaty and the set-up of the council still left some uncertainties as to the full scope of their activities. Even yesterday in his announcement of the earlier report the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) emphasized the fact that the discussions had been informal. The announcement which has now been made carries this matter far beyond the stage of informality. 1 feel sure that hon. members will welcome the fact that this matter has passed the stage of informal discussion 55946-168
North Atlantic Treaty and that now there is in definite form a permanent executive committee of the Atlantic council to which there will be a Canadian delegate with appropriate secretarial and official assistants.
It cannot be emphasized too often that at this very time we are passing through the most critical stage of modern history. I feel sure that the hon. members of this house of all parties will wish that the Canadian representative on that committee, whoever he may be, will at all times act with the knowledge that in the joint efforts to preserve peace there is complete unanimity in this house.
While that meeting does not deal with anything except the organization of the nations of the Atlantic community, it has been noticeable that in the reports of those discussions, which by more than coincidence take place at the same time as the conference in Sydney, there has been reference to the problems of the Pacific. I do not think it would be appropriate to allow an occasion of this kind to pass without bringing forward the suggestion that the free nations of the world will not have completed their task of containing and restraining communist aggression until they have taken similarly effective steps amongst the free nations of the Pacific community.
This is a great step forward; but at the moment the most vigorous communist pressure is in southeast Asia. Those who live in the free nations of that area are emphasizing the need for recognition of immediate action. I would express the earnest hope that, with this very real achievement to the credit of the Atlantic community, steps will be taken without delay to bring similar results in that complementary area where communism is so active today.
All security depends upon security from aggression. The Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Claxton) has pointed out that this permanent body which will be set up will deal not only with the military but also with the financial questions as one problem. To a great extent it might be said at the same time that the problem of advancing the social security and general welfare of the people in these and other free nations is directly related also to military and economic concerns.
There is one point of great importance mentioned by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs which raises another consideration which I think should be brought forward immediately. The decisions yesterday have created a new North Atlantic planning board for ocean shipping, composed of representatives of the maritime nations within

North Atlantic Treaty this group of Atlantic nations. It is to be the purpose of that permanent planning board to plan for the preparation of adequate shipping and for the mobilization of that shipping in the event of an emergency. This, I say, immediately raises a consideration of great importance to every Canadian. In view of the fact that Canada has now agreed to become a part of a permanent planning board for maritime shipping in relation to the general world problem, I hope that it will mean the immediate re-establishment of the Canadian flag fleet.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What are we debating here, Mr. Speaker?


George Alexander Drew: We are not debating anything, Mr. Speaker. We are discussing an important occasion which does not call for trite remarks of the kind just made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was just wondering what was before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The statement is of course not debatable; but I think it is customary to allow brief remarks to be made by the leader of the official opposition and by leaders of other parties immediately after an important statement has been made to the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I just wondered what the Canadian flag fleet had to do with the statement that has just been made.


Mr. Fulton:: You will see the connection if you just wait.


George Alexander Drew: I regret to say that the minister who has just spoken is perhaps the one minister who would not understand but I think that most of the others do.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Always the snappy comeback.


George Alexander Drew: I am speaking to those who recognize the seriousness of the situation and who are not prepared to clown at a serious time like this.
The announcement that has been made definitely offers more hope and more reason for hope than we have had since the closing days of the war. I earnestly hope that in every respect members of the government who recognize their responsibility will go forward, carry out and fulfil in every way the agreement reached yesterday for the supreme purpose of restraining communist aggression and ultimately defeating it.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: As
I listened to the statement read by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Claxton) a line or two of Tennyson came to my mind, namely:
The old order changeth, yielding place to new.
As I listened today and last evening to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I
[Mr. Drew.l
thought of the extent to which the old order was giving way to the new; that a few years ago we thought it impossible that the nations of the Atlantic community, for example, could co-operate economically, socially and in our common defence. The statement made today and last night has impressed upon this house, as it must have impressed the countries of the Atlantic community, the fact that in all our domestic policies, whether they be economic or social, we have to consider their impact upon the rest of the members of that community. I said last night that I thought that perhaps more important than the military arrangements made among the ministers in London during the past few days were the arrangements for economic and social co-operation.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) mentioned southeast Asia. I firmly believe that there can be no defence against communism, or any other form of totalitarianism, in southeast Asia unless the nations of the world co-operate to improve the standards of living of the people of that part of the world. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this statement, and I can assure the government, the leader of the opposition and the members of the house that anything we can do to advance this great idea of co-operation first among the members of the Atlantic community, and then among the members, we hope, of the great world community, we shall be pleased to support and indeed to undertake.


Mr. Green:: May I direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs? Perhaps it should be answered by the Minister of Transport. Does this statement mean that there will be any change in Canadian policy with regard to the Canadian merchant navy?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware, it will mean no change.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I have one further announcement of very great importance to make; but before doing so may I say how much the government appreciates the expressions of support and unity on the part of the leaders of the various parties who have spoken. It indicates that so far as defence and external policy are concerned, Canada is united to a greater extent than ever before.

Hon. members wui nave seen press reports regarding the procurement by the United States of military equipment in Canada.
I am glad to be able to inform the house that it has been announced officially in Washington that the United States service departments and munitions board have been requested by the Secretary of Defence to develop a program for the purchase in Canada, during the year beginning next July 1, on a reciprocal basis, of military equipment to the value of between fifteen and twenty-five million dollars.
This announcement marks a major step in the integration of military production in the two countries. It is an extension into the peacetime period of the principles of the Hyde Park declaration of 1941, which proved so effective during wartime.
This announcement comes as a result of negotiations which I initiated with the late James Forrestal but which were carried through by Hon. Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defence, following a recommendation by the permanent joint board on defence. It is something for which we have all been working for some time.
It is still too early to indicate what this may mean in terms of specific items, but I can say with assurance that the benefits that may be realized under this arrangement will contribute not only to the defence potential of both countries and consequently the defence of our continent, but also to the over-all defence arrangements under the North Atlantic treaty.



COLD STORAGE ACT


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 222 (from the Senate), to amend the Cold Storage Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. A. Mutch (Winnipeg South):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will cause to be tabled the interim report of the British Columbia flood relief commission, dated June 13, 1948?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 

PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Brooke Claxton: On April 28 there appeared on the order paper a question by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) about the number of Canadians who were held as prisoners of war, and the number of days each prisoner had been held. A partial answer was given on May 4, when it was stated that the total number of prisoners was 9,552. But at that time it was pointed out that the number of days could not be given exactly without a complete examination of each file. Since then the hon. member has pressed for the information, and I have had inquiries made in the Department of Veterans Affairs, where the files are held. It would not be possible to give the information exactly without a very long and extensive examination of the files. However, we have been able to arrive at an estimate which I think is sufficiently correct for the hon. member's purpose. I have told him this, and he has expressed his satisfaction with it.
The estimated total man days is as follows:
Germany and Italy Japan
Navy	
25,000	2,000Army	
2,658,000	2,082,000Air	
1,645,000	29,0004,328,000	2,113,000Total	
6,441,000



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Secretary of State whether he is ready to answer the question I put to him in his absence on April 27? The question was:
Has the Secretary of State received a request from the Ottawa typographical union for an opportunity to appear before the committee of the house on printing to deal with matters of concern to employees of the printing bureau? If so, will the Secretary of State consider making arrangements for a meeting of that committee so that this request can be granted?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Slate):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. The answer is
2654	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that the request from the Ottawa typographical union has been received, and I have suggested to them that they might get in touch with the chairman of the joint committee on printing. At the same time I would point out that requests concerning employment conditions are being currently considered by the treasury board, and a report is expected shortly. It is felt that the matter should be deferred until this report has been received.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Secretary of State table the report when he has received it, so that those concerned can govern themselves accordingly?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: What report?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The report to which the minister has just referred.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The report of treasury board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is no. I understand that is not a document that is usually tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then what is the point in asking those concerned to wait for the report?



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: On February 28 last the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) reported to the house on behalf of a special committee set up for the purpose of naming the members of the various standing committees. I should like to ask the leader of the house when we may expect that the committee on privileges and elections will be called together. It is nearly three months since that committee was set up, and it has not yet met.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I understand the procedure is that any member who wishes to have one of these committees set up communicates with the chairman of the committee. They hold meetings at the request of any member of the committee, or any member of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Then I hope the leader of the house will take this as a notice from some of the members of that committee that it is their desire that the committee be convened immediately.


An hon. Member:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not a government committee: it is a house committee.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I would ask the leader of the house when it is the intention-or perhaps he would prefer that I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier)-to present the motion for the adoption of the report of the committee on railways and shipping.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a matter which is in the
hands of the chairman of the committee. I presume that when the chairman of the committee has the report in hand, and has it completed, he will present it to the house.


George Alexander Drew: The report is complete and has been tabled. It is now essential that there be a motion for its adoption before it comes before the house for consideration. When there are recommendations in the report, there should be a motion for concurrence.


Lionel Chevrier: As the minister responsible for the Department of Transport I have no jurisdiction in the matter of the motion itself. I presume-I am not sure-that that will be a matter for the chairman to consider. I shall see that the remarks the leader of the opposition has made are noted.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: I should like to ask when I may expect a reply to the following question, which was passed as an order for return on March 1:
1.	How many refugees and immigrants have entered Canada from September 1, 1945, to December 31, 1949?
2.	What was the cost to the government of recruiting, transporting and establishment of such refugees and immigrants to their place of destination?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: This question requires the breaking down of costs in the immigration branch. We have been working on it steadily from the time the order was passed. As soon as we have an answer, we will bring it to the house.



INCOME TAX ACT

Douglas Charles Abbott: the third reading of Bill No. 177, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 209, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
He said: When the resolution preceding this bill was under discussion, I suggested to the committee that it would probably be advisable to have the measure referred to the committee on agriculture. The reason was that certain matters were referred to during the discussion, some of which had been considered before and others of which were more or less new to many members in the committee.
I had thought that probably by the time the bill was referred to the house again we might have a redrafting of it; but I was not thinking fast enough. The other evening I allowed the bill to go to first reading. Having gone to first reading it was given a number, and it was impossible to have it reprinted without bringing it back to the house.
The bill therefore is before the house now in the same form as that which I had in mind when it was first discussed in the resolution stage. But after listening to the discussion, and for some other reasons, I have concluded that it would be best to send this bill to the committee on agriculture and have it discussed there. I have had a wire from the minister concerned in Alberta, namely, the minister of municipal affairs and provincial secretary. I believe he might desire to appear before the committee, and I have wired him saying that it would be quite proper for him to do so if he so desires. I have also had a letter from the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan setting forth some points of view in the matter.
I think it would be helpful to have the measure come before the committee, and have any amendments we desire to make to the bill as it was submitted, in printed form, proposed when it is before the committee.
I wish to refer only in a general way to the amendments we had already decided to introduce in certain forms which may or may not be entirely satisfactory to the committee.
The legislation as it now stands indicates that it is the desire of the government to avoid the payment of prairie farm assistance on lands which, over a long period of time, were open for homesteading, and were not considered of sufficient fertility or good enough to be taken up as homesteads; or if they were, by action of the federal government while the resources were under its control, such action
Prairie Farm Assistance Act being continued by the provincial governments after the lands were taken over by them, withheld from settlement under the homesteading plan, such lands should not now be permitted to come in under prairie farm assistance legislation. It would appear that the terms of the present act could be a consideration when taking up lands under the provisions which are set out in some of the provincial legislation. That legislation does make it possible for persons to go on some of those lands on cultivation leases.
I think it is most important that it be clearly demonstrated to all parties concerned that any lands which are going to be opened up for cultivation now are lands upon which there is some opportunity for persons who settle on them to make a living, without any assistance, from this government in particular. Whether the bill went to the committee or not we had expected to bring in amendments to make our view definite.
When I was speaking the other night I said that there was no doubt that lands which were under co-operatives as understood in Saskatchewan would not be excluded merely by the fact that they operated as co-operatives and the lands were still owned by the government. However, on. rereading the act I find that when we were amending it before we took a short cut. Instead of definitely saying that that was the case, we amended the definition of "farmer" in order to have it cover a man who was on a co-operative farm and who would therefore be entitled to payment. When we definitely eliminated the land I think probably we eliminated the individual. The proposal was definitely to put into the section being amended a provision that those who are on co-operative farms in the sense I have just spoken of shall not be eliminated by this section.
Then it was hoped that we could devise some amendment to deal with the situation which has been created in connection with several areas in Alberta and which would be satisfactory to those who are settled in those areas and to the government here. Even if the bill had not gone to the committee it was proposed to introduce an amendment to make it clear that certain persons living in those special areas would not be debarred from receiving prairie farm assistance.
All I intend to do at this stage is to move the second reading of the bill in order to get it to the committee as soon as possible, and also to make it known to the governments and others who may be concerned that it will be possible for them to place their cases before the committee and have the matter considered at as early a date as possible. If that meets

Prairie Farm Assistance Act with the approval of the house, I would suggest that we might satisfy ourselves with giving the bill second reading and permit it to go to the committee where the whole matter could be fully discussed. The bill could then be brought back to the house, where a full discussion could take place, and when hon. members would be in possession of information on which to base a decision.
Since we were dealing with this legislation the other evening I have experienced great difficulty in getting up-to-date copies of the different provincial acts. We have wired for many of these and have received some, but not all. I think it would be well if we had all the legislation before the committee when we were discussing this matter.
I may say that one of the matters I was concerned with, and with which the government was concerned, is the fact that there has been a much greater growth recently in the payments than perhaps anyone expected. Apart altogether from the fact that we have not increased the amount per acre, there has been a considerable increase in the total amount which has been paid. Last year the payments exceeded $20 million. I would hope that we could put this legislation on such a basis that it will not eventually be criticized because the payments are out of proportion to what ought to be paid or because payments are being made on land on which we should not make payments.
In the communications I have had from the provincial governments they have expressed views along similar lines, namely, that it is their intention not to insist upon lands being taken in, but rather to try to get a decision which will be satisfactory to all without bringing in land which should not be included.
If the house is prepared to give the bill second reading, I shall then move that it be referred to the committee on agriculture, to be fully considered and returned to the house later.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be full agreement by the members of this party with the suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on agriculture. However, there are other phases of the matter which I suggest should be submitted to the committee. I can understand as suggested by the minister that with the rapidly accelerating amounts that are being paid out under this most beneficial legislation, the time may come when criticisms will seriously impair its operation.
As I understand it, the reason for the legislation was and is to keep farmers on lands where, as a result of drought and other causes, there may be crop failures. Everyone makes his contribution of one per cent, and

everyone making that contribution within the limitations set by the legislation receives payment. That is the understanding and conception of the farmers with regard to this legislation-at least of those in my constituency and in other parts of Saskatchewan with whom I have spoken.
But legislation passed by parliament is subject to regulations which may be passed under the powers contained in the act, and in this instance, as I see it, many are being denied prairie farm assistance because of the regulations. The regulations have been amended from time to time to define the meaning of owner or tenant. "Farmer" means a person who is the owner or tenant and who operates a farm in the spring wheat area, or who as a member of a co-operative farm association is engaged in farming in the spring wheat area. That was the definition that parliament gave to "farmer".
I agree with the minister when he says that if land is to be removed from the operation of the act in the manner indicated by him, then the law as it now stands would deny payments under the act to co-operatives holding land in the areas referred to by him. In 1949 serious crop failures, covering a large area, occurred in Saskatchewan, and yet many farmers were denied prairie farm assistance who, as I see it, ought to have received it. They are denied that assistance in part by reason of the limitations created by the definition of owner or tenant in the regulations. Under the regulations owner or tenant is defined as follows:
An owner or tenant is not a farmer for the purposes of this act:
(a)	unless he is the owner or tenant of a farm from the first day of May to the first day of November in the same year;
(b)	unless he lives in the spring wheat area and his primary occupation is farming from the first day of May to the conclusion of the crop season;
(c)	unless he is responsible for the farm operations and the disposal of the proceeds of the farm; and
(d)	if renting from a parent, unless he has a written lease executed prior to the first day of May of the year of award.
I am not going to concern myself with paragraphs (a) and (d). When they were first introduced, paragraph (d) in particular, they did have the result of denying many people their undoubted right to the payment of this bonus, for many were unaware of the existence of these regulations during the year they were brought in. I take objection to paragraph (b), however, which provides that an owner or tenant is not a farmer for the purposes of this act unless he lives in the spring wheat area and his primary occupation is farming from May 1 to the end of the crop season.

Many people are being denied the bonus under that paragraph. Many farmers in the drought areas of Saskatchewan-and I speak particularly of those areas though my argument applies as well in Manitoba and Alberta -know by June 15 or thereabouts whether there are any prospects of a crop that year. Many of them, finding themselves in the position of having to support wives and families, have to leave their farms at that time and accept work elsewhere.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might interrupt for a moment, I think my hon. friend is suggesting that this provision is contained only in the regulations. It is in the act as well.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that, but it is being interpreted in a way that parliament never intended. I could give example after example; and the regulations are not applied uniformly. Some farmers get the bonus though they have left their land because of the conditions with which they are faced, while others in the same position are denied it. There is no uniformity in the application of that section. Too many are being denied payment of the bonus, when fully qualified for it, by a too strict interpretation on the part of those administering the act. I feel that paragraph (b) should be administered in a generous manner. I am not arguing for the person who has a full-time occupation other than farming, who is in business and operates a farm as well. I am arguing for the right of the individual who operates a business as a side line, if you will, or takes work as a side line because of the fact that early in the year he is almost assured of a crop failure.
Many have been denied the bonus. The records reveal a situation that is challenging. The minister mentioned the fear that if the amount expended in this way continues to increase, objection will be raised to the continuation of this legislation. Indeed, reading between the lines of the speech he made a week ago today there would seem to be clear evidence that objection is now being raised in certain quarters to the continuance of this legislation in its present form. I placed a question on the order paper asking how many farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba who had applied for payment of the bonus had been denied it, and that question was answered in a return on May 8. These are farmers who suffered failure and, in consequence of such crop failure last year, are having difficulty in financing their operations this year. The number who have been denied payment under the act is extraordinarily large. Because this record does not appear in Hansard I intend to read it; for it reveals
Prairie Farm Assistance Act a situation serious in its import and effect. Perhaps if the house would consent I could place this return on Hansard, and then I would not need to read it in detail.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to place the return upon Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: The return states:
Question:
1.	How many (a) individual (b) township applications, for payment of P.F.A. were refused or denied in each of the prairie provinces between the first day of July, 1949, and the first day of February, 1950?
2.	(a) How many cases, in each province, was the refusal or denial of payment under the PF.A.A. submitted to the board of review? (b) What is the total number of cases in each province in which the said board reversed the decision appealed from?
The attached information has been received by the Secretary of State of Canada from the Department of Agriculture.
Answer of Department of Agriculture
1.	(a) Saskatchewan-1320; Manitoba-84; Alberta -249.
(b) Applications are made by the municipalities, and the provinces for unorganized areas, who give an estimate only of the average yield of wheat in the township applied for. No records are kept of ineligible townships except those that are contiguous to eligible areas, this being for the purpose of determining eligible blocks of sections therein.
2.	(a) Saskatchewan-136; Manitoba-3; Alberta- 19.
(b) Saskatchewan-19; Manitoba-nil; Alberta-3.
That return indicates that in 1949 some 1,320 farmers in Saskatchewan were refused payment of the bonus between July 1, 1949, and February 1, 1950. In Manitoba the number was 84, and in Alberta 249. Some of these applications were submitted to the board of review. In Saskatchewan only 19 of the total number of appeals were allowed. In Manitoba only three appealed and no appeal was allowed, while in Alberta out of 19 appeals three were allowed.
What do the figures for Saskatchewan indicate? Taking the average farm at 320 acres, which I think is a fair rule of thumb for Saskatchewan, it means that last year farmers of some 425,000 acres, who suffered drought and crop failure and felt qualified to obtain payment under this legislation, were in fact denied payment. It reveals that in the *operation of this act, and in part at least particularly in its administration, the rules are too strictly interpreted. I have examples of farmers living side by side. One got the payment; the other, across the road, was denied it under identical circumstances, though both were within a qualified area, because of interpretations placed by the commission upon the meaning of "owner" or "occupant" under the definition I have read.
2658	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act I feel it only fair in the exercise and discharge of its responsibilities and in the interpretation of these regulations that the board of review should act not in a restrictive manner but in a manner that will bring about to the greatest possible extent fairness, equality and uniformity in the operation of this act.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, farmers occupying at least 425,000 acres of land in the province of Saskatchewan, who believe themselves qualified for this bonus, were denied it last year. This reveals a serious situation, which demands the attention of this house. When the committee commences to sit on this matter, I should like the whole question of the regulations to be submitted to it, to the end that the opinions of the farmer members on the committee could be secured, and if necessary the opinions of those outside the house who believe that changes should be made in connection with the administration of this legislation.
I come now to a phase to which reference was made by the minister, and it is one that raises a great deal of difficulty. It is the fact that over the years in parts of the western provinces, for a period indeed of nine and ten years, bonus payments have been made in the same areas. It indicates that there are certain areas wherein the probability of crops being harvested is extremely remote. I am not going into the figures for the areas in which payments have been made over a successive period of three, four or five years but will restrict my argument to the areas, by townships, in which payments have been made from seven to ten times since 1939. Under this heading in the province of Saskatchewan 329 townships have received payments for seven years since 1939;	294 townships have
received payments for eight years in the same period; 162 townships have received payments for nine years in that period, and finally in 44 townships there have been bonus payments for ten years since 1939. Those are striking figures and they warrant the admonition that was given by the minister in his opening remarks.
In parts of the province of Alberta the situation is fairly serious. Payment has been made for seven years out of the period of eleven years since 1939 in 71 townships; for eight years in 121 townships; for nine years in 177 townships, and for ten years since 1939 the bonus has been paid in 41 townships. From those figures one must realize that something must be done. It is because those areas have been so continuously denied a crop that we in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta are demanding that ' action be taken to provide irrigation by


proceeding with the work as soon as possible on such projects as the south Saskatchewan river irrigation scheme. Those areas would be productive were it not for the lack of moisture. They could be made productive. After listening to the revelations made by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Claxton), wherein he stated that Canada intends, with the nations of the Atlantic community, to co-ordinate our economic development, I believe that one course Canada must take in order to meet the situation in southeast Asia, referred to by the leader of the opposition, is to expand our agricultural production and give assistance to the people in southeast Asia, and particularly in India, Pakistan and Ceylon. This would enable those areas, under the development of the plans of the North Atlantic pact, or if necessary a Pacific pact, to provide for the containment of communism where it now is. It would deny the extension of communism by reason of hunger into India, Pakistan, Ceylon and the other countries of that area.
We in this country have a responsibility in connection with our agricultural production that challenges the Minister of Agriculture, and all those charged with the extension and expansion of agricultural production, if we are to meet the commitments we accepted in London yesterday as a member of the community of north Atlantic countries.
Returning once more to the amendments that are before the house, I communicated with many rural municipalities in the area particularly subject to drought, with a view to securing from the municipalities their recommendations as to changes in the law that might be made. Some of their suggestions have been made previously in this house. Some of them were made two years ago when I spoke on this matter, and some are the result of recent experience. It seems that many of them have gone further than ever before in suggesting that, in order to maintain the prairie farm assistance payments, realizing the difficulties of establishing crop insurance, it might well be necessary to make some increase in the amount of contribution. The minister mentioned that in recent years there has been a considerable acceleration in the expenditure in this connection. An answer given on March 16 to the member for Souris (Mr. Ross) reveals that since the inception of this act the total contributions made amount to $45,008,887. The total amount expended during the same period has been $123,876,630; that amount may have increased somewhat since this return was brought in some two months ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has increased by about a million dollars.


John George Diefenbaker: The return, then, is
approximately correct. It indicates that a vast area in the western provinces has suffered from the destruction of crops last year as a result of drought, grasshoppers and the like. The area in Manitoba was 82 townships; in Alberta, 1,126 townships; and in Saskatchewan, 1,731 townships. These figures underline the necessity for something being done in order to improve productivity, by the assurance of moisture through irrigation in a large portion of the areas comprised within these townships.
A general summary of the recommendations made by the rural municipalities, and I communicated with seventy rural municipalities so that I would have a cross-section of their suggestions and recommendations, is as follows:	(1) somewhat different from
the attitude some years ago when many advocated an individual basis as the basis upon which payments should be made, the general suggestion now seems to be that the area itself, in certain portions of Saskatchewan, should be reduced to the half township area. I refer to those areas adjacent to the Qu'Appelle valley where veterans were settled after the first war. They were settled along the eastern side of the Qu'Appelle valley. Over the years these people have lived in hope but have suffered repeated failures and because of the fact that part of the townships in which they farm is situated on the west side of the valley, they have been denied payment over the years. There are about nine areas in Saskatchewan in that position. I feel that something should be done in this committee to recommend some change in the law to meet this localized situation. I do not like to ask for laws applicable to particular areas, but there are in Saskatchewan seven or nine areas that are in this position. The people want to live there. They do not want to leave. They believe they should be entitled to consideration on the part of parliament to the extent of their areas being made subject to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and qualified either under regulation or under amendment to the act.
The second is this: while every farmer who suffers failure within the qualified areas should be entitled to the payment of a bonus,
provided his primary occupation is farming, nonetheless, in the definition of what "primary occupation" is, too many are being denied payment. Several of these municipalities have pointed out examples in their area where farmers who found it necessary to leave the farm temporarily because they were 55946-169
Prairie Farm Assistance Act facing failure, and realized they were facing failure that year, have been denied payment. These municipal officers say that in the interpretation of "primary occupation" there is too strict an adherence to the letter of the law rather than to the spirit of it.
The third recommendation that is comprised in many of the suggestions is a request in connection with the amounts that are payable for crop failure bonus which were fixed on the basis of conditions in 1939, namely, $2.50 or $1.50 an acre, depending on the degree of failure. Having regard to the taxation that they pay these municipalities say that there is no reason whatsoever why there should not be an increase in the amount of assistance payable. The amount of P.F.A. that is payable today is insufficient to place a farmer in a position in which he can continue his farming operations; and after all, that was the purpose for which this legislation was passed.
I do not want to go into further detail. I believe, however, that these suggestions are worthy of consideration by the committee on agriculture that is to inquire into the matter of amendments to the law as it now stands. The bringing into effect of a few of these suggestions that I have placed before you, Mr. Speaker, would go far towards removing a feeling sometimes approaching resentment that one finds where farmers are denied payment because of the interpretation placed on the regulations or because of the narrowness of the qualification as provided by law.
The changes I recommend, if accepted, would have the result of removing almost every objection that is to be heard with regard to this legislation. It has worked out well. It is a monumental example of the nation's desire to accept responsibility for the failures of fellow Canadians who suffer failure by reason of circumstances beyond their control.
We in the province of Saskatchewan have received much more than we have ever paid. We recognize and appreciate that fact. In Saskatchewan, the contribution over the years under this legislation has been some $24,600,000. The amount paid to Saskatchewan farmers has amounted to some $95 million. We recognize that fact, and we appreciate what other parts of the country have done to show that, where what amounts to a national disaster happens to agriculture in the western provinces, the people of Canada as a whole are willing to help us in our difficulties.
In that spirit, realizing what has been done for us, we in Saskatchewan-and I impress this upon the government, though I speak as a member of the opposition-will

Prairie Farm Assistance Act join with them in anything they may do to assist the people of Winnipeg and the peoole of Manitoba in general in the disaster that has come to that province in recent weeks. We believe- it is a national disaster. We believe that the people of Manitoba ought to be assured that Canadians as a whole will do everything they can to reimburse them financially, so that their losses will be borne as far as possible by the nation at large. After all, national disasters demand national consideration, and are no longer matters of provincial responsibility alone.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make another speech; of course, I would not be permitted to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that what has been suggested is that it should be possible to have these matters discussed before the committee; that is, the matters that have been referred to.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The three sections that are being referred to the committee cover all the points that have been mentioned, and I do not think there is any problem about that at all.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. I appreciate that assurance very much. I know that the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater), who enjoys the confidence of the members of that committee, will see to it that the widest possible discussion is permitted in connection with this matter.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I welcome, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that this bill be referred to the standing committee on agriculture. I think that a great deal of study needs to be made as to what will be the ramifications and implications of the first amendment. I believe it is wise that officials from the various departments of agriculture in the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba should have an opportunity to appear before that committee so that we can get exact information as to the land policy followed by the various provincial governments which will be affected by the first clause of the bill as it now stands.
I am glad the minister made it clear that "co-op." farms as such set up on crown land will be eligible for prairie farm assistance. I regret, however, that the minister did not state that it was the intention of the government to change the first clause of the bill to an even greater extent than that. I listened with interest to the speech delivered

by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I can say that I can agree with most parts of it. 1 have had the same experience in regard to cases brought to my attention and submitted to the department for a ruling. Without question the regulations and the interpretation of the regulations are being tightened up, and it is certainly much more difficult now to get what one might consider a borderline case passed by the department. While saying that, however, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in the past I have found the members of the board of review very co-operative; and after explaining certain new factors in regard to a particular case that may have been brought to my attention, on numerous occasions I have been successful in getting the application reconsidered and finally getting payment made.


John George Diefenbaker: That has been my experience, too, and I did not want to give any other impression.


Major James William Coldwell: Mine, too.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps certain directions were given to the board of review last year as to policy which must have permitted a great deal more leniency. For example, I find that because of the 1948 crop failure a great many wives, whose husbands were also farming, became eligible for separate payment; and while circumstances in regard to a number of these cases have not in any way changed during the past year, I find that the regulations are being tightened, and that separate payments are pretty hard to get through the board of review.
In the last few weeks I have often wondered whether the department here was not pretty lenient just before the election with some of these applications, but after the election decided to tighten the regulations.
I regret that in his statement a week ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) so often made the suggestion that if certain things were done in regard to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act a great deal of objection might be raised to the act in other parts of Canada. I have heard very little objection to the act in this house, and so far as I can recollect no member of parliament, irrespective of what part of Canada he came from, has voted against any improvement that might be made in the act. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture was just building up a straw man and then proceeding to knock him over.


James Garfield Gardiner: It might be a compliment to his good judgment.


Hazen Robert Argue: It might be a compliment to the minister's good judgment. I will not quarrel

with the judgment of the Minister of Agriculture on a lot of things, but my opinion is that a government that has such an overwhelming majority should not have one of its cabinet ministers trying to plant ideas in the minds of various members of parliament to object to a piece of legislation which, in my opinion, is absolutely essential to a large section of the people of Canada, and a piece of legislation which is amply justified on the basis of history.


James Garfield Gardiner: And which he himself
originated.


Hazen Robert Argue: In looking at the amounts that are paid from time to time I find that they are large, and they have been large over the last few years because there has been widespread crop failure. But the payment to any individual farmer is a very small one.
The Minister of Agriculture himself has said many times in the past that it is so small as to pay only the grocery and the clothing bills. The point is that thousands of farmers in western Canada, when they have a series of crop failures over a few successive years, must get assistance somewhere, and I think it is much better that they get assistance in the form of a cheque that they can use as they themselves see fit, than forcing them back on the relief rolls, as was our experience in the 1930's. The point is that if this act were withdrawn there would be no saving in money when we consider the amount that the various provincial governments and the federal government would have to pay in assisting people who have successive crop failures.
I do not want to leave the impression that all of this bill is not of value. Certainly the second clause is a good one. A week ago in respect to the second clause of the bill the Minister of Agriculture said that it was something that most hon. members thought a year ago should have been done when the legislation was before the house. I want to point out to him that last year in the committee on agriculture I moved a motion which was almost identical with the second section of the bill. My motion read as follows:
Where a section of land lies within an ineligible township and has a side that lies alongside an eligible township or is a section which lies alongside an eligible section or a corner of which touches the corner of an eligible township or an eligible section, such section of land shall be eligible for award as though it were a complete township.
The section in the bill reads as follows:
Where a block of contiguous sections of land within an ineligible township having an area of not less than one-sixth of the township and a side that lies along the boundary of an eligible township is determined by the board to have an average yield
Prairie Farm Assistance Act of eight bushels of wheat or less per acre, such block of sections of land shall be eligible for award as though it were a complete township.
I say that my motion and this clause are identical. But when my motion was moved in the agriculture committee last fall I found that all of the Liberal members voted against it. Therefore when the Minister of Agriculture says that last year most of the members of parliament supported this new clause I think he should say more specifically that members of the C.C.F. and the Social Credit parties, who voted for the motion, are the people who supported this particular clause.
Last Friday the Minister of Agriculture stated, as he did again this afternoon, what might be considered his interpretation of the first clause of the present bill. He said, as appears on page 2430 of Hansard'.
The people who have title to their land or have it under agreement of sale, though they may not have clear title-that is, the people who own their land in the sense that land is owned all across the country-are entitled to payment under the terms of this act. But if such a person or some other person goes on a piece of submarginal land and takes a cultivation lease, with the land still belonging to the government, whether it be this government, a provincial government or a municipal government, the amount is not payable on that land.
If that is the intention of the first section, then why does it not read that way? Why does the first section say that any new cultivation leases let by provincial governments on submarginal land will no longer be eligible for payment? Instead of that the section says that provincial lands, with the exception of lands held by veterans under the Veterans Land Act, and held as co-operative farms, as the minister said this afternoon, will not be eligible for payment.
I hope it is the intention of the minister through this section to try to get only submarginal lands removed from the provisions of the act, and that that is the extent of his intention. I am afraid however that by leaving the section as it now stands we are more apt to get a greater amount of submarginal lands under cultivation and eligible for payment under the act.
I say that for this reason, that under the present lease policy of the Saskatchewan and Alberta governments, those two governments can determine whether or not a farmer shall cultivate his lease, or use it for grazing. But if pressure results from this bill-if it passes in its present form-and is exerted on various provincial governments, to the point where they may abandon their present lease policy, and do what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has suggested, namely, sell their provincial lands, then of course there will be no control over the type of use to which the land is put. A farmer, if he can buy provincial

Prairie Farm Assistance Act land, after having purchased it can break it up, even if it is a very light soil; and he will be eligible for prairie farm assistance under the bill as it now stands.
In other words this bill has absolutely nothing to do with submarginal lands, and the taking of such lands out of wheat production. It is directed only at the land policy and the lease policy followed by the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Should those governments decide to sell that land, and if in the future, as has happened in the past when crown land has been sold, the farmers buying such land should undertake a huge obligation in the way of debt, then those farmers can no longer afford to carry on proper cultural practices.
If a farmer gets a cultivation lease over a thirty-three year period he will say, "Now I have some security. I am going to farm this land for the next thirty-three years in a way which will permit me to get the greatest possible return over that period." But if the same farmer has the same piece of land, but with a heavy debt on it, he will say, "I will farm this land in the next two or three years and, by the grace of God and some rain, I may get a couple of bumper crops and pay off my mortgage." The chances are that he will put a great deal more into wheat production, and continuous wheat production, with the end result after a few years that he has a greater number of crop failures, and consequently would be eligible for the bonus.
From the information I have been able to obtain, the Saskatchewan government is most careful in its leasing policy not to allow a cultivation lease on a piece of submarginal land in grass. A provincial government has just as great a stake in proper methods of agricultural practice as has the Minister of Agriculture or the federal government. If a provincial government follows a policy which results in the misuse of land, then of course they are going to be called upon from time to time to advance seed and to advance relief to the people within that province.
I have figures here from the department of agriculture in Saskatchewan which show that in that province there is just a little more than 5,000,000 acres under grazing lease. The province has control of some 800,000 odd acres in addition to that, which is not under cultivation, making a total amount of provincial land not under cultivation of 5,800,000 acres.
Then, the provincial crown lands leased on the basis of cultivation lease amount to a little more than 640,000 acres. In other words, just 10 per cent of all the crown lands in Saskatchewan are under cultivation lease.


Ninety per cent cannot be brought into wheat production. Of the 10 per cent that is under cultivation lease, 472,000 acres have been let for veteran settlement, with the approval of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Ottawa, and that 472,000 acres will be eligible for prairie farm assistance. So that this leaves a net of 169,000 acres in Saskatchewan under cultivation by civilian lease which will be denied payment of the bonus under this legislation.
In other words the lease policy of the Saskatchewan government has been so good that only two and one-half per cent of all crown lands can be affected by this amendment. The government of that province has been most careful to see that no cultivation lease is let on submarginal land, so that the amount of submarginal land in wheat production will be increased.
If the Minister of Agriculture wants the type of bill he has said on two or three occasions he would like to have, then he should say that in the future if any provincial government lets a new cultivation lease on submarginal land, then on such submarginal land prairie farm assistance payments will not be made.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is already in the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh yes; of course that is in the bill. And there are a lot of other things in the bill. But the point is that it is taking all crown lands, with certain exceptions, from under the act-and naturally this will take the poor land along with the good.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend does not understand what I am saying. The provision that submarginal land cannot recover is in the original act, and the only people who can declare land submarginal are the provincial governments. That is a matter of civil right. They can declare it submarginal, but we are not able to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then if that is so, I would like to know what the minister was doing when he was talking all last Friday afternoon. He kept on telling us that there were new leases on a lot of submarginal land and that the purpose of the amendment was to stop that being done.


James Garfield Gardiner: They do not call it that in the act, though.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is what the minister said, as reported at page 2434 of Hansard:
But we do want to put this legislation in shape whereby no one can come into this House of Commons and say, "You are paying money out on submarginal lands which are owned by a government and should be under pasture"; this government is prepared to put it under pasture for the common good and someone deliberately goes on it

and gets a lease, and makes it impossible to do that. I do not think the House of Commons wants us to pay to continue that.
The minister there said they are going on pasture land and putting it under cultivation, and then they are getting P.F.A.A. payments, and that is what he wants to stop. Yet if the government is going to treat, as I believe it is not justified in treating, all provincial lease land on this basis, why does not the government include mortgage company land? Why does not the government include Canadian Pacific land and Hudson's Bay Company land that is under lease? Instead this legislation is directed at the provincial governments. There is no incentive, and no public responsibility imposed on companies like the Canadian Pacific or the Hudson's Bay Company with regard to a proper land utilization program. They lease their lands in such a way as to get the greatest possible amount of revenue and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is doing nothing about their leases. But in Saskatchewan, where in my opinion the government has a sound agricultural policy and has not allowed submarginal land to go into wheat production, the minister is removing all crown land from the provisions of the act while at the same time forcing farmers on that land to continue to pay one per cent into the fund year in and year out.
If the Minister of Agriculture is anxious to take submarginal land out of cultivation, I should like to show him a map I have here put out by his own department showing where submarginal land is to be found. The Department of Agriculture has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to find where the submarginal land is and all the minister needs to do in this part of Saskatchewan is to take this map and declare that the yellow areas will not be subject to prairie farm assistance. If he does that he will be taking submarginal land out of the provisions of this act and perhaps out of wheat production altogether.
We need a proper land utilization policy which can be brought about only by co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments as well as the people in the local communities. That land utilization policy would have to include increased areas under irrigation as well as increased acreages under grass. If a policy like that were followed the submarginal land could be taken out of production. Under such a policy farmers who are now on submarginal land could be given an economic unit either in the area in which they now live or in some other part of the province.
I submit that by the present bill the Minister of Agriculture is making a political football out of the P.F.A.A. when he tries
Prairie Farm Assistance Act to force Alberta or Saskatchewan to abandon its land policy. I am glad that the bill is to be referred to the agriculture committee and I hope that that committee will call the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan or the deputy minister. We can then find out whether the Saskatchewan government has been allowing cultivation leases on submarginal land.
I think it is time the federal government and the provincial government got together to work out a policy which would be in the interests of the people in that part of Canada, which would include a proper land utilization program as well as a proper soil conservation program. Even while that is being done we would have to continue the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In my opinion it is a national disaster when large areas in western Canada have successive crop failures, just as the present disaster in Winnipeg and along the Red river is a national disaster.
I am happy that the federal government has seen fit to give assistance to those people in Manitoba who are facing such devastating loss. I believe that that is a national disaster and it calls for a national contribution. However, I believe that when a corp failure is experienced in large areas in Canada it should also be considered a national disaster. Because of that, not only should the Prairie Farm Assistance Act be continued; it should be expanded and improved.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this bill is to be referred to the agriculture committee and in view of the statements made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that it is the intention of the government to *amend the act to exclude the lands in certain special areas of Alberta from the operations of section 1, I shall be brief in my remarks. The bill deals with three different matters which I should like to refer to briefly in the reverse order.
Section 3 exempts feed mills from the necessity of collecting the one per cent levy. We believe that that will be a good thing. Section 2 removes the rectangular block limitations from paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 7 and replaces it with a provision for contiguous blocks. We believe that that will be a very definite improvement in the act as we have been advocating it for a number of years. I never could understand why in the past the minister seemed so taken with the idea of rectangular blocks because crop failures in the west never were in the form of rectangles; they have always come in

Prairie Farm Assistance Act irregular shapes. I am sure that that amendment will receive the hearty approval of the farmers in western Canada.
Section 1 of the bill is the contentious section and the Minister of Agriculture referred to it as containing bad news when he spoke a week ago. At that time he promised to make certain adjustments in order to remove the injustices that might occur as a result of the operation of that section. I was glad to hear him state today that amendments to remove certain lands from the operation of that section will be presented.
I agree that submarginal land should be taken out of cultivation, but I do not agree that the declaring of lands leased from governments as being ineligible for payments will accomplish that result. If leased land is sold to an individual there may well be a natural expansion in the cultivated acreage, and that would certainly have been the situation in the special areas of Alberta. Therefore I was glad to hear the minister state that it was the intention to exclude lands in those areas from the operation of this section.
I am wondering what will be done with regard to local improvement districts. There is none of those districts in Acadia so I am not familiar with the set-up, but I believe in some respects they are similar to the special areas. As I am not familiar with them I do not intend to discuss them. No doubt they will be discussed when the bill is before the agriculture committee.
As I said, in view of the fact that the bill is being referred to the committee, and as I am a member of that committee and shall liave plenty of opportunity to put forward my views, I will say no more at this time.


Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this bill. It must be admitted that so far this session I have not said very much. I feel that our main problem in the drought areas is irrigation, and it was my intention to speak on the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Since this bill has been brought in, however, I feel it necessary to say a few words, particularly in view of the statement by the minister this afternoon and in view of section 1 of the bill.
In his statement this afternoon the minister referred to the special areas. In the southeastern part of my province, particularly in my constituency, only a very small portion of the land is in these special areas. No doubt the minister knows that district quite well; that is the area north of the British block and from Empress along to Iddesleigh and Buffalo. That is in the special area, but the larger part of my constituency is in local


improvement districts. This afternoon the minister referred particularly to the special areas. If this bill goes through in its present form many farmers in local improvement districts are going to be disqualified from the bonus. It must be realized that in the local improvement districts many farmers are leasing land from the department of municipal affairs or the department of lands and mines.
I have had some experience along this line. The last municipality near Medicine Hat to go broke was M. D. 92, which was called Excelsior. It was turned over to the department of municipal affairs, and as an inspector of that department I held that area. So I feel I know a little about local improvement districts in my province. In that municipality, as in many other local improvement districts that I held, land went through tax sales. That land might have been homesteaded thirty or forty years ago, but through no fault of their own the farmers were forced into arrears of taxes, particularly in the thirties. Of course if a farmer was residing on land that went through tax sale he was protected to the extent that he could lease that land from the government. If crop conditions changed, or if his financial circumstances improved, he had the opportunity of consolidating the arrears of taxes that had accumulated on his land. He received the usual discount of up to 25 per cent, and paid the current taxes and arrears over a period of five years, after which that land was redeemed in his name. If he was not able to do that the department of municipal affairs leased that land to him on a crop share basis.
In those years the arrangement was that one-fourth of the crop went to the department, and that share was applied against the arrears of taxes on the land. If at the end of five years he was able to pay off all his arrears he got title to the land. If on the other hand crop conditions did not improve and he was not able to pay his consolidated taxes, he could lease that land. Title was taken by the government, and eventually the land was turned over to the department of lands and mines. When that happened the land was leased back to the farmer; and many of those leases are still in effect today. That is the position of a number of farmers east of the city of Medicine Hat. I know of one farmer in particular who homesteaded his land forty years ago. It is quite true that he does not have title to that land today, that he is still leasing it from the department of lands and mines; but many people who have been in

this country for sixty and seventy years have no title to any property, whether urban or rural.
Under this act that man who is living on his homestead will be disqualified in respect to this assistance. There is to be an amendment to deal with these special areas, but what is to happen to the farmers residing in the local improvement districts? If the minister had mentioned particularly the special areas in Alberta it might have been entirely different, but he referred to the special areas in general.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted, in spite of what I did say, what I meant to say was that we were going to send the bill to a committee, before which the Alberta minister could appear. He is coming to see me on Monday anyway, and he can appear before the committee and give us the information about all these matters.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I appreciate that the minister said this bill would be sent to committee. Last Friday the minister made a speech in the house. I read that statement very carefully, but I must admit that after reading his speech I was no better informed than when I started, so I felt it my duty to say a few words on behalf of the local improvement districts which I represent. I would certainly object if they were to be treated in any different manner than the special areas, because we have many districts in southeastern Alberta that are in exactly the same situation as the special areas. Parts of the local improvement districts were in the special areas. The minister knows that the area from the north side of township 12 up to Empress, on the east side of the Saskatchewan river, used to be in the Tilley east area. He also knows that the area north of the south Saskatchewan river up to the British block and west of Alderson was in a special area. Those are not special areas now; they are in local improvement districts. If what the minister said this afternoon is true, then those areas are not to be considered as the special areas; that is something we must keep in mind.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope I did not say that. I intended that the whole country be considered.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am glad to be corrected. I may have misunderstood what the minister said. After all, in Alberta we do have the special areas, and we have our local improvement districts, as the minister knows. There is no difference between those areas; he must agree to that. If an amendment is to be brought in to include those special areas, I believe it should include many local improvement districts as well, not only in Alberta but in Saskatchewan.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
If the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are to be confined to lands that are owned, we are going to make a big mistake. As the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) mentioned, there are many quarter-sections, as well as sections, in that area that are owned by the Hudson's Bay Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Some of the lands are owned by speculators who have it rented. It seems to me that if the government intends to disqualify government owned lands, it would only be fair to disqualify anyone who owns land unless he lives on the land and farms it. It seems to me that is a fair proposition. I certainly agree with the statement made by the member for Assiniboia.
It must be realized also that the policy of the Alberta department of lands and mines is that no more land should be put under cultivation. After being an inspector and assessor with the department of municipal affairs for ten years, I feel that I know fairly well what is going on in the area. As I said, the department of lands and mines feels that no further land should be put under cultivation. Anyone leasing land from the department today, even under a grazing lease, can only get a permit to put small areas under cultivation for feed purposes. When I say "for feed purposes", I think the minister understands what I mean. In the drought area there may be what we call a slough, which may be flooded in the spring but perhaps dries up by the end of May. This enables the farmer to plant an area of ten or fifteen acres for feed purposes. The department of lands and mines will not allow a farmer to grow any wheat on that land for sale; it must be for feed for his stock.
We are discussing a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We in the southeastern corner of the province believe we have another solution for the problem. We believe that if we utilize the water in that area, we can certainly relieve the dominion government of many of the obligations about which they are complaining today. This afternoon the minister stated that there had been a big increase in the amount paid out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act during the last few years. I am sure that no one knows better than the Minister of Agriculture why those moneys have to be paid out. I may say that none of the farmers enjoy receiving the prairie farm assistance payments; they do not like being what you might term relief recipients any more than any of us would like to be on relief. Many of the farmers in the area of which the minister spoke this afternoon believe that the solution lies in the utilization of the water running through that
2666	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act area. If that is done prairie farm assistance payments, so far as Alberta is concerned, will be eliminated.
The minister may not agree with that statement, but it has been proven in any area where you have irrigation, where you have trees or dams and you are distributing the water over the land, the atmosphere in that area is entirely different. All one has to do is to leave Medicine Hat on a day when it is about 110 in the shade and drive to Taber to notice the difference in the atmosphere. I am sure the minister has gone through that experience during the trips he has made through that country, unless he was too busily engaged to notice it at the time. It may be argued that it is not possible to bring water down to Medicine Hat or to the Saskatchewan boundary. To answer that question one only has to refer to the Meek report. If we consider that report of any value, we must agree that water can be brought to Medicine Hat.
I should like to tell the minister that I appreciate what the dominion government is doing in building the St. Mary's dam. A lot of good work is being carried on there, and it is work which I am sure will benefit a large area of southern Alberta. As I have said, after studying the Meek report one must agree that water can be brought to Medicine Hat. If we have that water I am sure the farmers in that area will know how to distribute it. Some officials may claim it is not possible to carry water from 150 to 175 miles without a great deal of evaporation; that it would not be economical to do so. According to the report I have just mentioned, if dams are constructed in that area, it is quite feasible. If it is not, I am sure that water can be pumped out of the south Saskatchewan river and that area can be made into a productive one. We realize, of oourse, that to pump water out of any river is perhaps more expensive than the canal system. But I would also remind the house that we have natural gas in the Bow island area, and natural gas could be used to work those engines required to pump water. We have heard a great deal about natural gas during the last two years; and natural gas can be used profitably in our irrigation systems. If it was not for natural gas in the vicinity of Medicine Hat we would not have many of the market gardens we have today. All along that river every market gardener has his own gas well.
Many hon. members in this house do not realize today that power is supplied by natural gas for the engines that are used for pumping water out of the south Saskatchewan river to irrigate these lands. That is


why Medicine Hat is considered to be one of the best corn-growing areas in western Canada. I may have a few laughs from across the floor, but we do not mind that. I should like hon. members to come up and see what we have and what we have done with natural gas and irrigation. That is why I say that if the dominion government believes that we are unable to bring water down from the St. Mary river dam to Medicine Hat, we can certainly pump it from the south Saskatchewan river and irrigate thousands of acres.
There are many projects in the same position in western Canada. We all realize that. We have the St. Mary-Milk river project, the Bow river development project and the Red Deer diversion project. In Saskatchewan, you have the south Saskatchewan project. That of course may cost considerably more money than will our projects in Alberta. But when that is feasible, why should not every one of those projects be made financially possible? There is no excuse whatever, except for one thing; and that is what it is going to cost the government to put it in. We realize that we must have a larger population in our western provinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta. That is one of our solutions. If we develop these irrigation projects, we are doing a great deal not only for Canada but for many other countries from which we can get immigrants.
I believe that the time has arrived when these irrigation projects must be given consideration. We should not only consider the bill before us but we should consider what can be done to eliminate the bill; I think that is more important than the bill itself. If we are going to develop our natural resources as we should, why should not the government of Canada and the provincial governments put in our irrigation systems?
I have refrained from saying anything about irrigation this session, as the minister knows. I have been waiting for him to make a statement in connection with two projects which affect my constituency particularly.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would be out of order if I did so, just the same as you are.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am not out of order.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh yes, you are.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am not out of order. I am showing how we can do away with this bill if we develop our natural resources in this country. I think that by doing so I am quite in order. I have been waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement as to the future development of our irrigation projects in southern Alberta. If the minister would prefer that I wait until his estimates are

called, I shall be glad to do so. I will just do that. We have the solution or part of the solution, I perhaps should say, to this bill: the utilization of our natural resources to the greatest possible extent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon member is out of order. He should confine himself to the principle of the bill.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will save any remarks I have to make on irrigation until the minister's estimates are before us. However, getting back to Bill No. 209, I feel that the Minister of Agriculture should give the house some information as to what he considers are the special areas in the province of Alberta. I do not live in special areas, but we have lands in that area that are in local improvement districts that are affected just the same as the special areas. I believe that the minister should tell us just what is his idea of special areas. I am going to wait until the minister's estimates are before us to make any further remarks on irrigation; I will not say anything further about that matter at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $293,670.
William Duncan McKay Wylie: I may have been called to order, Mr. Chairman, on the bill that we were discussing, but I feel that I am quite in order now.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You will hear me before I am through, so don't worry. I feel that on the first item of the Department of Agriculture we can give a general review of agricultural conditions in the country. I have discussed irrigation on other occasions in the house, and I want to say a few words about that subject before I resume my seat. I do not want to say anything in the house that would in any way embarrass either the dominion government or the provincial government before the international joint commission meets, but I do think I should say a few words on irrigation, and what it would mean not only to Alberta but to Canada as a whole.
Before dealing with irrigation I want to read an editorial regarding agriculture which appeared in the Medicine Hat News. I presume, Mr. Chairman, I shall be in order when
Supply-Agriculture
I read it. The editorial is entitled: "Pie-in-the-Sky Aggie Economics" and reads as follows:
Federal government representatives, ten of them, are tramping about the country on a mission to induce housewives to buy more dairy products, particularly milk and butter.
I want my hon. friends across the way to be sure to listen to this. I continue:
Medicine Hatters were given the treatment this week. We could think of other ways in which such time and money could be more profitably expended, even in a public service endeavour.
The urging of greater consumption of food staples, without the medium of greater purchasing power, is the nonsense of pie-in-the-sky economics.
I am sure all hon. members know that. The editorial continues:
No mother would have to be told to buy more dairy products if she had the money in her budget to do so. The sensible alternative to such hocum is a free Canadian market in basic products. We have little sympathy with grumbling over $1 beefsteak and 60-cent butter, or any other exorbitant price demand, when it is realized that consumers have the solution within their own grasp-boycott buying.
I presume the Medicine Hat News supports the Minister of Agriculture. I continue:
As long as shoppers are willing to pay the piper, then the tune will be called by the producers.
As I said, this editorial appeared in our local paper. Apparently today the Department of Agriculture have men going around the country, and ten of them were in Medicine Hat trying to convince the housewives that they should buy more dairy products. I am sure that today the housewives are buying all the dairy products that their incomes will permit them to. Whether that statement is true I do not know. The Minister of Agriculture knows and will tell us about it.
When I was home during the Easter recess I talked to many farmers in that area, and I must say that the wheat-growing farmers were rather discouraged about the new price they were to receive for their wheat. These farmers feel that during the war they contributed perhaps more to the economy of this country than anyone else by selling their wheat at a loss of perhaps $500 million or $600 million. That is the loss that was suffered by the farmers of western Canada. These farmers realize, and especially those in the southern part of the province where we have a drought area and have to depend a lot on prairie farm assistance, that their income is not very high.
Some hon. members may argue that there is one solution, namely, to leave wheat growing alone and grow coarse grains. Everyone in the house should know that in these drought areas wheat will withstand more drought than any other grain. That is a well

Supply-Agriculture
known fact. The farmer who may harvest six to eight bushels of wheat to an acre and has a field of oats and barley alongside it will not harvest any coarse grains. That is certainly well known in the area from which I come, and that is one reason why the farmers of that area are perturbed over the price of wheat for the coming crop year.
It is also realized that we need irrigation in that country. I want to refer to one small project to show what can be done in some small areas with the assistance of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the provincial government. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act men have done wonderful work. All of us must agree with that. It is true that it has cost a considerable amount of money. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has done very well in areas in which they have gone to build dams for small irrigation projects and dug-outs for stock watering purposes.
There is one project that I want to refer to particularly, namely, the Ross creek irrigation scheme. It is a scheme within twenty miles of Medicine Hat, in which the water is diverted from a creek and put into what might be called a natural reservoir. During the run-off this year the reservoir was filled to a depth of about fifteen feet in an area that covered about four hundred acres. Any time you have an area of four hundred acres in western Canada covered to a depth of fifteen feet of water you have something that is really worth while. I may say that perhaps the farmers who are going to utilize this water may not get so much benefit out of it this year. They are storing the water for benefits that they will receive next year. The land I refer to has been eligible for drought bonus for the last seven years, since 1942. We are going to have an irrigated area of perhaps 2,500 acres where the farmers can raise feed for their stock and grain of any kind, as well as all kinds of vegetables, Through the instigation of a man who was with P.F.R.A. at one time, and who is well known to the Minister of Agriculture-I am referring to Mr. Henry Cavan of Dunmore-much has been done to promote that project. He, along with Frank McCleay, worked on the project for several years. Now they have something to show for their efforts.
That is something that can be done in many areas of southeastern Alberta. So far as a general policy of irrigation is concerned, I should be very happy to have the minister tell the committee just what has occurred by way of irrigation in the past year. I have been watching the. press for announcements

stating that the government has reached an agreement with the Canada Land and Irrigation Company and the Alberta government with respect to the St. Mary-Milk river project. Thus far I have been disappointed.
It will be recalled that when in the last session I referred to various statements appearing in the press the minister replied that he did not publish either paper. With that I certainly agree. However, I feel that after discussing Bill No. 209, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, we should be given some information as to what is going to be done to preserve our natural resources through the means of irrigation.
As I have said on many occasions, we have in the area of Medicine Hat the best land in Alberta, when it receives sufficient rainfall. I do not think anyone would contradict that statement. We are living in an area where our annual precipitation averages 12-70 inches and in some years is as low as 10 inches. In an area of that kind we are particularly interested in the promotion and development of our irrigation schemes.
I could speak at some length on this subject, dealing with what we could produce on those lands, the number of settlers we could care for and what it would mean to the economy of Canada. However, I do not think I should do that at the present time. On the other hand I feel consideration should be given by the federal and provincial governments to extending the existing projects in that area.
I appreciate what the Minister of Agriculture has done, and realize that he is up against some difficulties in promoting irrigation in southern Alberta. I know there are certain interests in eastern Canada that are opposed to the dominion government's spending large amounts of money in the development of irrigation on our western plains. May I say to those who would oppose such projects that the farmers and all others in western Canada have done their part in assisting to keep some of those who now criticize western Canada.
I have here many editorials which have appeared in some of the eastern newspapers in which easterners are critical of the development of our irrigation projects. I do not think it is necessary to read these to hon. members, because every hon. member must realize that when one part of Canada is helped, all of Canada is helped. That has been brought to our attention with great fcrce in the last month when two areas in Manitoba have been flooded. Those farmers will not have an opportunity to sow a crop this year; if they do, it will produce only feed. We

also have in mind the disastrous fires at Rimouski and Cabano in Quebec, and extend to those people our sincere sympathy.
Those of us in the dried-out areas of western Canada believe that the people of Canada generally have the same sympathy for us when we have a crop failure. And so it is in this spirit that I say to the Minister of Agriculture and other members of the federal government that everything should be done to bring about increased production on our great western plains.
One of the greatest mistakes we make is in our reference to the Palliser triangle. The time has long since passed when we should refer to western Canada in that way. As John Fisher said in a most able broadcast last fall from Lethbridge, it is time the people of Canada forgot about the Palliser triangle and got together to develop our land as one country.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Joseph Browne: I made the suggestion only because of the example set by other hon. members who have done the same thing. In rising to speak in connection with the first item in the agricultural estimates I realize that some hon. members may wonder why a member from a province with such a reputation for its fisheries should speak on agriculture. The fact is that agriculture is of great importance to Newfoundland. I hold in my hand a copy of the "Industrial Survey of the Resources of the Province of Newfoundland", prepared by Donald, Ross and Company, Montreal, for the Newfoundland industrial development board, and it was a great pleasure to me to find that in this report agriculture is stressed as being of great importance in the economy of the island. Dealing with that subject the writer says:
Farming, while on a comparatively small scale, occupies an important place in the economy of the island as the produce is largely grown for home consumption; whereas the other basic industries, fishing, pulp and paper and mining, produce almost exclusively for export.
During the past nine years Newfoundland has been riding the crest of a wave caused by the coming of Americans and Canadians who built large military and naval establishments in the country, and also because of the fact that high prices were received for the products of our fisheries, mines and forests which were exported. I felt somewhat doubtful of the position which I had always maintained when I saw these industries going ahead so fast and our people finding such easy money in working therein. I felt that
Supply-Agriculture
in neglecting agriculture to work in those industries some of our people were really neglecting their own best interests. In the past few months we have noticed that the fishing industry is not as reliable for a country's economy as a well-balanced agriculture. Next week a conference will be held in Ottawa attended by representatives of the salt cod fishing interests to discuss what can be done to market the balance of the 1949 catch and what they are going to do about fishermen who have refused to fish during the coming season.
It has been my belief that agriculture occupies the same place in Newfoundland as it does in other parts of Canada. In my opinion it is the most important industry, and I believe the early settlers realized that. When John Guy came to Newfoundland in 1610 he made an attempt to sustain his small colony by the produce taken from the soil. Unfortunately the attitude of the British government was to discourage both agriculture and colonization so that it was not until 1813 that land was first granted for agriculture.
Within a few short years after that date all the available land around St. John's was taken up. It must be remembered that at that time there were no roads in the country; there was no means of communication except by water. In a comparatively short time many fine farms were built up around St. John's, one by Governor Cochrane, the first governor after we were granted representative government in 1832. Roads followed as the result of the farm development policy. One farm was established in a place called Mount Pearl, called after the gentleman who established it, Sir William Pearl, I believe. Within the past ten or twelve years an experimental farm was set up on that very place which has now been taken over by the federal government. We expect that many experiments Will be carried on there which will be of great benefit to the country.
Unfortunately the story of agriculture in Newfoundland has been in a minor key. The economy of the country has been largely controlled by the strong mercantile and fishing interests. For hundreds of years the fish merchants made millions of pounds out of the fisheries and then often retired with their accumulated profits to England and spent nothing upon the development of the country. It was not until 1904 that the first paper mill was established. Prior to that time the interior of the country had hardly been touched.
In 1908 the first attempt was made to establish an experimental farm when the

Private Bills-Divorce
prime minister of that day, Sir Robert Bond, who himself operated a profitable farm at a place called Whitbourne, established the first experimental farm near St. John's. Unfortunately he was defeated in the election of 1909 and the government that followed placed a lawyer in charge of the department of agriculture with the result that within a year the place was sold and the experiments abandoned. I trust the Minister of Agriculture will sympathize with the misfortunes of the people of Newfoundland when a policy such as that was carried out.
I believe he and his advisers should know that Professor Zavitz, who had quite a reputation in this country, advised Sir Robert Bond on the setting up of that model farm; to have that work jettisoned proved a great handicap to the progress of agriculture in Newfoundland.
Item stands.
Progress reported.	[DOT]
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Reuben Robert Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Mary White Sheppard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Ulderic Cadieux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Helen Irene Barney Hutchinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Alice Jean Young Gulliver.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Joseph Lucien Alphonse Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Georges Emile Bernier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Margaret Veronica Quinn Davies.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Max Gure-vitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Romuald Joseph Jean Lamoureux.-Mr. Winkler.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: These bills are referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


Hazen Robert Argue: the second reading of Bill No. 11, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938 (age of voters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this bill I shall be brief. I do not want to contribute to talking out the bill, and it is my hope that it may be dealt with during the one-hour period. My amendment would reduce the eligible voting age from 21 to 18 years. From time to time over the years various amendments to the Dominion Elections Act have been brought down. On various occasions parliament has decided that amendments were necessary in order to broaden the basis of the franchise and make each election as far as possible reflect the will of the people. Some provinces, notably Alberta and Saskatchewan, have already placed in their statutes a voting age lower than 21 years. In March, 1944, Alberta reduced the voting age from 21 to 19 years. In March of 1948 Saskatchewan reduced the eligible voting age for provincial elections from 21 to 18 years.
One of the main reasons that I feel parliament might well adopt this amendment is the fact that the standard of education is steadily improving. The present generation of young Canadians is better trained and better educated than any preceding generation. The 1941 census showed that the average education of Canadians 18 years of age was just over grade 10. In 1911 the census showed that the average education was just a little above grade 7. I believe the 1951 census will show a further improvement in educational standards and accomplishments.
It seems to me that with the present voting age of 21 years there is too great a gap between the time a student leaves high school and the time that student is likely to vote in an election. I think all political parties agree that for the proper functioning of a democratic system it is necessary and desirable that the youth of the country be interested in public affairs. So each political party represented in this house has its own youth organization. I am sure members of all parties will agree that it is most difficult now to get young people interested in Canadian affairs, and I think one of the reasons it is difficult is the fact that quite a number of years must elapse between the time a youth leaves high school and the time he is eligible to vote.
While anyone in Canada of the full age of 21 is eligible to vote in a federal election, that does not mean each person on reaching

Dominion Elections Act
the age of 21 can vote at that time, because federal elections usually come only once every four or five years. This means that most young Canadians must wait until they are 23 or 24 years of age before getting an opportunity to vote. Speaking for myself- and in this perhaps I am different from other hon. members-I did not have the opportunity to vote until I was 24. In that election I probably used bad judgment, along with many other people, in that I voted for myself. If I had been given the opportunity to vote in the 1940 election, when I was 19 years of age, I no doubt would have voted for someone else. In any case, if this house should decide to reduce the voting age to 18 it would mean that the average age at which young Canadians would in fact have the opportunity to exercise their franchise would be 20 or 21 years.
I believe that if the voting age were reduced all political parties and associations across the country interested in public affairs would have much greater success in getting young people into their organizations and in having them take an active interest in the civic, provincial, national and international affairs of the day. I am sure most youths leaving high school ask themselves what is the advantage in being associated with a political party or of interesting themselves in public affairs if they must wait five, six or seven years before getting an opportunity to vote. I believe that Canadian youth in our high schools today are getting a valuable training in democratic processes, and I think they would be more likely to maintain a continuing interest if they knew that at an early date they would have the opportunity to vote.
Along with that reason, as I mentioned previously, there is the fact that our young people today are the best educated perhaps of the young people in any country in the world. The fact that they have great ability and great intelligence is proven by the magnificent and heroic part played in the war by Canadian youths eighteen, nineteen and twenty years of age. They showed during that time that they were capable of taking the most advanced and intricate training in the armed forces; that they were able to operate skilfully the modern and complicated instruments of war. Our nation felt, and rightly so, that it was wise to spend $25,000 in the education of a navigator or a pilot. Our enemy learned that the teen-aged Canadian youth was a formidable opponent on the field of battle.
I believe that since it was the right thing at that time to give all members of the armed forces a vote in the election, even though they were in their teens, it is certainly right
and proper for the parliament of Canada to give youth who may be called to the colours a chance to exercise the vote in an election before that call might take place. While the effort achieved by young Canadians in the recent war left nothing to be desired, yet I believe young Canada has the right to a voice in public affairs when, at any time, it may be called upon to join the armed forces and be asked, in many cases, to make the supreme sacrifice in the defence of our democratic institutions. If our democratic institutions are worth the lives of young Canadians and I believe they are, then in peacetime those same young Canadians should have a voice in the affairs of our nation.
Because, Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadian youth is intelligent enough to cast a responsible ballot in an election, because Canadian youth has shown such great accomplishments in the armed forces during wartime, I would ask the house to support this bill.


Mr. Goode:: Would the hon. member permit a question? How many young people in the dominion would this affect? Have you any idea?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sorry I cannot give my friend the exact figure but I would estimate between 600,000 and 700,000.


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmoulh):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested indeed in the presentation of the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). At the same time, I was rather disappointed that he did not go a little more fully into the argument as to why he thinks we should reduce the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. I did appreciate his naivete in suggesting that, had he been somewhat older the first time he voted, he would not have voted for himself. I wonder if he might carry that a little further and suggest, if he is not to be under a misapprehension as to what he should have done, that it may have been due, not to the fact that he voted for himself but to the platform for which he voted. Had he been more mature, he would have weighed the various platforms more carefully.
Before making any decision on a problem such as this a person must give it serious consideration, and look at the pros and cons of the argument. The bill is quite brief, but put in simple, non-legal language, it amounts to lowering the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen, or in other words permitting all those eighteen years of age or over to cast their ballot. It appears to me that, in approaching a question of this magnitude, we should consider its relative importance along with the other problems which come to mind when one is thinking of the franchise as we have it here in Canada.
2672	HOUSE OF
Dominion Elections Act Today I think of such tests as the test for literacy; I think of the problem of compulsory voting; I think of our present residence requirements; of the advance poll requirements, and those who lose the opportunity of casting their ballot on election day because they are thirty miles at sea, or not living in a certain urban area, or are living in some area that should be annexed to an urban area for voting purposes. I think of the problem and the discussions that have gone on throughout this country with reference to the single transferable vote. In addition to those questions, there are others that come to mind. One of the first things that come to my mind is this. Is there any great demand across this dominion for such a change in the voting age?
Another question that comes to my mind is, how many between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one are at all interested in government at any level? How many countries, how many states, or how many provinces permit those under twenty-one years to vote? I should like very briefly, Mr. Speaker, to mention a few of the countries which have different minimum voting ages. I have no intention of reading any table or asking that anything be put on Hansard, but I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that in the United States there is one state, the state of Georgia, which permits voting at eighteen years of age. Then, as the member for Assiniboia mentioned, the province of Saskatchewan reduced the voting age to eighteen some four or five years ago. I believe the only province that permits voting at nineteen years of age is the province of Alberta. The other provinces have a minimum voting age of twenty-one, and of course, the same minimum voting age is required under our own Dominion Elections Act. The same is true of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I should like to mention four or five other countries: Ireland, Australia, for both commonwealth and state elections; New Zealand; South Africa; Egypt, and so on. Then, of course, there is the United States. I am giving it the positive approach now, because I gave it the negative approach in referring to the state of Georgia in which voting was permitted at eighteen years of age. In all the other states a voter must be twenty-one years of age, and that is true of the federal elections.
There are certain countries that permit voting at eighteen years of age outside the North American continent, such as the Argentine, Brazil and Uruguay. I believe France has twenty years of age. Such countries as Belgium and Portugal have twenty-one years of age. It is twenty-three years of age in Norway and Sweden; twenty-four years


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support this bill. I am rather disappointed to find a comparatively young and intelligent member of the Liberal party, and also a former schoolteacher, opposed to
Dominion Elections Act this bill. I would not be at all surprised to find some of the older members in the house opposed to it, but I had hoped that schoolteachers as a class were just a little bit more progressive in their thinking than ordinary citizens.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: Perhaps some of them are.


An hon. Member:: Not where I come from.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The previous speaker
advanced a few arguments which, in my opinion, have little bearing on the question. For instance, he pointed out that other countries, countries much older than Canada, have not yet granted their eighteen-year-olds the right to vote. To me that is no reason whatever why this vigorous young country should not give some leadership to the rest of the world and show the rest of the world that we are not afraid to trust with the ballot at election time that age group that we called into the armed forces. The hon. gentleman pointed out that there was no great public demand. Naturally, there is no great public demand apart from the eighteen to twenty-one-year-olds. It may be that those who make up the large body of party organization membership are just a little bit afraid of giving the eighteen to twenty-one-year-olds too much voice in the affairs of the country. The question was raised that there is a lack of stability in the eighteen to twenty-one-year-olds. I think you will find it difficult, Mr. Speaker, to defend that position which refuses to give-that age group the right to vote, when we considered them to have sufficient stability to take their place in all branches of the armed forces and to be trusted with great responsibility. During the late war, we all saw boys and girls of the age of eighteen taken out of the classrooms of our schools across the country. We are all familiar with the sense of responsibility with which that particular age group carried on their work. As the hon. member who introduced this bill pointed out, so long as we insist on eighteen-year-olds wearing the king's uniform and playing their part in war we have very little argument for not giving them the right to-vote at elections.
I have some knowledge of young people. Like the former speaker, I worked among young people for a great many years, and among the age group with which we are concerned in this bill. I would say that judged by any other standard except that of age they are as well qualified to vote as any other age-group of citizens in this country. Judged on any other basis except that of age-you can judge them by their educational attainment -I think you will admit that the eighteen to-

Dominion Elections Act twenty-one year olds today as a group are better educated than any other four year group of citizens.
In my opinion the eighteen year old today is much better qualified to vote than was the twenty-one year old ten years ago, by reason of the advance which education has had in this country. Judging by their interest in public affairs, you may go into any high school or collegiate across this country where you have a group of eighteen to twenty-one year olds, and you will find they are as keen and as interested in public affairs as any other group of citizens. It is only when they get out of school, when they come up against the hard facts of life, when they become disillusioned with the realities of life, that they begin to lose that keen interest in public affairs which they attained while at school.
Judged on the basis of ability to accept responsibility I think those who have had experience with placing responsibility into the hands of our young people of that age group will agree that they can measure up to the opportunities that are before them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill most wholeheartedly. I am sure the mover of it did not expect the Liberal government to pass it tonight. I am quite sure he knew, as I know, that there are enough members sitting on the Liberal benches to talk it out to the end of the hour without bringing it to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: What are you doing? You are doing it yourself.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I doubt very much
whether the mover of this bill did not introduce it for the very purpose about which the last speaker spoke, namely, that this question might be brought before the country, that it might receive consideration, and that in time it might get the consideration that it merits. I am quite sure that some of us will keep bringing this bill back to parliament until we have educated those who are opposed to it.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: As one of
the older members in age and as one of the older members in experience in the house, I am not sure whether I am doing a very wise thing in standing up after the two schoolteachers have spoken. If we are to judge the teachings given to the students by some of the recommendations made in some of the speeches that are given in the house then I think we should give the students a chance to get out and come up against the realities of life before asking them to vote.
I know I am treading on dangerous ground because everywhere I look around me I find teachers. But regardless of that fact I am taking a chance, and I think a very sound chance, in opposing this legislation.


We have been told that eighteen year olds should be given the right to vote. In our experience I think we find that most of the eighteen year olds are still in school; and in school they are given many ideas that are not for their benefit or for the benefit of Canada. I am not saying that that is true in all cases; but when it comes to political and economic thinking, in some cases they are given many false ideas in our schools today. I do not say in all the schools, but at least in some of them.


Joseph William Noseworthy: We need more Social Credit teachers.


Robert Fair: I repeat, it is necessary to give them a little time to come up against the realities of life before charging them with the responsibility of voting.
We are told that the eighteen year olds were enlisted in the services. While the legislation was to that effect, the eighteen year olds were not called upon until they reached the age of eighteen and a half. And there are some arguments that have not been brought out so far. The eighteen year olds were not placed on their responsibility after they enlisted. They were given their uniforms, their food, their beds and they were told what to do from the time they got up in the morning until they finished their day's training.


Joseph William Noseworthy: And so were the thirty year olds.


Robert Fair: I feel that they were not given much chance to stand on their own feet. During all their training, and throughout their service they did what their officers told them to do. Therefore the argument that they were enlisted in the army is not sufficient ground to give the eighteen year olds the right to vote. As soon as they are of sufficient age and experience to get the vote, I would be one of the last to deny them that right; but I believe we should give them an opportunity to get experience and sufficient education to be able to discharge their obligations properly when it comes to voting. In addition, wartime is different from peacetime. We do many things in wartime that many of us would not wish to see done in peacetime.
Since I rose to speak I have been reminded of the nineteen year olds and have been asked, what about them? In my home province of Alberta the nineteen year olds have the right to vote, but in that case it must be remembered that they are dealing mainly with provincial matters. In the case of federal elections we are dealing with

Dominion Elections Act
federal and international matters as well.
I am very sorry that many of the older people do not take a much greater interest in the use of their ballots and the responsibility of their ballots than they are doing at the present time.
Many people are glad to enjoy the freedoms of our country and the privileges that have been granted to them, but many, many people refuse to accept and discharge the responsibilities that go with that freedom and that opportunity. I think something that is much more important than granting the vote to the eighteen year olds is giving the older people the proper enlightenment. As soon as an election rolls around it seems that many people, far too many, go out and tell stories of many kinds-false stories-for the purpose of getting votes. That is a wrong thing to do; people should be given the facts. Let them use their best judgment in casting their ballots.


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, as the father of three children, two of whom have reached voting age, I take this opportunity of speaking in this debate. Incidentally, one of these children reached voting age just a few days after the election in June, and as a result could not vote for her father.


An hon. Member:: Too bad.


George Taylor Fulford: I do not know how she would have voted, either. My older boy, by the way, just received word this evening from McGill university that he has succeeded in obtaining his B.A. degree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Taylor Fulford: He is now twenty-two years of age, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude of that boy today is quite different from what it was when he was eighteen. Young men and young women of eighteen years are still at an impressionable age. Either they have just left school or have just begun work or entered college. As the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk) has pointed out, they have been influenced by their teachers. They have also been influenced by their parents. All hon. members will agree that parental influence is one of the great virtues in this world; but on the other hand how many parents drill into the minds of their children the thought that they should vote just as their parents have always voted? That line of direction is not going to improve a country's voting.
Then, in the matter of influence exerted by schoolteachers, let me say at once that I have nothing but the highest regard and respect for the teaching profession. In fact, to my mind it is probably the most necessary
profession to be found in any modern civilized country. The fact remains however that among teachers, as among other groups in society, there are a few radicals who compose a very noisy minority. As in other phases of life, this noisy minority makes itself loudly heard, and its influence is out of all proportion to what it should be.
Eadical ideas can be taught more readily in schools than at any other time of life, simply because the boy or girl at the school is at the most impressionable age. I cannot help feeling that it takes at least three years after the young man or woman has left school to get, by means of the hard knocks in life, an appreciation of the realities of life.
I do not wish to repeat anything that has been said with respect to young men and young women. But as to young men and young women who have been enlisted or drafted into the armed services of Canada, we know that they are given the vote. As has been pointed out already, these young men and women, as they would be in schools, are under rigid discipline. They are accountable to their superior officers and in some instances are influenced so that they will vote as they are told to vote. It is unfortunate that this should be so, but I do not believe there is a member in the House of Commons who would deny the fact that an officer in the armed forces wields a tremendous amount of influence in respect of how the men under his command will cast their ballots.
I would doubt that permitting young men and women of eighteen to twenty-one years the right to vote would in any way prevent this country from entering another war. I should not think it likely that the influence of young people would so affect the policy of the government of Canada in respect of its external affairs that war would be avoided, so that those young people would never again be forced to fight in the armed services. I am afraid the argument used in that respect, where it is pointed out that young people could avoid armed service were they allowed to vote, is a weak one.
It was my good fortune at this session and the last one to have as my guests the students of no less than four schools from the county of Leeds. These were the students of two high schools and two continuation schools. In two of those schools mock parliaments have been organized. They have their own elected prime ministers and their own elected cabinets, and to a certain extent they have accepted the responsibility of maintaining student discipline. These young people are very keen about their parliament. One of their chief reasons for wishing to come to Ottawa has been to see how this House of

Dominion Elections Act Commons compared with their parliamentary attempts. Those students have been most interested spectators in the gallery, and they have left greatly impressed with the dignity of the house. The actual working of a democratic assembly has been brought home to them, and they have all agreed that they have learned something from having been here.
But, Mr. Speaker, of those two hundred students who visited here, some of whom were eighteen years of age, I have not heard [DOT]one ask that the voting age be reduced from twenty-one to eighteen. I have not such a closed mind that I would not agree this matter should be given further study; but I do not think the time is ripe for passing a bill of this kind. I heartily agree with the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth that this is a matter having a degree of importance sufficient to merit its being referred to a committee for further study, and for recommendation to the house.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was overseas at the age of eighteen. But it strikes me forcibly that if I had been permitted to vote, and had not been overseas, at that age I might have even voted C.C.F. If I had been permitted to vote at nineteen years I might have voted Liberal. Fortunately, I got a few bumps in the war and when I was permitted to vote at the age of twenty-one years I voted Conservative, after my eyes had been opened.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, some of the remarks that have been made are rather revealing. There seems to be a fear on the part of some of the older members that these young people may have ideas that are different from ours. They have been referred to as false, as radical, but it is the same old story of people thinking that because young people think [DOT]differently they must be wrong. I am reminded of a statement I heard a few months ago and which I believe was attributed to Dr. Brock Chisholm. He said something like this:	There is a very real danger that our
children may grow up to be like us.


Humphrey Mitchell: I hope they don't.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is just the difference between those of us who think that young people should be given responsibility and some of the older members of this house. We recognize that another generation might do a better job with our nation and our civilization than our generation has done. It is just plain blindness on the part of an older generation not to give more responsibility to "those who are younger.
[Mr. Fulford.l

The hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk) suggested that those between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one were not interested in public affairs. I suggest that one of the reasons they are not interested may be that we are not inviting them to be interested by calling upon them to exercise the responsibility of voting. The hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth suggested that the higher the minimum age for voters, the more stable your government. I do not see why he does not carry that to its logical conclusion and raise the minimum voting age to seventy years. Then if only the old age pensioners were able to vote we might get a different kind of government than we have today. The fact of the matter is that we are hearing the same old argument that because somehow or another young people are different, they are not as responsible as we are.
I will confess that I am getting old enough that at times I have thought that about the younger generation, but I want to repeat what I said a few days ago, that any opinion I might have had along that line was dispelled for all time when I was home in Winnipeg last week. I say categorically, fully recognizing all the work that older people by the thousands have done, that if it were not for the boys and girls of twenty-one years and younger who are at work on the dikes in the Winnipeg area, Winnipeg would be under a lot more water than it is. These boys and girls of twenty-one years and under have shown a sense of real responsibility and I think we older people should give them the further responsibility of the right to vote.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I perhaps am inspired or stimulated to speak this evening by what the last speaker has said. I cannot claim to be one of the younger members in this house, but I would like to think that I am not one of those who believe that young people should be dragooned by older people into what they should think. I believe that in our own party we should have more of them at work with us, and I am glad to think that we will be able to do it. I really rose to my feet because I think there is a danger of sentimentality taking [DOT]charge here. We must remember that there is such a thing as common sense. I echo almost every word said by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk). I was glad it was said by a schoolmaster because after all he should know young people better than we do.
I admire the heart of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), but I do not admire so much his head. It seems to me it is one thing to get young people interested, but the hon. member for York South really

got to the position where he was saying that there is nothing in experience. Those of us who are older do not think that there is too much in experience because we have made too many mistakes to flatter ourselves, but I do suggest that there is something in experience. When we go to the length of practically saying that there is not, I think we are becoming sentimental.
There is just one other thing I want to say. I think to use the army as an analogy is one of the most misleading things that could be done. I take second place to no one in my admiration of what many young boys of eighteen years or under did during the war. They did things that no one else in the world could have done. They were able to fly aeroplanes in a way that an older man could not; in fact they said that a man of twenty-five who was still in the air was practically in his grave.
But to say that because they make such splendid soldiers between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one years we should give them and all others of their age the vote seems to me to be just letting our feelings run away with us. I think the sober views expressed by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth based on the wide experience of other countries should be considered. Why should we ignore the experience of other countries? Is it just an accident that those countries which have shown stability, which is so lacking in this world, have not acceded to the suggestion of an extreme minimum age for voting?


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, there are two arguments in favour of reducing the age for voting from twenty-one years to eighteen, and one cannot be disproved. When you conscript men to fight then it is not as important that they should cast a vote, even for myself, on election day as it is to have to go to fight for their country. The other argument advanced is that, when we allow people of eighteen years to get married they should be allowed to vote, and, if that is admitted, we are considering it is not as important to cast a vote as it is to get married.
That argument does not hold water because I find on our order paper many bills for the relief of John Robert from Mary Anne and so on. I do not think people should get married at eighteen years of age. I did not have enough sense then and perhaps I have not yet.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and
public bills having expired, the house will continue the business under discussion at six o'clock.
Supply-Agriculture SUPPLY
The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $293,670.
William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, at the six o'clock recess I was referring to the first experimental or model farm which had been established near St. John's in 1908 by Sir Robert Bond, who was prime minister at the time. It was his idea to establish farming as a vocation in Newfoundland and it was for that purpose that he set up this experimental farm. However, it was his successor's idea that fishermen-farmers should be encouraged, but I have always thought that there was room for both. I may say that the minister of agriculture in the government returned in 1909 was a lawyer. As everyone who has been in Newfoundland realizes, while there are certain areas suitable for large-scale farming, there are many other places where people are crowded together, where the men carry on fishing but there is still room for little gardens to supplement their earnings from the sea.
The government that came into power in 1909 favoured the establishment of agricultural societies, and gave them grants on a fifty-fifty basis. These probably did some good, because they enabled the farmers or the fishermen-farmers to purchase seeds and equipment for their farms; but I think it is true to say that during the following ten years, up to 1919, not only did agriculture not progress in Newfoundland, it actually declined.
In that year a new government came into power, one member of which was a distinguished gentleman from Prince Edward Island who had a traditional knowledge of farming which he proposed to put into operation in Newfoundland. He set up another model farm. I shall not go into the history of the department of agriculture during those sad four years for Newfoundland. Suffice it to say that the government resigned in 1923, after having been re-elected that very year, and the succeeding government disposed of the model farm by auction, lock, stock and barrel, so there was no act on the statute books of Newfoundland dealing with agriculture except a sheep preservation act, and that was not carried out. That sheep preservation act, I may say, set up a fund to compensate the owners of sheep that had been destroyed by dogs. It has always been a big question, especially in certain areas of Newfoundland, whether it is preferable to have sheep or dogs, and I think the dogs have won out.

Supply-Agriculture
In 1926 Sir Robert Bond died and in his will, like Julius Caesar, left his property to the province. He had a fine farm consisting of some ten square miles of cleared land and fine woodland right on the railway and at a central point in the peninsula of Avalon. This was bequeathed to the people of Newfoundland to be used as a model farm forever; but what did the government of the day do? It declined to accept the bequest. I take pride now in the fact that I was one of the very few, if there were any others, who stood up in the House of Assembly and advocated that the government should accept that bequest and operate the property as a model farm. The government was afraid to do that, however, because between 1919 and 1923 the model farm had been such a hopeless failure. The real reason the government did not take that property and work it as a farm was that it did not have a proper appreciation of the value of agriculture in the economy of Newfoundland.
In 1932, when our country fell upon very difficult times and we were in the throes of a financial crisis, a land development association was formed under the promotion of the president of Memorial University college, a distinguished educationist; and that association did valuable work, without any outside assistance of any kind, in encouraging people who were unemployed to work on allotments. It assisted many people throughout Newfoundland to obtain seed and fertilizer. Especially was that so in Bell island, where the miners were working only two days a week. I was a member of that land development association, and with our assistance those miners purchased seed and fertilizer, and were able to produce fine crops from their gardens. I may add that there is very good soil on Bell island. They had an exhibition that year which I believe would have done credit to any place of the same size in Ontario or Quebec. That exhibition opened the eyes of many people who attended it.
Then when the commission government came in, in 1934, they investigated what should be done. They had before them the Amulree report setting out the history of agriculture, as well as that of other industries; and Mr. Lodge, who was commissioner for public works, took it upon himself to make a private investigation. I well remember hearing him say that of all the industries he had examined the one he felt would give the greatest results from the application of artificial stimuli was agriculture. Unfortunately, however, when he went to apply these artificial stimuli he went to the wrong place. Where did he go but to a boggy area in the rear of the very property of Sir Robert Bond which the government had refused
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West) .1
back in 1926? As a result the commission government had an extremely difficult task in trying to bring about land settlement in that area, though they did take unemployed people from St. John's and put them on the land there.
That was a very expensive experiment. Nevertheless I believe the government learned a great deal from it, and as a result they went on to further experiments, and to establish settlements at such places as Markland, Midland, Vinland, Lourdes, where a combination of farming, logging and fishing made the experiment very successful, and Brown's Arm, where good guidance brought about the same result. Later the experience gained in these experiments was utilized in the settlement of veterans in the valley of the Upper Humber river. The commission government also brought to Newfoundland Mr. McCharles who was a splendid director of agriculture. Unfortunately for Newfoundland he enlisted as soon as war broke out and we lost the benefit of his services. We had another director of agriculture, Mr. Gillis, who studied at Truro agricultural college, but I am sorry to say he retired the other day and went back to farming. The commission government gave bonuses for clearing the land; it instituted a survey of soils in different parts of the country, and it assisted those interested in clearing land by the use of tractors.
Now a new era has begun with confederation; but though the director of agriculture resigned, as yet no one has taken his place. Nor was there any mention of agriculture in the budget presented by the premier the other day. I was sorry to see that, because I knew he had carried on experiments in farming himself. Last session the Minister of Agriculture, during the course of a debate on the rehabilitation of farms in western Canada, while dealing with the question of marshlands in New Brunswick said he would like to go to Newfoundland to see if he could do anything of that nature there. Well, I am very glad to learn that the minister hopes to go to Newfoundland. I trust he will come, but I hope he will not keep that subject uppermost in his mind. There are other things I believe would be of greater service and would bear fruit more quickly than the reclamation of marshlands. What I think we need in Newfoundland at the present time, if 1 may venture to say so, is an extension of the school of agriculture that was created by the commission government at its experimental farm which the federal government is now taking over. We also need illustration stations similar to the two hundred or more stations scattered across Canada. I believe there are ten in Prince Edward Island, and

on that basis I think we should have at least thirty in Newfoundland. In any case I hope it will be possible to have a good many.
We want farming to be elevated. We want the public to realize that farming is a very important vocation and that those who pursue it should be honoured and not belittled. We want those who are interested in settling the land to be given assistance in clearing the land. I know that during the last couple of years it has been impossible for a man to get the use of a tractor. There were so many people looking for a tractor to clear land that a man was told he would probably have to wait until next year to get his turn. There were not enough tractors available to enable the land to be cleared. I think that is regrettable.
We want exhibitions to be encouraged. I am sure that the minister would agree that exhibitions are a most valuable adjunct to the promotion of agriculture. We have local exhibitions in Newfoundland, but for many years now we have had no provincial exhibition, and we need provincial exhibitions. Our people ought to be encouraged to take part in the Canadian national exhibition. I remember reading in Prouse's history that one hundred years ago oats and barley from Newfoundland had been sent over to Edinburgh, and won first prizes in, an agricultural exhibition. I believe barley can be grown in Newfoundland as well as in Canada. I certainly hope to see the minister go to Newfoundland, so that he can see for himself what the conditions are. I think he can gain more knowledge by a trip around the province than he can by listening to reports from me or anyone else. I believe he will be able to ascertain what our problems are, and he will see that there are these areas suitable for large-scale farming, as well as those smaller areas in which people can be encouraged to grow the food that they need.
This report which I have is worth studying. It says that people can grow the essential foods in Newfoundland, and can grow them in greater quantity than they are doing today. A study I made a couple of years ago as to the production of potatoes and turnips in Newfoundland showed that forty years ago we were producing twice as much as we are today. Even a study of the figures in this book will illustrate that no progress has been made in the production of vegetables, beef or milk, and there is every reason for progress to be made. This study was made within the past year, and shows that there are about six suitable areas for large-scale farming operations. Principally, I want to see farming on a small scale, such as you have in the province of Quebec, encouraged. Whether or not the
Supply-Agriculture
people are paying income taxes, they are producing food which they need, and they have a little left over that they can sell in the markets for cash, with which they can buy other things.
Handicrafts have been encouraged in Newfoundland. We have the equivalent of your women's institutes, as I believe they are called. I am not sure of the name, but they are societies for the encouragement of handicrafts. In Newfoundland there are the Jubilee Guilds. There are about 120 of these, and the people do a certain amount of knitting and weaving. From the cloth that is woven, garments are made. Fine cloth has been woven in Newfoundland. In my humble opinion, Mr. Chairman, there is no field of endeavour upon which the success or failure of confederation will be more marked than in the field of agriculture. You cannot teach us much about how to conduct our fisheries. You can give us assistance when we find difficulty in marketing our catch, just as you give assistance to the farmer in western Canada who has difficulty in marketing his products. You cannot teach our fishermen much. They are just as brave and as resourceful and as intelligent as the fishermen of the other maritime provinces. Our industries, such as pulp and paper, have the best brains available, and our mining is well conducted. In regard to agriculture, however, we must take off our hats to the Canadian people. Here is an opportunity for the federal government, and for a man like the present Minister of Agriculture, who is an experienced farmer and an experienced minister of agriculture, to put agriculture in Newfoundland in its proper relationship to the other industries.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer once again to this industrial survey of the resources of the province of Newfoundland. It is, of course, recognized that many parts of our country are not at all suitable for agriculture. The report says:
Nevertheless an expansion of agricultural production to supply a greater proportion of the home market should be possible. Any expansion in agriculture would materially improve the economic position of Newfoundland, reducing imports from the rest of Canada for which there are no offsetting exports.
Figures produced to me the other day show that Newfoundland exports $93 million worth of products, and it imports through its own ports, from places other than the provinces of Canada, $23 million worth of goods. This means that somewhere in the neighbourhood of $70 to $80 million is going to the other provinces of Canada, principally to buy foodstuffs, clothing, footwear and the other things we need, whereas the other provinces of Canada are only buying about $10 million worth of goods from us. So you see, there is

Suppl y-A griculture
an imbalance there that should be corrected by the province of Newfoundland producing more of the things it needs.
The report continues:
While climatic conditions do not favour the growth of cereal grains, the possibilities of expanding truck garden production, both in, the outlying communities and adjacent to the larger centres of population, seem reasonably good.
The writer of this report is not exaggerating when he says that.
If agricultural production is to expand, marketing procedures will have to be organized and adequate facilities such as storages, provided.
We suffer a great deal from the lack of storage. I do not believe there are any refrigerator cars in use in the province.
The proximity of the maritime provinces, particularly Prince Edward Island, with their established agriculture and relatively easy transport by water to the larger markets offers serious competition for local produce.
That is a matter that certainly needs investigating, but I understand the government is going to do that.
Combined with this is the geographical difficulty that the better agricultural land lies in the west, and the large market of the Avalon peninsula is in the east. Despite the difficulties, we believe an expanded and more prosperous agricultural industry can be developed. Among the main objectives should be larger farms, more modern methods of production, an educational program to promote higher fertility and greater yields, and a progressive marketing policy with adequate marketing facilities.
There is only one other thing I have to say, sir, and that is, should the officials of the Department of Agriculture make a survey of the situation in Newfoundland now, and then in three, four or five years' time make another survey, it would be possible to see what progress has been made. I shall judge them on what progress has been made during that time, and I believe other people will do the same.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I take it that this is the correct place to raise with the Minister of Agriculture a question which has to do with the organization of his department. I no longer speak with any authority about agricultural matters in this house, but I should like to ask the minister one or two questions about organization.
As one would expect, one finds the Department of Agriculture fully organized. To my surprise however I find there is apparently an extraordinary amount of duplication of organization as between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. In case the minister has not noticed this, I should like to draw it to his attention and ask him to explain what, on the

face of it, seems a most extraordinary duplication of effort. I have before me the government telephone directory for 1950, which I take it is accurate, and I will just read quickly the headings of the organizations of the Department of Agriculture as they appear.
First of all, there is livestock and poultry, that is in the Confederation building. Then, you have the plant products division, and from that one goes on to marketing services. There is a complete array of marketing services. Then, you turn over to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and you find what appears, on the face of it, as I said, a most extraordinary duplication. I shall just read a few instances of the various duplications and then the minister will no doubt explain to us how the duties are divided. I do not know whether one department takes one part of Canada and another takes another part of Canada, or whether one department deals with certain kinds of pigs and another department deals with another kind of pigs or how it is divided up; but at any rate, the minister will explain. I will just first of all point out the similarity in the general organization. Here we have livestock and poultry division under the Department of Agriculture; and there is quite an array there, by the way. There is sheep, cattle, swine, horses and so on. Then we turn over to the Department of Trade and Commerce and we find what they call the agricultural commodities branch, and under there we also find livestock and animal products; and going further under the Department of Agriculture we find the plant products division and we find somewhere poultry, of course. Then coming to the Department of Trade and Commerce we find the dairy and poultry products. Turning back to Agriculture we find plant products; and turning to Trade and Commerce we also find plant products there. There is an adequate array of officials in each department who, as I say, are dealing with this, and the minister will explain to us the division of duties between these parallel departments.
Then we go on and I think this is even more interesting. We go on to the marketing side of the organization and we find that the Department of Agriculture seems to be fully staffed over there in the Confederation building. It is not far away, I think, from the Department of Trade and Commerce. I think they are just next door and maybe they communicate with each other. One does not know. But under the Department of Agriculture there is first of all the marketing service with an array of officials there. We

go on further to the markets information section. No doubt that will be in the publicityline. Then we come to the consumer section, then to the agricultural economics division.
Then we come on really to the marketing proper and we find a whole series of divisions. They are very well equipped in the Department of Agriculture to do marketing. First of all there is the dairy products division in which there is an assistant director of marketing; then there is a general office, and there is a head clerk. Then we come down to dairy products grading and inspection service; and then a little later there is an array of officers there. Then we come to the marketing and merchandising service, and then there is the refrigeration service. Then we come to the fruit and vegetable division, and again there is an associate director of marketing. Coming on down there is a marketing and merchandising service. Then we come down to the livestock and livestock products division. Oh yes, there is a chief of agricultural marketing services. Then in the poultry division there is an assistant director of poultry marketing and so on. But I need not worry the committee with that. I just come now to the Department of Trade and Commerce, to show what an excellent service the Minister of Trade and Commerce has here, because he does not like to be left out of things, as we know. He gets into the transport department and all kinds of things where he has no business to be but where he likes to be; and I am amazed, I must confess, that the Minister of Agriculture apparently lets him keep on playing about in his department. But no doubt he will explain about that when the time comes. Here is the offering which the Minister of Trade and Commerce makes to us under the head of marketing. First of all, I should point out that he has an agricultural division. Before I come to that, there is an agricultural commodities branch which I have mentioned. As I pointed out a' few minutes ago it has a dairy and poultry products department, livestock and animal products, plants and products. Then we go on to the economic research and development branch. That I think is more general. I observe with interest there that they have a private and public investment department. I imagine that would interest the Minister of Finance. Then we go on to their marketing services. They have all kinds of marketing services, of course. They have an export division-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which department is this?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am now
in the Department of Trade and Commerce. It has excellent services. Then I come on
Supply-Agriculture
now to what they call the agriculture division. This is the Department of Trade and Commerce still, with the heading, "agriculture division." There is a director. Then there is a crop section, special crops, livestock and animal products section, research and compilation section. Then we come on more particularly to merchandising.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is there an insect pests
division?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
find that in Trade and Commerce. That is in Agriculture. I could not find that in Trade and Commerce, but we may mention it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I have no doubt he would oblige us with that too.
I want to go on to this marketing to show what an excellent service there is in the Trade and Commerce department in marketing. There is a whole page of it. You come to industry and merchandising division, and that is apt to fool you because you may not think it is agriculture. But if you read carefully through it you find the second heading is animal products section. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is again helping the Minister of Agriculture with his merchandising. Then you go on through. Here and there you find references to the information services and publicity sections. That is what you would expect. Then you come to external trade division, and I think that is nearly all.
As I said, I read these two lists of services which seemed so parallel. The Department of Agriculture, when I read it, seemed quite adequate, and I was surprised to find what appeared to be so fully a duplicate of the services in the Department of Trade and Commerce. As I said a moment ago, I should like to have an explanation of that. Whether the minister wishes to give it now or later, I do not know. That is not perhaps a matter of great consequence. But on the face of it I think we have here something which needs an answer, because we were assured by the Minister of Finance that there was no duplication and no waste. It may be that the Minister of Agriculture-who, I must say, has a gift for explanations which all of us may envy even though we cannot emulate it-can explain this situation. But if he can explain it, all I can say is that he can explain anything. I should like to know about it, and I should like to give him an opportunity now or later to explain why all these officers are in these two departments which seem to be doing the same thing, how they get along and how they arrange their duties.

Supply-A griculture


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not nearly as difficult as it sounds when my hon. friend discusses it from the telephone book.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: First of all, I want to ask the minister this question, and I am sure he will allow me to do so. I want to ask if this is quite accurate, because I do not want it all blown away on the ground that it is inaccurate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose it is accurate; but people do not usually take the telephone book to explain what goes on in a department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will show it to the minister if he does not know about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact is a very simple one. The Department of Trade and Commerce promotes trade in all products that are produced in Canada, and promotes it outside Canada. That is what trade and commerce means. They are promoting the sale of all kinds of products in other countries. Naturally they have an organization which gathers information with regard to it and distributes that information in other countries. For example, they do not sell cars. They do not sell the products of our mines, particularly. They do not sell anything of that kind, except in the case of a product like wheat which they are now selling indirectly through the wheat board. They do not sell agricultural products either. But they do look over the whole world to find markets not only for agricultural products but for every other Canadian product; and in order to be able to look over the world for that purpose, they must of course have persons who are more or less experts in discussing the strong features of any product that we have to sell. We do not duplicate their service outside Canada. We have six men in Britain whom we call cargo inspectors, who are at the ports and whose chief job is to check the products that go from Canada to Britain to find out whether the gradings which are carried out in Canada are carried right through until the product is delivered on the other side. To that extent we have some men outside Canada, but they are very few.
The Department of Trade and Commerce has staffs that promote the marketing outside Canada. On the other hand the Department of Agriculture has charge of the marketing of farm products inside Canada. We mean by that the products which are delivered to the person who purchases inside Canada.
The reason, why the Department of Agriculture handled the agreements that were made with Great Britain during the war was that the products were delivered for the
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1	,
first time since the previous war, and I am not absolutely certain that they were delivered in any different way in the first war. Prior to the last war, in between the wars, and certainly prior to the first war, the delivery of products was made to a large extent on the other side of the' ocean. Quite often we paid the freight. When the last war started Britain undertook to take delivery because she had absolute control of the shipping on the seas. She took delivery of the products at the ports here, and so the Department of Agriculture took charge of the assembling of the products, having them delivered at Montreal, collecting the payment for them at Montreal, and from there on Canada had nothing more to do with them. Immediately the products were put on the ship, even if the ship was sunk in the middle of the Atlantic, Britain paid for them; we did not. It was that change in the manner of handling products which resulted in the Department of Agriculture assembling the products, selling them for delivery in that way, and then they went from there outside and we had nothing more to do with them. That is the real division as between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture, namely, that we handle the gradings of all of the products that are purchased in so far as they are handled by Ottawa, and we handle the gradings in co-operation with the provincial governments.


John George Diefenbaker: How long has that division been in effect-since 1936?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been in effect for at least thirty years. It has been in effect ever since I knew anything about agriculture either provincially or federally, and it has always been in effect since I came here, which is fifteen years ago, and it was that way when I came. There is no question about that. The first dominion-provincial meeting that was held in Ottawa after I came here in 1936 had as one of its divisions an agricultural section. The whole task that was assigned to those who were gathered here was to remove any overlapping as between the dominion Department of Agriculture and the provincial departments. The general report at the end of the conference was that there was at least as little, and in most cases less overlapping in the Department of Agriculture than there was in any of the other departments. I am not talking now in the interests of the party to which I belong because that was within a few weeks after the present government took over from the Bennett government. The situation then was that there was no overlapping as between the provinces and the dominion.

2S83


John George Diefenbaker: I was asking about the division as between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: The division as between
trade and commerce and agriculture was announced in the House of Commons by the prime minister in January, 1938.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the question I asked.


James Garfield Gardiner: But there was nothing new about that either. It was just a recitation by the Prime Minister of what the situation had always been considered to be.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a very marked
difference of opinion, which bears on something that the hon. member for Greenwood just said, namely, the long controversy that went on during the period that Mr. Bennett's government was in office between the then minister of trade and commerce, the late Mr. Stevens-[DOT]


Mr. Gibson:: Not the late.


James Garfield Gardiner: I beg your pardon; Mr. Stevens, who was then minister of trade and commerce; and it did cause considerable hilarity not only in the house but outside it. They got out a blue book which was intended to cover agriculture; they distributed it throughout Canada and throughout the world. The agricultural critic on the opposition side of the house got up in the house and held the book up to indicate that the sow which had a litter of twelve pigs nosing around her turned out to be the male member of the species rather than the sow, and it was suggested that as a result of that probably trade and commerce was taking on too much of agriculture. As my hon. friend knows, that discussion went on in the period between 1930 and 1936, but in 1938 Mr. King finally made the division very plain as between the two. One had to do with trading outside Canada; the other had to do with merchandising inside Canada.
There is one part of the discussion that no one has ever been able to change or settle in the minds of people generally. Grain has always been under trade and commerce. Ever since we had a Canada Grain Act it has been under trade and commerce. It was not always called the Canada Grain Act. It had another name for a time, but what we know today as the Canada Grain Act was passed in 1900 or 1901. It was at the time when the production of grain on the prairies became an actuality. We had a farm organization in western Canada at that time headed largely by a gentleman who later became Senator Douglas. He along with the farm organization, the grain 55946-170
Supply-Agriculture
growers and others agitated for a grain act that would regulate the grading and handling of grain.
Just prior to that time the Laurier government had been formed, and as most hon. members know, Sir Richard Cartwright had been the financial critic in the house for a considerable period of time. It was thought by most people that when a new government was set up he would probably become minister of finance. He did not become minister of finance. Sir Wilfrid took a younger man in as minister of finance in the person of Mr. Fielding and he set up a department for Sir Richard Cartwright. That department had to do with matters of trade, customs and that kind of thing. Along with many other things that were put into it this new act having to do with the control of grain was put in when enacted. I think every minister of agriculture that we have ever had in Canada since about 1910 or 1912 has thought that it should be in the Department of Agriculture, but nobody else seems to think so, and so it remains the way it is. It is still in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and it is being carried on there partly because of the fact that most of our wheat is sold outside Canada. As the years went by there was a larger and larger percentage of it that had to be sold outside Canada. So that even the matter of grading, in so far as grain is concerned, is carried on in the Department of Trade and Commerce, as a result of the organization at that time; and it has continued that way to the present. The grading of every other farm product is looked after in the Department of Agriculture.
I have here the statement to which reference was made a moment ago. Perhaps I should read it, so that if it is required as a reference it will not be necessary to look it up in the Hansard of 1938. The question has been asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre as to when the announcement of policy was made, or the position taken. On January 31, 1938, Mr. King said this:
With respect to the consolidation of the department, that has been a matter of internal organization in the department, the minister managing his own department and arranging its affairs within the terms of the law.
So that there may be no mistake about the line of demarcation between the functions of the two departments, may I say what my understanding of it is-and I think it is correct. The marketing of agricultural produce in so far as it relates to Canada is a matter that belongs entirely to the Department of Agriculture. There can be no doubt about that. There are in Canada provincial departments of agriculture as well as the federal department, and it is necessary for the minister so far as the federal Department of Agriculture is concerned, to have supervision over the entire work of marketing throughout all parts of Canada. As Minister of Agriculture, he is equally interested in seeing that all agricultural commodities for sale in foreign

Supply-Agriculture
countries are so processed, packed, classified, packaged, transported and inspected, that there can he no doubt regarding their quantity and quality when they reach the market. In other words, he has to see to the quality and acceptability of the commodities that are exported.
That, in general terms, is the division which was laid out at that time as being the actual position as relating to the Department of Agriculture. And then he went on to say this with regard to the Department of Trade and Commerce-


John George Diefenbaker: But that commenced in 1936.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it was in existence long before 1936; but I shall go into that matter later.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: The actual fact is that it did exist right back through the time the Hon. W. R. Motherwell was minister of agriculture in the government of Canada. That goes back to 1921. Then there was some question of whether it existed or not during the period of five years when Mr. Bennett was at the head of the government. But it was only a matter of discussion; it was not something which had actually been acted upon. Then, when we came in, just five years after we had gone out, this was the policy which was accepted and announced in 1938, as I have indicated here.
Then Mr. King went on to say:
"Acceptability" in this sense, that the effort cf the Minister of Agriculture is to ascertain the particular form and the quality and the kind of commodities most desired in the markets of the world. The jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce begins with the matters of trade and of sale. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has to do with the business of sales, the business of trade in foreign countries. There need not necessarily be a conflict between the two. The line of margin where possible differences may arise, or at least have arisen in the past-they need not in the future if proper safeguards are observed-is with respect to the borderline I have described, where the Minister of Agriculture sees to it that products reach the old country and are there in a form for marketing that will be acceptable, and the part which the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his officials play in seeking to advertise these goods and to gain for them the widest possible sale.
That is the description of the activities of the two departments, and they have been carried on on that basis ever since. About the same time-I think it was 1936, when I took over the department-I had the estimates prepared in a manner different from what they had been prepared before. The estimates had been prepared by setting up each of the different divisions in the department upon commodities: that is, the dairy division was put by itself, the livestock division by itself, and so on, and each was

listed as one item. Speaking from memory I think there were fourteen items in the estimates at that time. There are some people who advocate following that policy today, namely the policy of getting back to fewer items in the estimates. That is being discussed in places other than the House of Commons. It is a matter of judgment of course as to whether the matter can be determined successfully in committees, or whether it can even be successfully discussed there.
In any case, in 1936 we re-organized the Department of Agriculture and put it under these divisions: administration service; science service; experimental farms service; production service and marketing service. Those were the five divisions of the department, and those divisions have been maintained ever since. Under each division appears a number of items, and those headings are presumed to set out for members of the House of Commons the items under which they can get information and discuss what is really going on in the different branches of the department.
Largely as a result of our experience as , we have gone along-some experiences gained during the war, and some from other sources-there have been added what we call specials. We started in with a few specials, but now the number has grown out of the general activities. The first one has to do with assistance in connection with cheese and cheese factories. We brought in an act which said that we should pay premiums on cheese under certain circumstances, and there was a special vote set up for it.
Then, we have another to provide assistance in the replacement of maple production equipment. There was a special act for that, and a special vote for it. It was exported that this last mentioned one would operate for only three or four years. However, the war came along, and it is still operating; and all payments have not yet been made under it.
The next one was the Agricultural Products Act, which was the act under which we made the agreements with Great Britain. We are still functioning in two or three of those. That is a special vote which was put in because we did not expect it would continue for all time as part of the activities of the department. When it did go out it would not interfere with the general divisions which are indicated here.
Then, item 38 in the estimates makes provision for assistance in the construction of potato warehouses under regulations to be approved by the governor in council.


Mr. Hatfield:: How many have been constructed?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend knows that better than I do. I think there have been three constructed in Prince Edward Island, one that is being discussed in Ontario and another discussed in Saskatchewan. I am not sure that there is any discussion at the present time in New Brunswick.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Are there any on the island?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, three on the island. At least three are on the island. My officials think there are six, but I know that there are three at least.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You have just decided on the method of construction, have you not?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are constructed; we are trying to agree on the method of paying for them. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, major irrigation and water conservation projects, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; those are the activities and others are being carried on under the votes we are asking the house to pass. I think that is a hurried but rather complete outline of organization in this department.
I suppose strictly speaking I am not supposed to discuss a matter that is before a committee, but on the other hand I do not think the matter I am going to deal with was really before the committee yesterday at all. Another matter was before the committee and someone just said something and then I find that something set out in the Gazette in the centre column on the front page from the top to the bottom and running over to another page. Apparently it all grew out of a remark to which not much thought had been given.
The committee was dealing with the public accounts of my department and reference was made to the item appearing at page A31 of the Public Accounts of 1948-49 covering salaries and wages. The estimate was $475,000, and the item for allotments was $939,000, with actual expenditures of $936,000. Someone passed the remark that there was an election that year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister still answering me?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I am. The hon. member wanted to know something about the organization of this department and I am telling him. As I say, it was that a possible explanation might be that this was an election year. As a matter of fact it was not an election year, it was the year 1948-49.	,


Mr. Wright:: It was in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: If that is what the hon. member and his friend behind him were talking about yesterday and this evening, then when I get through I think I shall have shown 55946-1701
Supply-Agriculture them that it did not have very much to do with elections. Under that same heading the following amounts were spent in other years:
1945-	46	
$646,0001946-	47	
767,0001947-	48	
922,000
I suppose if there had been an election for a county council that year my friend would still argue that it was the election year which raised the amount. Usually when we talk about an election year down here we mean our own election year. Under this heading the amount spent before the provincial election and the amount spent in that year were within a few thousand dollars of each other. Let us look at what happened in the estimates for
1949-	50, the year the federal election was held. In the explanation of the item in the back of the book, which is the place from which the other figure was taken, the amount shown is $92,446. Then, the amount for
1950-	51, which is the year after the election, is shown as $81,000. If you are going to follow the kind of argument that was going on the other day in the committee-


John George Diefenbaker: It was transferred to another account.


Percy Ellis Wright: There was no argument about it. We were not permitted to argue.


James Garfield Gardiner: You had better read the newspaper.


Percy Ellis Wright: You had better read the record of the committee and not the newspaper.


George Alexander Drew: You are leaving the hon. member for Greenwood in a state of suspense.


James Garfield Gardiner: He will catch up. If you were to follow that kind of logic through it will be seen that the figure for salaries and wages has been reduced from $922,000 to $92,000. One needs only to say that to realize it would be ridiculous. That is not the position.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Chairman-


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will just allow me to explain this.


Percy Ellis Wright: On a question of privilege, the minister is making a speech about a newspaper account of what took place in the committee. There is a record of the proceedings of that committee and I suggest that the minister get that record before he starts to make comments on what took place. The minister is entirely out of order in making his present speech about something which is before a committee of this house without having the record of that committee to guide him in what he is saying.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of privilege-

Supply-Agriculture


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister is talking about something that did not take place at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I rise on a question of privilege?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am on my feet on a question of privilege and if the hon. member will wait until I am finished he can rise to his. I happen to be the Minister of Agriculture and I read that report in a newspaper of what had happened yesterday in the committee. I do not care very much about what happened in the committee, but I do care about what goes out to the public. What goes out to the public is not necessarily what happens in the committee. I heard this over the radio at ten o'clock last night, and what went out generally as what had happened in that committee was that in an election year we had spent twice as much money on salaries and wages as was actually voted.


John George Diefenbaker: In what department was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was for P.F.R.A. under the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. Harkness:: Are you still on a question of privilege?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am up to the moment. I think it is perfectly proper when the main estimates are under discussion that I should state the position as it is, more particularly when I have been asked to explain the organization of the department, why we have these salaries, why we have these people employed, who they are and what they are. I am asking this house to vote $3 million for P.F.R.A.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the item that has been discussed most of the time by hon. members who have been speaking. I am asking in the estimates for $3,750,000 for P.F.R.A. The discussion in the committee yesterday was over an item of $3 million which was voted to be expended on P.F.R.A. No other vote was passed in the house. This house voted $3 million for P.F.R.A. It did not vote any particular amount for salaries. It did not vote any particular amount for digging dug-outs or pastures. In the back of the book there is an explanation of how that money has been spent, and in that explanation they say $922,000 was spent on salaries and wages in 1947-48.
When I saw that figure put into the explanation that year I said to those responsible, "That is not an explanation of what goes on in that branch, and that is not the proper amount under any heading for any expenditure made in the department." Anyone reading that would take out of it exactly

what the newspapers took out of it, and what was taken out of it by others before the committee yesterday. They would assume that it represented wages paid in the ordinary sense of the term, or salaries paid to persons employed directly by the department throughout the period. As a matter of fact it covers the building of a fence around a pasture, where you go out and hire the farmers in the neighbourhood and give them the job of building the fence. Or it would cover the digging of ditches here and there. It would cover digging dugouts by people whose names could be obtained through the public accounts but who are in no sense of the term employees of the department in that they come under the civil service, nor even temporary employees. These are the people actually doing the work.
So I indicated that I thought that explanation ought tto be given in some other way. The first year they reduced the amount to $475,000, but in the public accounts they showed the expenditures that were made, just as they had shown them before. The amount was not changed materially; whether it was an election year or not, it was approximately the same as the $922,000 of the preceding year, but that still did not explain to this house or to anyone else what was actually going on in that branch of the department. So this year those who made up the tables showed that the amount that should really go for salaries and wages under the proper interpretation of those terms was $92,000, not $922,000; but the remainder of the $922,000 is to be found in the other items such as pastures, dugouts and so on. All the money is spent in that way, just as it has been spent in other years, and there was no change in the estimates because of an election year either provincially or federally. There might have been an increase of $10,000 in an item; when we increased the expenditure all the way from $2 million to $3 million of course all the expenditures would be increased. When we put in the amount for the St. Mary's dam, that will also result in an expenditure, not under P.F.R.A. but under one of the special items, which will bring in many more labourers, people of whom we may have no record at all.
Just in passing, in view of what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Medicine Hat I want to say that about an hour ago the signed copy of the agreement on the St. Mary's dam was delivered to my office, so that will answer the question of whether we have reached the point where we can sign it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister still on a point of privilege?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. If you have a point of privilege you may raise it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If not I
would like to raise a point of privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: Go ahead.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have only another hour, and I wonder if the minister is going to come back and answer my question?


James Garfield Gardiner: I answered your question
quite a long time ago, but four or five other hon. members have been asking questions and I think I have a perfect right to answer them.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: On a question of privilege,
since the Minister of Agriculture is speaking on a question of privilege and since he has brought my name into it, may I ask if the agreement has been signed by both the Alberta government and the dominion government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Since I came into the house this evening it has been reported to me here at the table that it was delivered at my office in the Confederation building just about the time I was coming into the chamber, so I have not had an opportunity to sign it. I can tell my hon. friend that the agreement was sent down to us from Edmonton some little time ago. They said they were not going to sign it because they presumed we would want to rewrite some of the clauses. We rewrote some of the clauses and sent it back. Now they have returned it to us, and I presume they have signed it as we rewrote it. I will read it in the morning, and as soon as I am satisfied that the clauses are the same and that the agreement is as we understood it some little time ago, I have authority from the government to sign the contract, so I hope it will be signed tomorrow.
I wanted to say these few things at this stage because I may not have an opportunity to do so later on. The discussion on this first item of my estimates usually goes on for hours, if not days, but when we get past it we sometimes go along fairly rapidly. I do not want to block my own estimates by stopping if we once get started, so I thought I had better get this in while we were still talking.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My question is not answered even yet. Surely I have a right to an answer.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has given an explanation of item 39 in these estimates, which has to do with prairie farm rehabilitation and is for $3,750,000. I would suggest that if the minister does not want a recurrence of what happened in the committee
Supply-Agriculture
he should have that item changed to read something like the items on marketing services, production services or experimental farms. Those items are broken down, and the house is given some idea of what the money is being spent for. If that had been done I do not believe any difficulty would have arisen with respect to this matter.
While I am on my feet I want to say a word about the earlier statement of the minister as to the division of authority between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce in regard to the marketing of agricultural products. Last year we passed the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, which in effect gives to boards set up under provincial marketing legislation the power in interprovincial and export trade that those boards have in the marketing of those particular agricultural products within the province. Immediately those boards start to export, however, they will come under the regulations of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which may be quite different from those of the Department of Agriculture. It seems to me that we are going to run into difficulties in the marketing of agricultural products in that the regulations set up by the Department of Agriculture concerning marketing in Canada may not be the same as those of the Department of Trade and Commerce with respect to export trade. I wonder if the minister would comment on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the natural products marketing act of Saskatchewan, which is similar to the legislation in British Columbia and elsewhere, they have authority to set up a board and to say that all of that product delivered to the market must be delivered to the order of that board. When the board gets the product it is in exactly the same position as the Ford Motor Company or anyone else. They have the product, and they want to sell it. The Department of Trade and Commerce does not make regulations telling them how they are going to sell it. The Department of Trade and Commerce simply does for them what they do for everybody else. They try to find a market for that particular product, and inform them that it can be sold in a certain market at a certain price.
In so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned we have said, under the act that was passed in 1949, that we will see that any board which is marketing farm products outside the province has the same rights and opportunity to do so, and all the safeguards, that are present in connection

Supply-Agriculture
with interprovincial marketing or international marketing. They will not be denied any of those things, so long as they do not overstep the provisions of the provincial law. We have undertaken to do that, but that does not interfere with the marketing of goods outside.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was speaking particularly of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which sets up the grades for wheat that goes into the export trade. There are certain regulations and certain standards for the marketing of pork or dairy products within Canada. Conceivably the Department of Trade and Commerce could set different standards for the marketing of those products outside Canada, so there might easily be a conflict between the grades to be marketed within Canada and those to be marketed outside Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the Department of Trade and Commerce has no grading system for any farm product except grain, and that is handled under the Canada Grain Act. All the other farm products are graded under systems set up with the Department of Agriculture, co-operating with the provincial departments. For example we had a grading system for butter in Alberta and Saskatchewan long before there was a grading system set up on the same basis in Ontario. We had different regulations governing trading between Manitoba and some of the other provinces for a considerable time. Eventually we succeeded in getting all provinces to cooperate with the federal government in having those different products graded according to the same standards. Where it is required that our officials do the grading for a province, the province appoints our man as their grader, and he does the grading for them. Where we require a provincial man to do the grading, we appoint him as our grader, and he does the job for us. The grades are the same right through the picture.
As I said a moment ago, we have six cargo men over in Britain. When a cargo comes in they take samples of the products that are sent over to see whether or not the grades have been maintained, but the remainder of the work in connection with it is done by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to point out to the minister that the potato growers of the maritime provinces have been disregarded in regard to the prices support act which was put into effect in 1944. At that time the minister stated the act would apply to all agricultural products except wheat, and would prevent them from going below the cost of production. In 1946 a program was put

into effect in New Brunswick which bolstered the price, and in 1948 the growers of potatoes were given support in the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. During the crop year of 1949-50 potatoes have been selling most of the time, at any rate since the first of the year, below the cost of production. The minister and the chairman of the agricultural prices support board have disregarded any request for relief under this support act.
Not more than two weeks ago the minister of agriculture in the province of New Brunswick telephoned the deputy minister of agriculture in Ottawa, and suggested that some support program be put into effect covering potatoes. It was felt it would only cost the department about $100,000 to stabilize the price of potatoes and to bring them up above the cost of production. This request was turned down. I wrote to Dr. A. M. Shaw, chairman of the agricultural prices support board, on May 5 as follows:
I wish to call your board's attention to the fact that potatoes are now selling way below cost of production and it does not seem that your board is paying any attention to the terms of the Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944, which was put into effect to keep the price of agricultural products above cost of production, and I wish to point out that your board has disregarded the greatest agricultural food product grown which is the potato.
I further wish to point out that with an expenditure of $100,000 by your board, you could stabilize the price of potatoes on the Canadian market overnight. All you would have to do is put into effect a starch program for the balance of the season and the three factories, two in New Brunswick and one in Prince Edward Island, could not possibly use more than 100,000 barrels, and if you would guarantee the subsidy of $1 per barrel over the price that is being paid for starch potatoes in these two provinces it would have the effect of stabilizing the market throughout Canada for the balance of the season.
This action would have to be taken quickly and, with three inspectors, the factories I believe would co-operate with you under this scheme. You could buy the potatoes trader the same plan as you used for the 1946-47 crop; therefore, with little cost, your board could be a great aid to 3,000 or 4,000 cars of potatoes now left in the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
I also wrote to the minister on May 6, but I never received a reply from him. Dr. Shaw did reply to my letter on May 9, and here is what he says in the third paragraph of the letter:
As you know, it is not unusual, except in years of short supply, for the potato growers to have some wastage at the end of the season.
He intends to say that it is not unusual for potatoes to be dumped at the end of the season. The Agricultural Prices Support Act went through parliament in 1944. At the time the minister was piloting the act through the house, he said that no agricultural products would be dumped as long as he was

Minister of Agriculture. I say to him that potatoes were dumped last year, and potatoes will be dumped in the maritime provinces this year unless some support is given to the price. The idea of the chairman of the agricultural prices support board saying that we always dump potatoes in surplus years, when we have an act which the minister said was to stop the price of agricultural products falling below the cost of production! He was referring to all agricultural products, except wheat, and that includes potatoes.
On page 5622 of Hansard for July 29, 1944, we find that when the act was going through the house I asked the minister about this, and he said:
It is intended to cover all agricultural products, except wheat.


Mr. Martin:: Including corn?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, including corn. "Agricultural products" means any product of agriculture, except wheat, designated by the governor in council, and includes processed meat, dairy and poultry products if so designated.
He stated, on a dozen different occasions when asked, that that included all agricultural products. Potatoes were the first agricultural product that he helped under this act in 1946. Although they have been selling in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island for three or four months now below the cost of production, not a thing has been done by the department, although the department of agriculture in Prince Edward Island and the department of agriculture in New Brunswick have requested that something be done by the agricultural prices support board. I would hope that it is not too late for them still to try to stabilize the market for the rest of the season. Otherwise in my opinion, two or three thousand cars of potatoes are going to be dumped. The growers in Madawaska, Victoria, Carleton and York counties have potatoes they are trying to sell and they are taking today less than the cost of production for those potatoes in spite of the fact that the Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944 is supposed to support the price above the cost of production. When this act was going through the house in 1944 the minister said that neither potatoes nor any other agricultural product would be dumped while he was Minister of Agriculture and while this act was in effect. He answered the hon. member for Lethbridge on that occasion, as reported at page 5624 of Hansard, as follows:


Mr. Blackmore:: What we are concerned about is that the time may come when the board may force the farmer to take less than the cost of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would hope that that time will
not come and I do not think it is likely to under this bill.
I request now that the Minister of Agriculture take some immediate action to help
Supply-Agriculture
the potato growers who still have potatoes on hand and to stop the sale below the cost of production. A number of meetings have been held in my constituency. The Minister of Agriculture has come out and asked a lawyer down in my constituency to take over the organization of potato growers. I had a joint meeting with this Mr. Duffle a week ago tonight and he stated that the Minister of Agriculture felt that the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act of 1939 was the solution to all our problems, although Mr. Gardiner told the delegation that he never stated that to Mr. Duffle. I should like to ask him what he did state to Mr. Duffle, because Mr. Duffle is under the impression that the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act of 1939 is the solution to all our troubles. He read a letter from the Minister of Agriculture at that meeting the other night that stated that he would be glad to turn over to an organization the handling of potatoes.
I should like to ask the minister if he agrees with the letter of Dr. Shaw, the chairman of the board, that it is not an unusual thing for us to dump potatoes in a surplus year, something which this act of 1944 was supposed to remedy.
I wish to say something more about the Department of Agriculture. It is about the experimental farm. When I came to parliament in 1940 the estimates for the central experimental farm amounted to $400,000; that is for the central experimental farm. Today the estimates before us amount to $1,800,000. I was out there to look around. All I saw was a lot of pegs driven into the ground. I do not know how they spend $1,800,000, or $1,400,000 more than they spent ten years ago. They have only about 300 acres more land than they had in 1940. What in the world they are doing with the money, I do not know. They are even buying a separate threshing machine now for every plot of grain they have growing out there so that they thresh it separately.
It is amusing to go out there and look around that farm. What the farmers get from it, I do not know. We in the maritime provinces do not get any help from it. We get some help from our provincial farms or rather from the federal farms located in the provinces; that is, the branch farms. We get some help from them, but we do not get any help from this central experimental farm. It is a nice place out there. It is a nice park and flower garden for Ottawa; but I do not think the farmers get much good from it. I think the provincial farms owned by the federal government are of some good; they are located in the different zones in the different provinces, carrying on research work in different things grown in these provinces.

Supply-Agriculture
I should like to ask the minister this question. It was reported in the fall of 1944 that he asked the provinces to take over the support of agricultural products in different sections of Canada. I believe in that move. I should like to ask him to answer whether he did consult the provinces. I understand that he did. The provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island turned him down. I think they made a great mistake in turning him down. I should like to know whether that is correct or not. I hope that at this late hour he will take some interest in the potato growers in the maritime provinces. The potato industry in the maritime provinces is practically the only industry the farmer has as a cash crop. It means everything to him. When the tariff is revised between the United States and Canada, I hope we get some reduction of duty. We pay 75 cents a hundred going into the United States. They pay nothing coming into Canada except from- June 15 to July 31. I think the duty in the United States should be lowered. I think we should have an ad valorem duty on potatoes. I cannot understand why two men would sit down across the table on tariffs and one would say, "You can go into our country with a certain commodity free"; and the United States representative says, "We are going to tax you 75 cents a hundred." It does not make common sense to me. I do not know why you would make an arrangement like that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish to answer one or two direct questions. The last one that I was asked was as to whether at some time-I think in 1944 or around that time-I had suggested to the provinces that they should take over the marketing of potatoes, I suppose among other products. The facts are, in addition to that, that in 1938-which goes back further than 1944-the farm federation came to Ottawa and called to our attention the type of legislation in force in British Columbia. It was known as the natural products marketing act. It provided for the setting up of boards to market the products of that province, and particularly farm products. Prior to that they had taken the legislation to the privy council and had it declared intra vires. In their discussions they had concluded that they knew a kind of legislation which would be intra vires if it were passed here in order to supplement the proposal. We said at that time that we did not think that one province having acted was sufficient to warrant the dominion government passing complementary legislation.
The federation went back to the other provinces and asked them to pass similar legislation. My memory is that they succeeded in getting about six provinces to pass similar legislation within a year, or

a year and a half's time. If that is what my hon. friend means by asking, did I suggest at any time that the provinces ought to do this, then I say we suggested, when they came and told us that one province had already done so, that if they desired the federal government to bring in complementary legislation there should be considerably more than one province acting upon it before they came and asked us to do it. As I say, when they did come back the next time they had five or six provinces that had passed the legislation. But it happened to be within a few weeks after the war had started in 1939, and we said to them that we were going to set up government boards to handle the products during the war. We told them that we were going to operate them under the War Measures Act, and therefore we expected that so long as we had a War Measures Act, or some legislation which succeeded it, any boards which did operate would be federal government boards. The farm organization accepted that position and said they agreed that under the circumstances that is what ought to be done and that is what was done, and so we handled the different products. The dairy products boards handled the dairy products; the meat board handled the meat products; and we had a special products board which handled the other products. Those boards operated right through the period of the war, and down to a period after the war; in fact some of them are operating yet.
The federation did not come back until the war was over. In 1946 they did come back and they asked the federal government to pass this complementary legislation. We said that we were still operating under our own boards; and we refused to bring the legislation before the house in spite of the fact that the opposition was urging us to do so from time to time until 1949. In 1949 we brought the legislation before the house. That legislation provided that we would assist the boards that had been set up provincially by making it possible for them to apply outside the province the same principles as they were applying inside. That legislation is now on the statute books; and to the extent that I suggested that, it can be said that I more or less promoted the idea. But I must say that at no time did the government here during that period advocate that this ought to be done. We simply said that if the federation went out and succeeded in getting a considerable number of the provinces to fake that action we would consider the matter. We did consider it, brought it here, and it was passed.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I was asking about the support act.


James Garfield Gardiner: The support act itself which came up in 1944 has nothing whatsoever to do with that matter.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Did you not ask the provinces to take over the support act; and did you not say that you would furnish the money if they would administer it?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not go that far. If my hon. friend will listen I will give him the whole story.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I think you did.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position is, my hon. friend came to my office and advocated that, as he said a moment ago but I did not.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You advocated it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that to the
provinces. The position taken in 1944-and I think my hon. friend will find the wording that I used is correct-is this. We did bring down legislation in 1944 which we intimated would probably be required to deal with staple products as we were getting out from under the organizations that had been set up under these boards, and the agreements that had been entered into by them, and that it would probably be necessary for us to stabilize prices over a period, and stabilize them at a level which would maintain the relationship between the farmers generally and those who were supplying them with commodities, to maintain a price level as between them which would be as satisfactory as the conditions had been in the last few years of the war.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Above cost of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: You made your speech; let me make mine.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You said that in your speech in 1944.


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1944 the position taken
was as I stated. If my hon. friend will go back and get the 1944 Hansard he will find that the one product we left doubt about was potatoes.


Heber Harold Hatfield: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will get at that some
other time when we are on the item that has to do with potatoes. The position taken at that time-and I made it very clear to the house-was that if you put a floor price under potatoes which was as high as we were being asked to put under them by the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island we would have so many potatoes produced in this country that we would be in the position in 55946-171
Supply-Agriculture
which the Americans finally got by doing a similar thing. The position in regard to the sale of potatoes would then be very difficult particularly in view of the fact that two of the provinces of Canada depend absolutely upon the selling of potatoes, or a very considerable number of the farmers depend absolutely upon the sale of their potatoes in order to live at all. We in other parts of Canada are living fairly well without selling potatoes, particularly outside Canada.
I said it would be a mistake for us to set a price level for potatoes which would induce people right across Canada to produce potatoes. If we did that then we would be in trouble.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You did not say that in 1944.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the position that has been taken consistently all the way through from 1944 until now.
In marketing the 1948 crop we got into the position in February, I believe, of 1949, where we were being approached almost daily by those who were interested in the marketing of potatoes from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Finally the agricultural prices support board entered into an arrangement whereby they would agree that any potatoes which were graded and in bins on a certain date would be taken over by the federal government at a certain price, I believe $1.15.


Heber Harold Hatfield: After the United States asked you to put on embargoes.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are a lot of things
that I cannot take up in the few minutes I have left. That story can be told pretty well when we come to the item itself in the estimates. But we said at that time that we would take them over. We finally did get just approximately what my friend says they may have to dump this year, and we paid $1,600,000 for them. That is a pretty high price to pay for what was obtained, and even for the results that were obtained.
Coming to this year, a little before January we were asked to do the same thing again. At that time I said to them that we thought they should go ahead and market their potatoes. We thought that if we took any such action as has been suggested again we would be in difficulties with the United States, which today finds. itself with such an enormous supply of potatoes on hand that it is offering them at a cent a bag, and with that condition existing we could not afford to jeopardize the United States market for Canadian potatoes. And I must say that the Americans were buying potatoes, and are still buying potatoes. They were buying potatoes in

Supply-Agriculture
greater quantities than they bought them last year. We said we were not going to take a chance on spoiling any market we had in the United States by starting to subsidize potatoes on this side of the line in order to make it possible for people to ship them into the United States.


Heber Harold Hatfield: They do subsidize.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have carried on under that plan up to the present time. We never have yet said to the people of New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island that we will not do anything whatsoever in order to assist them with the marketing of their potato crop this year. We never have said that at any time up to now. We have however kept ourselves in a position where we can take that position if we find it advisable to do so.
Now, what is the present position with regard to potatoes? In 1948, we marketed 17,159 cars. From the 1949 crop we marketed 22,885 cars, or we have marketed more than 5,000 more cars this year than last year.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You embargoed them last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I know, and we did not embargo them this year, and this year we sold them. Potatoes were sold into the market in the United States, and they are still being sold. As my hon. friend says, there might be some potatoes left over at the end of the season. No one knows that there are going to be. We have said, "Go ahead and sell them."
In so far as the stabilization of prices is concerned, on January 3, they had the highest price of this year, which was $1.35 basis Montreal.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You hope-


James Garfield Gardiner: Now, you can read this all tomorrow and you will understand it better than if you try to talk at the same time as I am talking. On January 3 was the highest price of $1.35. The lowest price that has been obtained was $1.15 on February 7. And that happens to be exactly the price that we paid for 100 pounds of the surplus last year at the farm. We paid $1.15 last year for 100 pounds and the price has not been lower than $1.15 on the Montreal market for 75 pounds this year.


Heber Harold Hatfield: This year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, for a 75-pound bag this year.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Your support price was $1.15. That is what you are talking about?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not talking about that.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I know, but your support price last year-


James Garfield Gardiner: The price on May 10 was $1.20 to $1.25. The highest price was $1.35, and the lowest, $1.15. I can hardly conceive of a product such as potatoes being more completely stabilized than apparently this product has been during that period of time. Whether it has been stabilized high enough might be another question. That is a question which can still be considered. No one has said here that we will not consider it.
But my learned friend makes the proposal that we should help out his starch company, and by doing what?


Heber Harold Hatfield: No, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: By having these potatoes delivered at half the price which is being obtained for them on the market.


Heber Harold Hatfield: No, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that is the suggestion, that we pay dollar for dollar, and put the potatoes into the starch plant. It would not all be in my hon. friend's starch plant, but it would be in somebody's starch plant.


Heber Harold Hatfield: On a point of privilege, the suggestion was made by the provincial government of New Brunswick that we pay 50 cents a barrel and the federal government pay a subsidy of one dollar a barrel. Fifty cents a barrel for starch potatoes today would not give the starch manufacturer one cent.
Mr. , Gardiner: Well, that is even worse than I thought it was. We are going to be asked to pay $2 for every one they pay. But in any case the suggestion is that we get rid of these extra 2,000 cars by putting them through starch plants, and that we subsidize the putting of them through the starch plants.


Heber Harold Hatfield: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that is the way I understand it; and I do not know how you can make starch from potatoes without putting them through a starch plant.


Heber Harold Hatfield: It was only the effect of having them on the market.


James Garfield Gardiner: In any case, that is the position in regard to potatoes. We have sold 5,000 more cars of potatoes-at least, they. have been sold; I should not say we sold them, because I would imagine my hon. friend sold as many as anybody else. There are five or six exporters of potatoes in New Brunswick, and they are very successful agents in marketing their product.
The only thing I have suggested is that a probable solution for their problem down there is for those five or six men to have

themselves appointed a board by the provincial government, and then starting in and marketing those potatoes in the interests of all the producers, rather than just in the interest of the agent who happens to be marketing them. If any suggestion has been made, then it has been that one. As a matter of fact that is the plan that was followed in Ontario under my hon. friend's leader, while he was premier of that province, in connection with the marketing of beans.


Heber Harold Hatfield: There are 200 licensed shippers in New Brunswick.


James Garfield Gardiner: But those 200 licensed shippers do just as a lot of shippers do elsewhere- they operate through a few exporters. Those exporters have done a very successful business down in that part of the country. As a result of doing that successful business they have very large plants to put the potatoes through.
I think that in connection with all these matters we should do just what we did last year in winding up our activities in connection with apples. The apple growers came to us at the beginning of the season and they said, "We want you to make an agreement with us, just the same as you did during the war. We want an agreement whereby you will guarantee a return through assisting us to export or put them in cans, dehydrate them, and eventually wind up the season so that we will have a certain amount of return for our producers."
Well, eventually we said to them that we thought the time had come when, so far as possible, we should get out of those transactions. The apple growers are very well organized in at least two areas, namely, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and they market their apples through their own organization. We said, "Go ahead and see what kind of job you can do of it." Well, the British Columbia board marketed apples in thirty-two states in the .United States, in spite of the fact that the Americans had one of the biggest apple crops they had ever grown. The British Columbia people went to the United States and merchandised their apples over there. They had them packed properly before they were shipped. Their apples were put on the market right alongside American apples, and under those conditions they sold in thirty-two states of the union.
Then, having done that, they found they could not sell all of their apples of certain varieties, and they gave those apples to Great Britain. My understanding is that the British government, in turn, did not sell them, but that they distributed at least a large part, if not all of them, to school children. That is they had been received as gifts, and those 55946-1711
Supply-Agriculture
apples were distributed more or less by way of gifts to the children in Great Britain. In any case the British Columbia people did not get any return from them. I believe it cost them about twenty-five cents to have them packed and placed on the ships; and the British paid the freight across the ocean.
Those apples were delivered in Great Britain. I might say that Nova Scotia marketed its apples just about as well as they have ever been marketed. Then, after they got through with those transactions, they came back and said, "This is our position." We checked the position with other apple producers in Canada, and did give a final payment to them indicating to them that from now on we expected them to go on and market their own product from year to year.


Heber Harold Hatfield: There was a by-election.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was not any by-election at the time. That was done when there was no by-election in sight. I cannot understand my hon. friend knowing the effect that could have if that were to go down to the constituency where his own candidate is running. He is the solicitor for this organization and sat in this house for a short time. When I put the question to him across the floor of the house whether there was any politics in connection with the handling of apples in the Annapolis valley, as every hon. member who was in the house then knows, his answer was that there had not been. If the story goes down from the opposition in this house that there was politics in the handling of apples in the Annapolis valley during the ten-year period in which assistance has been given from Ottawa I venture to say it will get us more votes than anything else we could do. I suggest to my hon. friend that he go right on doing that if he wishes to help us politically.
The people in the Annapolis valley know what assistance they got. They know why they got it. They know how they got it. They got all the assistance they did through their own organization. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre chips in I would remind him that he is becoming more and more a Tory every day. Every time someone in the official opposition wants to interfere with anything that is being said over here the hon. member gives them a little help and boosts them along.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe they need it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would like to suggest to the hon. member that the board they have in Nova Scotia-


Heber Harold Hatfield: What are you doing for Nova Scotia potatoes?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The position in Nova Scotia as well as in British Columbia is that they have commodity boards of the type that has always been advocated by my hon. friend's party. I challenge him to say that they have not. Their party has always advocated commodity boards. They have always said, that boards such as they have in British Columbia are the kind of organization that should be set up to market farm products. There is one of those boards in Nova Scotia marketing farm products. That board was organized by the growers and it is operated by the growers and they sell their apples in the interests of the producers. They are not playing politics with anyone.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister has been quoting figures that have been paid for potatoes. I happen to have on my desk a letter dated May 2 from a young veteran who went into the potato business at the close of the war. This man tells me that the price to the producer today, that would be on May 2, for No. 1 table stock was 40 cents per bushel and 67 cents per 100 pound sack.


An hon. Member:: Where?


Major James William Coldwell: That is at a place called O'Leary Station in Prince Edward Island. He goes on to state that the floor price last year was 69 cents per bushel and $1.14 per 100 pound sack. The minister gave the price for a 75 pound bag, which would be at Montreal. That would mean that this young man would get 51 cents for a 75 pound sack. I agree with the minister that probably the solution is a commodity board, but these young fellows have invested their war savings in potato growing and they have their cellars full of potatoes and the prices are ruinous as far as they are concerned. I shall not go into the other .side of the matter but I do intend to raise something else when the proper item is before us.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have got away from
potatoes, but only to say that what can be done in the case of apples can be done in the case of potatoes. No one can say at this moment that the door is closed in connection with the handling of potatoes. We are going to deal with potatoes at the end of the picture when we know what the situation is and what has been done. The hon. .member has just raised the question of potatoes selling at a certain price. You have to consider the average price to the grower. You cannot talk about what happens at the end of the season when you . are always dumping some potatoes as though the price received represented the return.


Major James William Coldwell: They were not able to sell them before.


James Garfield Gardiner: They say that, but people who have been talking to me say that there has been proper distribution. The records show that to the producers from August to January in 1948-49 the average price for potatoes was 99 cents per 100 pounds. In the same period in 1949-50 the average price was 98 cents per 100 pounds. In other words, there has been a difference of only one cent in the two seasons. We did give some support in the one season, while in the other season we have not given any support. The farmers were paid more money for their potatoes partly because they had more to sell.


Major James William Coldwell: Not the small grower.


James Garfield Gardiner: We can discuss that at some other time.


Major James William Coldwell: The large grower who is also a dealer can sell his potatoes first.


James Garfield Gardiner: That brings us back to what my hon. friend mentioned a moment ago. Every time these potato growers have come asking for assistance I have told them that it can best be done by means of an organization in their own area. After the point is reached where the producer does not get the average price, where he gets only the minimum price, it is not fair to say that is the price. We are absolutely opposed to that kind of policy being followed. The average price for the year has been 98 cents, and it was 99 cents last year.


Mr. Charlton:: Where is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the price to the grower, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. If my hon. friend had been listening he would have known that. I am sorry if the hon. member in front of him was talking so much that I can understand my hon. friend not hearing me.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would that be at the farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: To the grower at the farm. That is the price the grower got for his potatoes. I suppose he would deliver them at the village or in town or probably at the railroad station, but in any case that is his price.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Garfield Gardiner: Monday will be private members' day.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 22, 1950