1955-06-03

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, during the session of 1954 the governor in council was authorized by parliament to provide for the construction and completion, in whole or in part, prior to December 31, 1964, by the Canadian National Railway Company of a branch line in the province of Quebec consisting of three sections: one between St. Felicien and lake Cache; another between lake Cache and Chi-bougamau; and the third between lake Cache and Beattyville.
At the time the question as to whether or not any subsidy for this branch line would be necessary to avoid imposing too heavy a present burden on the finances of the company was left in abeyance for further study. Nevertheless the company commenced in November, 1954, construction of the two sections between Beattyville and Chibougamau, being convinced that if the whole of the traffic into and from the Chibougamau area, as well as the additional traffic along the line, moved over those sections they would be apt to be self-supporting almost from the start. However it was realized that the channelling of all such traffic away from the lake St. John area, of which it is geographically and economically a part, might seriously interfere with the normal development of that whole area.
An intensive study of the problem with the co-operation of the company and local interests has led to the conclusion that national interests as well as the normal development of the area would best be served by having the whole branch line authorized by parliament proceeded with at once, and that it would be appropriate, in order that this be done, to recommend to parliament that capital assistance for this construction be provided in the form of a subsidy of $25,000 per mile.
Accordingly, provision is to be made in the supplementary estimates for the payment to the Canadian National Railways of the
sum of $1,250,000 being the part of the subsidy that it is estimated will be required during the current fiscal year. I expect, of course, that construction of the St. Felicien-Lake Cache section will be commenced as soon as the preliminary work has been completed, and that it will be finished without delay.
In conclusion I would like to commend the interest in the project of le conseil d'orientation economique du Saguenay and other local organizations, and also of the hon. members for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) and Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve). Though all have shown a continuing and keen interest in the building of the St. Felicien-Lake Cache section, these two hon. gentlemen have been unremitting in securing and bringing to the attention of the government impressive information about the possibilities of development that would thereby be opened up. I hope it will not be too long before the project becomes a reality, and that their hopes in this connection are fully realized.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this statement by the minister, may I merely say that the minister seems to have forgotten entirely that the demand for this action started on the opposition side of the house, coming not only from the official opposition but also from the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon).


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I have too long been in opposition myself to be unfamiliar with the technique followed by my hon. friend.
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: May I say
to the Minister of Transport that we forgive him because he has not been a minister for very long, and he may not have known that we have worked also for this road. I should like to know if the minister can tell us whether the road will be commenced from both ends in order to relieve unemployment.


George Carlyle Marler: I am unable to give the hon. member for Lapointe any information as to where the work is to begin, or whether it will begin at both ends.
4390	HOUSE OF
Pacific Great Eastern Railway



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement on a subject closely related to that about which the Minister of Transport has just spoken.
The government of British Columbia has made a number of proposals to the federal government concerning financial assistance for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, which is owned by the provincial government. It will be recalled that parliament in 1949 passed an act granting assistance for the extension of this railway from Ques-nel to Prince George. British Columbia is now extending the railway at the southern end from Squamish to North Vancouver, and proposing to extend it northward from Prince George and through the Rockies to the Peace river valley.
We regard the southerly extension from Squamish to North Vancouver as a replacement of the existing barge service, and consider that it constitutes an improvement, rather than an extension, of existing transportation facilities. The government of British Columbia is apparently satisfied that there will be resulting savings in operating costs which warrant such improvement and make it a sound business investment. We are therefore unable to conclude that the improvement is of a character requiring federal assistance such as was granted in the extension from Quesnel to Prince George.
In regard to the proposed extension northward from Prince George to Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, we doubt that the construction of the whole of this line would be an economic undertaking at this time. It does not appear to us that the potential volume of traffic over the next five or ten years and the probable economic development in the area that would be opened up by the mid-portions of this line would be sufficient to warrant the high capital and operating costs.
The principal resources to be developed are the forests north of Prince George. In the mountains to the north of the Parsnip river there are coal deposits which are apt some day to be worth developing, but we are advised that those operating equally good coal deposits in southern British Columbia are now facing economic difficulties due to shrinking markets. Consequently there does not seem to us to be need at this time to carry the extension northward through the mountains in order to develop coal. The oil and gas on the eastern side of the mountains would, of course, move by pipe line rather than by rail.
[Stage Direction]

The Peace river area itself already has rail access through the Northern Alberta Railways, and although this railway taps the greater part of the area it does not obtain a sufficient volume of traffic to result in profitable operations.
Though these considerations lead this government to believe that the through line proposed by British Columbia is not economically justified at this time, we consider that the possibilities for development of the timber resources north of Prince George would justify an extension of up to some 50 miles in that area. We think this would assist materially in the further development of central British Columbia, and that would be to the obvious advantage of the national economy.
The government therefore will ask parliament, in the supplementary estimates being brought down next week, to make provision to pay a subsidy of $25,000 per mile for not more than 50 miles of an extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway northward from Prince George.
Our view that the present outlook does not justify a further extension of the line at this time would not, of course, prevent consideration of this matter again in a later year if the prospects for economic development then appear to be sufficiently promising to warrant a contribution toward the cost of constructing such an extension at that time.
I have written to the premier of British Columbia informing him of the views of this government and of this proposal, and saying that I shall be glad to arrange discussions between representatives of his government and this government on this matter if he wishes to proceed further with it.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be in the railway business overnight. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to the speech on this subject made by the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) at the time a subsidy was granted for the extension of the line from Quesnel to Prince George. If he has not done so, I would commend that speech to him. If he agrees with it I think the government would grant a subsidy for the whole extension into the Peace river area.


Mr. St. Laurent:: The hon. gentleman is quite in error if he thinks these things are decided overnight. They have been receiving very serious consideration and we have had extensive investigations made in an endeavour to reach the kind of conclusion that we could recommend to parliament as one that would further the interests of the national economy of the country.

I must say that I have not given recent consideration to the speech to which the hon. member refers, but we have tried to take into consideration all the facts that we could obtain by the studies we have had made of the project, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be premature at this time to endeavour to construct another railway over the mountains. Of course if the government of British Columbia, which owns the railway, decides otherwise, it will be its responsibility and, I hope, its successful venture. But we have not yet been able to come to the conclusion that it would bring to the national economy such advantages as would warrant recommending more than we are recommending as an item in the supplementary estimates to be brought down.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Might I ask the Prime
Minister if there is no credit going to any Liberal members in connection with this matter?


Mr. SI. Laurent:: I think there is credit
going to all those who are interested in the development of the country, no matter in what part of the house they sit. We are all Canadians and are all endeavouring, in the different spheres in which we find ourselves, to do our best to further the development of the Canadian economy.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Only some more than
others.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, it may be that some are more fortunately placed to be able to be effective in that regard.



SASKATCHEWAN-ALBERTA ANNIVERSARY   WELCOME TO JUBILEE CHOIR

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before motions
are proceeded with I should like to ask the indulgence of the house to do something which it is not customary to do; but as it can not happen again until Newfoundland has been a province of the dominion for 50 years I am sure the house will agree that what I am going to do will not set any dangerous precedent. The fact is that this is the fiftieth anniversary of the setting up of the two provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The people of Saskatchewan conceived the idea of having a group of our young high school students travel not only in this country but in the United States, indicating that we can produce something else in Saskatchewan besides wheat. During the past week they have done a very big job in Chicago so far as international relations are concerned. They are on their way home and
3.	1955
Saskatchewan-Alberta Anniversary are taking the long way around via Ottawa in order to be here this evening. I understand they are going to be in the railway committee room at six o'clock, and it is hoped that most, if not all, the members will be able to hear them sing there. The press not only of this country but of the United States have indicated that they are well worth while hearing.
The members of the choir are in the gallery at the moment. I know it is not customary to refer to persons who are in the gallery, but I should like to ask the house to give them a very warm welcome to the city of Ottawa and the House of Commons.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I am a completely modest man. Even though the rugby team from my city won the junior championship of Canada, and the high school curling team won the championship of Canada, I have up to the moment said nothing in regard to those things. But since the Minister of Agriculture has set a precedent at least for today I should like to join him in his words of welcome to these Saskatchewan high school students.
Saskatchewan high school students are people in whom I have been greatly interested for most of my life, and one reason for rising today is that I should like to pay tribute to my friend and former student, Neil Harris, the director of the choir, and one of his assistants, Don Cowan, also a former student of mine. It is unfortunate that these boys, although natives of Saskatoon, have for the time being gone to the foreign city of Regina, but we hope that will soon be remedied.
Speaking seriously again, sir, may I say welcome to our visitors.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, this is one time when there is perfect agreement among the members from the province of Saskatchewan, as to the wonderful contribution of the jubilee choir. Because of the fact that there is no gallery in the House of Commons I cannot mention that the jubilee choir is in a non-existent gallery. Without regard to party considerations, in this year, the fiftieth anniversary of the entry of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta into confederation, we join and walk with history.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: May 1 ask
the indulgence of the house for a moment. As the member of this house representing Regina City I am proud of the opportunity to welcome this choir that has come from the high schools of that city. I feel I could not let this opportunity pass without saying how proud I am to be the member representing that city. I am certain that the reputation which these young people have built up, not

Private Bills
only throughout Canada but across the continent, is well known to members of this house. They will all have the opportunity of hearing these young people at six o'clock tonight, and they will be singing in a concert at eight o'clock in the Capitol theatre.


Mr, Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I inadvertently referred to the Capitol theatre rather than the Fisher Park high school auditorium. I think the reason for that mistake is quite obvious. The Capitol theatre has been the scene of the "celebrity" concerts; and knowing the standard of those performances my mistake was quite natural.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should speak on behalf of those who do not come from the province of Saskatchewan or Alberta. I should like to tell the members of the Saskatchewan choir how delighted we are to welcome them here, and how we are looking forward to hearing them this evening. We are all very proud of the fact that Saskatchewan is celebrating its golden jubilee, as is Alberta. All together we say, "God bless Saskatchewan and Alberta".



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 419, for the relief of Marie Therese Jeannette Mainville Froment.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 420, for the relief of Goldie Mos-covitch Katz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 421, for the relief of Yvette Cayer Lefebvre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 422, for the relief of Regina Wiener Strelezky Distelman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 423, for the relief of Marie-Louise Ashby Tremblay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 424, for the relief of Lorna Greenberg Buium.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 425, for the relief of Myrtle Ada Lewin Derbridge.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 426, for the relief of Georges Etienne Barry.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 427, for the relief of Joseph Del-phis Guillaume Delorme.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 428, for the relief of Eileen Bayliss Roberts.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 429, for the relief of Ernest Augustus Lepage.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 430, for the relief of Rosaire Jacques Rene Tetrault.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 431, for the relief of Phyllis Lucy Stiles Beal.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 432, for the relief of Margaret Durning Mullins.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 433, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Lorraine Callard Ramsay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 434, for the relief of Ann Mary Allward Spighi.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 435, for the relief of Anne Rynski Vincent.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 436, for the relief of Dora Helen Simmons Glancy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 437, for the relief of Joseph Louis Armand Carrier.-Mr. Hunter.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient, in the proposed measure to amend the Municipal Grants Act, Bill 258 now before the house, to provide for the amendment of clause 6 so as to add a new section 8 to the main act as follows (the proposed sections 8 and 9 of the main act to be renumbered 9 and 10):
"8. (1) A grant may, pursuant to this section be made to a municipality in respect of real property that is
(a)	owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(b)	leased to or occupied by a person who is an employee of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a member of the Canadian forces, and
(c)	is used by such person as a domestic establishment.
(2)	Subject to subsection (3) the amount of a grant made pursuant to this section shall not be greater than a fraction of the accepted value of the property in respect of which a grant may be made under this section, such fraction to be determined as follows:
(a)	the numerator is the total amount of the real estate tax levied in the appropriate tax year, and
(b)	the denominator is the assessed value of all taxable property in the municipality.
(3)	Where in preparing its budget for any tax year a municipality has not taken into account the amount of a grant that may be paid under this section the denominator of the fraction referred to in subsection (2) shall be the assessed value of all taxable property and the accepted value of the property in respect of which a grant may be made under this section in the municipality.
(4)	The minister may, in determining the amount of a grant under this section, deduct from the amount that might otherwise be payable an amount that, in his opinion, represents the value of a service that would customarily be furnished by the municipality to the property in respect of which the grant is made and that Her Majesty does not accept in respect of that property.
(5)	No grant shall be made under this section in respect of
(a)	property in respect of which a grant has been made under section 5,
(b)	property described in subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (c) of section 2, or
(c)	property in respect of which a real estate tax has been levied on a person described in paragraph (b) of subsection (1).

(6) In applying paragraph (a) of section 2 to this section, the words "federal property" shall be construed as meaning property in respect of which a grant may be made under this section.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I understand that this morning a statement was made by Ontario Hydro concerning plans for the construction of an atomic energy power plant in the vicinity of Chalk River. Could the minister give the house further details about this plan?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I believe it would be
preferable, Mr. Speaker, that I accept this question as notice and have a statement prepared which I could give in the house next week.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that his resolution to set up a committee to study atomic energy and research generally has been on the order paper for more than two months, is it the minister's intention that this resolution shall be proceeded with at this session, or is it intended to kill the committee before it has even been born?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that the resolution in question was put on the order paper at the request of members of his own party. They were consulted about the wording of that resolution. I understand, though not officially, that there has been internecine warfare within your party, and that there is disagreement there about the wording. I have waited patiently for that disagreement to be resolved. I understand now we have all agreed that it is too late for the committee to do any useful work during this session.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in connection with that answer may I point out that the minister's information is entirely wrong. The main reason for the delay in setting up this committee was the fact that the minister was away in Australia. I do not know why he should try to place all the blame on others.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to make an observation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Joseph Warner Murphy: As the minister is well aware, I had a motion on the order paper in this connection. When the minister gave us the assurance on February 3 that a committee would be set up, I withdrew my motion to avoid discussion in this house. There is no reason for the minister's statement at the moment except that he is too cowardly to say-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member used an expression which is not parliamentary when he said the minister was too cowardly to proceed. I shall have to ask him to withdraw it.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I gladly withdraw it, but I suggest that the minister did not have intestinal fortitude.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the words the hon. member has used in substitution are no better, and I shall have to ask him to withdraw those as well.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I shall be very glad to withdraw them and say in my Irish way that he did not have courage.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course that is not as bad. The hon. member knows that he could have made his remarks without necessarily indulging in the qualification he did, and when he was asked to withdraw he did not necessarily have to substitute another expression. Now that he has found one that he thinks is inoffensive I do not think I should ask him to withdraw the last one, because we must give him credit for the effort he has made to water down the first one.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to comment on the accuracy of current reports

Inquiries of the Ministry that the Canadian government proposes to withdraw its sponsorship of the international trade fair in the future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No decision has been
reached. As a matter of fact council has not considered that question, but I expect to place it before council for decision before the end of the fair.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Has his attention been directed to a speech delivered yesterday in Toronto by Air Vice Marshal John L. Plant, and also to the controversial reply to that speech by Lieutenant General Guy Simonds? I would like to ask this. Is it in keeping with our system of parliamentary democracy that high military officers should engage in open debate on controversial subjects, and is it proper and fitting that declarations such as those of the last few days, in a spate of statements by military officers, should be made, as they indicate that something in the nature of a military junta is trying to take the place of parliament?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I think the hon. member's apprehensions are perhaps greater than the facts warrant. I have not seen any comment on the part of the chief of the general staff concerning the speech by Air Vice Marshal Plant. However, I have seen a report of the remarks which Air Vice Marshal Plant is alleged to have made in Toronto yesterday. The remarks as reported in the press do not represent government policy, as the air vice marshal took care to state. Moreover, they do not even represent the views of the air force.
I hesitate to make any further comment until I have tested the accuracy of the report in the press, which reports are sometimes not as accurate as one would wish, and I have not had the opportunity to do so as yet. Until I have done so, I feel that any question as to the propriety of the remarks should be reserved.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask one further question. Whatever may be the degree of accuracy, is it proper for high military officers to be making declarations punctuated by the suggestion that "we are not uttering government policy", but with respect to controversial matters? That is the question.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Of course it is not proper for high officers in the services to make statements with respect to government policy. The extent to which they may make other statements is a question of fact in each case. That is why I think we should be sure of the facts before we comment on any such statements.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh):: should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister. Air Vice Marshal Plant is reported as having said that the Canadian army should be abolished. If this is not government policy, is it part of a policy by the air force to secure a greater share of the defence dollar, a campaign which the government is encouraging or allowing to go on.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would say the answer to all those questions is no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then may I ask another question. If the answer is no, why is it, then, that the government allows this sort of thing to go on?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The government has not allowed this matter to proceed along the lines the hon. member suggests, at all.



H.M.C.S. &quot;ALGONQUIN&quot;    STATEMENT AS TO REPAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) asked me a number of questions with respect to the repair and refit of H.M.C.S. Algonquin. I may say that both the hon. members for Halifax have also asked me about the same thing. As a matter of fact, I think these questions might more properly have been addressed to the Minister of Transport. However, as this is a navy vessel, and as I am familiar with the facts, perhaps I might answer his questions generally.
A contract for the repair and refit of H.M.C.S. Algonquin has been allocated by the Canadian maritime commission to the Davie Shipbuilding and Repairing Company at Lauzon, Quebec. The contract was not transferred to that yard from another yard, but was allocated to the Davie Shipbuilding and Repairing Company in the first instance. Some protests have been received concerning the allocation, but I am informed that it represents no change in the practice which has obtained for some years now by which the Canadian maritime commission allocates shipbuilding and ship repair contracts with a view to maintaining a reasonable level of employment throughout the industry.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on May 16, as reported on page 3786 of Hansard, a question I had asked regarding federal bridges was passed as an order for return. Could the Minister of Transport advise me when I might expect to get this information?


George Carlyle Marler: I thought the return had been prepared. I shall see that it is brought down shortly.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN QUOTAS IN FLOODED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the wheat board will give consideration to extending and expanding the quotas in the flooded areas, so that farmers with wheat on hand will not have that wheat destroyed as the result of flood conditions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question of the movement of grain from particular areas is being worked out between the wheat board and the elevator companies. The elevator companies receive requisitions for certain quantities of wheat, and have the privilege of allocating those requisitions in areas where they will do the most good. If the residents of a particular flooded area will take up their situation with their local elevator company, and if the owner of the elevator company finds that an additional quota is required to do what is necessary, I think the wheat board will co-operate in seeing that grain that needs to be moved is moved.


John George Diefenbaker: By extending the quota?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Probably.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
I. Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services), $496,998.
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Agriculture made his speech a week ago tonight I was quite annoyed, and would have made a heated reply had I been
50433-277J
Supply-Agriculture
able to speak then. However, a week has passed and 1 realize that the Minister of Agriculture and I must appear on the same platform tonight, so it is important that we remain on speaking terms. I do plan on making some critical remarks regarding his speech of last week, but before doing that I shall devote a few minutes to the hon. member for Vancouver South.
On May 17 the hon. member for Vancouver South made a most provocative speech which was the basis of an editorial in the Regina Leader-Post of May 21 entitled "Undiluted Bunk". The hon. member for Assiniboia had presented the case for western agriculture and suggested that it was in the best interests of all Canada that parity prices be established. The hon. member for Vancouver South suggested that this was a ridiculous proposal, and that to carry out the suggestion would cost the taxpayers of Canada between $300 and $400 million. I do not know how much it would cost and I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver South knows, but I would remind him that the drop-in net farm income in Saskatchewan between 1952 and 1954 cost the farmers of that province $439 million.
I submit that this drastic drop in net farm income is a matter of national concern. The Minister of Agriculture has given the impression that this drop was the result of a disastrous crop season last year, but that is not the whole story. The main factor is that farm products have not been selling in the domestic or world markets at prices which would give the farmers a fair share of the total national income. Only a small percentage of last year's crops has reached the market, and a great many farmers are still holding grain on their farms which was threshed in 1952 and 1953. Many of them have been unable to deliver a single bushel of the 1954 crop. So this very drastic drop to $126-5 million for Saskatchewan in 1954 from a figure of $565 million in 1952 is an urgent national problem.
The hon. member for Vancouver South should spend some time and find out what is being done for farmers in other countries. The idea of a price support program is not new. It is a program that has -been accepted in Canada. Our chief quarrel is that the government of Canada is not attaching enough importance to the problems of agriculture. The hon. member for Middlesex East, when he spoke last night, made some critical remarks concerning those of us who sit in this section of the house, suggesting that we did not face our problems in very good spirit. I do not know of anyone anywhere who accepts injustice with any semblance of gratitude.

Supply-Agriculture
We recognize that the problems which confront farmers in the prairie provinces are very similar to the problems which confront agriculture in the maritimes, in Ontario and Quebec; and our reason for not discussing the problems of the cheese producer, the dairy producer, the tobacco producer and the potato grower in eastern Canada is that we do not feel we are competent to deal with these problems, since we have not firsthand information regarding them. We leave it to those who represent farming constituencies, whether in the east, in the west or on the prairies, to speak for them.
To the hon. member for Vancouver South I would suggest that he read one of the United States department of agriculture bulletins, "Price Support Handbook" which points out that the Commodity Credit Corporation was established as a federal agency in the United States in October, 1933, after farm prices had fallen to extremely low levels and farm foreclosures had mounted to record high levels. It was found that as a result of the wise policy which was introduced in 1933, when war came the free nations enjoyed the benefits that resulted from having these very generous supplies of farm products. This bulletin points out that there are some very good reasons why all the taxpayers of the country should contribute public funds to support the industry. It says:
Agriculture is the most basic industry in our nation . . . Agricultural production conditions are not man-made and as a result production is much more uncertain than production of industrial goods.
They point out that as a result of the improvements in farming techniques, it has been possible for a much smaller percentage of the people to reside on farms. As people have moved from farms to cities and are able to join trade unions and other organizations, they are able to negotiate for a fair share of the national income.
Those of us who are older have seen the trend. I was born in a little town in Ontario where they still have a flour mill. Originally the people of this community made their own clothing on the farms. Every farm had a spinning wheel. Many of the farmers made their own shoes. Many of them made all their farming implements. But as part of our progress farm people decided it was in the best interests of Canada that we produce our machinery, our clothing and our implements in the most efficient manner, and so we have had the development of industry. As a result we have had a diminishing percentage of the population of Canada

left on the farms, and those who have remained on the farms have been unable to get their fair share of the wealth of the country.
This study points out that 40 years ago in the United States farmers produced most of their own fuel, their power and their fertilizer, that most of the material needed for the production of food came from the farm. But now in the United States the farmers use 7 million tons of finished steel, more than the quantity used for a year's output of passenger cars; 50 million tons of chemical materials; 16J billion gallons of crude petroleum; 320 million pounds of raw rubber, 15 billion kilowatt hours of electrical power. These are some of the changes we have witnessed in our own lifetime.
Regarding the over-all costs in the United States, in spite of the criticism in the thirties of the use of public funds to encourage the production and storing of farm products, over 19 years the program has cost about $1 billion in price support. This is an annual average cost of about $55 million a year, or about $1.40 per family per year. So I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver South and to the editorial writer of the Regina Leader-Post that they read something about what is being done to support farm prices and establish parity prices in other countries. In contrast to the editorial in the Leader-Post, I should refer to an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of May 19 entitled "Trouble Out on the Farms". This editorial makes a reference that might be of interest to us:
Those who hear or read parliamentary debates will feel that the wheat farmer has able spokesmen who present his case to the nation. But the measure of farm discontent may not always be understood.
They refer to an editorial in the Western Producer, a well known Saskatchewan publication, pointing out that at the recent dominion-provincial conference which was held here the unemployment problem was given top priority. The premiers and those who were with them apparently had reached the conclusion that that was Canada's No. 1 problem, but the Western Producer and the editorial writer of the Ottawa Journal apparently share the view that Canada's No. 1 problem now is our agricultural prices. The Western Producer said:
The consequences of price declines, the falling off of markets and the uncertainty of future prospects which at best are shrouded in gloom all emphasize the gravity and urgency of a worsening situation which, if nothing is done to forestall it, may become very bad indeed. The effect of this gathering crisis should it develop will not be confined in its impact on the fortunes of the

farmers alone. It will automatically strike at the whole fabric of the national economy and might easily mark the beginning of a major depression.
I should like to draw these remarks to the attention of the hon. member for Vancouver South. Now let me come to the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture last Friday night. The minister is very skilful in analysing statistics. I think he should have a new set of glasses; he has had those for a long time now. While one cannot say there are any inaccuracies in the figures the minister placed before the house the other night, it is very unfortunate that his whole speech did not even recognize that his department is confronted with a very serious problem.
It should be remembered that the Minister of Agriculture is the only farmer in the cabinet. It is only natural that some of his colleagues who are hard businessmen should be concerned about protecting the public treasury, and if the main spokesman for agriculture in the cabinet presents a picture that is as rosy as the picture the minister presented last week, I do not think we should expect his colleagues to be greatly excited, for example, when the minister points out that last year was a pretty bad year but the trouble was confined chiefly to the prairies.
If you take last year's net farm income and average it with the three previous years, you get an average for four years that is higher than the average for any other similar period of time. That is quite right. But that is cold comfort for the people who are obliged to live for 12 months on last year's income. I think the minister should have brought to the attention of the committee and of his colleagues the fact that the net farm income in Saskatchewan last year was down to $126 million from a high of $565 million in 1952 and that it was down in all Canada to $1,125 million from a high of $2,154 million in 1951.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I did give that latter figure.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister glossed over it. I think his emphasis was on the fact that the average, taking last year with the three previous years, gave us a fairly good picture. I think the minister should have drawn attention to the fact that, with present costs as they are, it is difficult for anyone anywhere in Canada to venture into the farming business and ever hope to make a decent return on his investment and a decent living for his family, on the basis of 1954 prices and the outlook for marketing as we can see it from this angle.
I might refer him to the findings of the Searle Grain Company Limited reported in
Supply-Agriculture
their weekly letter of January 5. This is in connection with the high cost of starting farming. This is the result of a survey in the west. I am sure the minister will agree that these figures are approximately correct. They suggest that an efficient farm unit should be at least a half section. These are figures that the Searle agencies apparently collected from all the western provinces. They suggest that you would have to invest $13,500 for your land; $8,950 for buildings; $8,469 for equipment; $1,580 for livestock; and that you need $2,099 to carry on for the first year. In other words, you would require $34,604.
I am sure if you take these figures, and take similar figures for the maritimes, Ontario, Quebec or any other province in Canada, the conclusion would be that if you were to hope for interest at 5 per cent on this sort of investment and take the prices currently being paid for dairy products, meat products, cereals and other farm products, you would have to live a long, long time and have better crops than we have had on an average over a period of time.
I do not want to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture and his department have not done anything. In his speech he mentioned two things that I should like to endorse. He referred to the contribution they made in fighting foot-and-mouth disease. I think his department did a remarkable job at that time. I also believe Canadians should be proud of the fact that they came out with Selkirk wheat before the United States was able to produce a similar grain. Last fall some of our farmers were being offered as much as $50 a bushel for Selkirk wheat if permits could be obtained to move it across into North Dakota and Montana. I must therefore give the minister's department credit for the scientific work that is being done.
My main quarrel with the minister and his department is that in my opinion they are not presenting the problems of agriculture in all parts of Canada in their true light so his colleagues in the cabinet will make available sufficient funds to give the farmers a fair share. The situation is as one of these briefs pointed out. One says 20 per cent of the people are classified as farmers, and another says 17 per cent; but whichever figure you take, the share of the national income going to the farmers is now down to under 10 per cent. You are bound to have trouble if an important section of the people such as the farmers are getting about half their rightful percentage of the national income. The minister should have recognized that in his own province-

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Churchill:: You should have said half as much as they should get.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry. Yes; the farmers are getting about half what they should be getting.	The minister, in my
opinion, should have drawn attention to the fact that as the result of factors over which the farmers have no control-as a result of drought and flooding-we have special problems which do not exist in other parts of Canada. I know that members from the east and from the west think we complain too much about drought or flooding, but I submit that when you come to parliament you have a responsibility to represent the people who send you here.
In the last few weeks I have written to municipalities in my constituency to ask them the picture in regard to arrears of taxes and how much damage there has been from floods. The minister will be familiar with these rural municipalities. They are all in an area where we have never had crop failures from drought. Some of this is the best land anywhere in the world. For example, Moose Range municipality is in the Carrot river area. Much of this area was opened up for settlement under a Conservative government. Later a Liberal government in Saskatchewan continued the program, and then the C.C.F. carried on. There is therefore no political issue that can be raised with regard to the problems in Moose Range municipality.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will my hon. friend not agree that the provincial government drained the Moose Range area? It was not the federal government; it was the provincial government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not going to discuss the drainage problem, although I think that is one we might discuss. Again the Conservative government and the Liberal government-


James Garfield Gardiner: I happen to have been the minister at the time it was done.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was done by the provincial government with no assistance from Ottawa at all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure the minister will also agree that when he was the minister he had no idea that the rainfalls in the years 1950 to 1954 were going to be two or three times as much per year as they were when it was decided that the area was to be drained.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had a letter this week from a man who lives in that section-not up that

far north but in the northeastern section of the province-who says that if the people who are writing now had been here in 1882 and 1884 they would have seen the water level about where it is today.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, here is a rural municipality that has arrears of taxes of $210,000. Here is a municipality that has had damage to its roads and bridges this year estimated at $85,000.


Mr. Casileden:: Due to flooding.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, due to flooding. That is a grave problem for the people who live in that municipality. As I said, it is a municipality in an area where Conservative, Liberal and C.C.F. governments agree there is exceptionally good farm land. It was never known that there would be the rainfalls we have had within the last four years. I do not think there are any engineers anywhere who can devise a drainage program-at least they could not have done it 10 years ago-that would have assured them that they would pass through this era without any problems. The Porcupine municipality has arrears of taxes of $123,000; Preeceville, $72,000; Livingston, $49,000; Kelvington, $99,000; Inver-may, $39,000; Clayton, $89,000; Bjorkdale, $109,000.
Those nine municipalities have arrears of taxes totalling $910,000. They have estimated the damage to their roads and bridges this year at $356,000. I submit that the people who have gone into those areas to produce foodstuffs for the nation have no way of controlling the rainfall. They have no way of taking out insurance so they can be sure that whenever they have this excessive rainfall they will have the wherewithal to meet their taxes.
There is a very closely allied problem. The Canadian wheat producer is selling his wheat in world markets at the lowest price being paid to farmers anywhere in the world, with the exception of one very small country that I mentioned when I spoke on this question in the house on May 17. In the April, 1955, issue of the minister's publication, "Agriculture Abroad", there are interesting articles on what is being done in Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, the Soviet union, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. I know the minister will say that in the final analysis farming conditions are better in North America than anywhere else in the world, and that is true. I must say that in all these countries it seems to be admitted that the farmers are getting less than their fair share of the national income.

In the iron curtain countries of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet union one problem is that the farmers are not getting their fair share of the national income. But our main competitors are putting large amounts of public funds into subsidizing the production and sale of cereals, and I submit it is not fair to ask Canadian wheat producers to buy everything they have to buy in a highly protected market, and sell their products in the open market.
France, for example, hopes to raise the farmers' share of the national income by 7 per cent. I wish the minister had said last Friday might that he would do his very best to win the approval of the cabinet for the support of net farm income in Canada. At page 14 of the publication, "Agriculture Abroad", there is the following:
With the inauguration of the new Faure government in France, a number of statements on agricultural policy have recently been made, all of them tending to follow the same lines as those of former governments. In his investiture speech, Mr. Faure promised to raise farm income by 7 per cent during the next year, the same rate of increase as promised for general purchasing power. He also expressed the hope of setting prices for basic crops two years in advance to permit farmers to plan ahead.
The sum of $20 million is being put into the pot to enable French wheat to be sold in other countries in competition with Canadian wheat. How can we expect the Canadian farmer, who is getting a final price of $1.56 a bushel, to be able to ship his wheat to Europe and compete with wheat produced in France having the benefit of such a large subsidy? In the United Kingdom 70 cents a bushel is being paid to wheat producers to encourage the production of wheat. The countries of western Europe have all decided that they want to be more self-sufficient if at all possible, and in Great Britain 70 cents a bushel is being paid by way of subsidy.


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: He says the farmers of
Great Britain are being paid 70 cents. In addition to what?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry I have not
those figures here, but that is approximately the amount of the subsidy the United Kingdom is paying per bushel of wheat. I put those figures on Hansard on the 17th of May.


John Horne Blackmore: Perhaps the hon. member
could give them a little later.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Supply-Agriculture
That reminds me very much of a speech the minister made some years ago when he said that wheat could be produced at 40 cents a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish my hon. friend would finish the story. I said if the farmer had 20 bushels to the acre.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, I am glad to have that added.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was 20 years ago.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, when costs were a good deal less than they are now. But what about this figure of 35 bushels to the acre? Of course many farmers have produced 65 to 70 bushels to the acre. Quite frequently in the Moose Range country a figure of 65 bushels to the acre has been reached, and in that area land has changed hands at $15,000 a quarter within recent years. Everybody agrees it is the best of land, but all our land is not of that quality.
The Searle Grain Company has issued a table giving the average yields as far back as the records go, 1878. In 75 years there have only been 21 years when the average in the prairie provinces was over 20 bushels to the acre. Therefore when a man makes speeches in London and says we can produce 35 bushels to the acre he is talking through his hat. While it can be done on small parcels of land, the average over the years in the prairie provinces is much less than that.
The best year was 1887, when the average was 26-5 bushels. The next best year was 1952, when the average was 26-3 bushels, but from 1934 to 1938 the averages were 11-3, 11-3, 8-1, 6-4 and 13-5. An average of 35 bushels to the acre has never been realized.
Mr. Wilson makes another very strange proposal. First of all he says he can produce wheat at 50 cents a bushel. Then he apparently wants the wheat board out of existence, but at the same time wants the government to guarantee a price of $1.55 a bushel. Well, that certainly makes no sense to me. If he can produce at 50 cents a bushel, why does he want the government to guarantee the farmer a profit of 200 per cent? Wheat cannot be produced at this price if you take into account the farmer's cost of production, his investment in his land and all the other factors that enter into cost.
The minister referred a good deal to the representations of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. While I think cabinet ministers and members of parliament should read these representations and study them carefully, I feel we have to reach our own conclusions. The president of the federation

used a very good quotation in his annual address that I think the cabinet should never forget. He referred to the late Mr. King's radio address back in December, 1943, when Mr. King said:
If to help win the war, the farmers are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to insure them against an agricultural depression after the war. As an essential part of its post-war policy the government intends to ask parliament at the next session to place a floor under the prices of the main farm commodities.
At the next session parliament placed a floor under the prices of main farm commodities. Mention was made of this fact in the speech from the throne closing the session, as follows:
As a further safeguard of a basic standard of living provision was made at the present session for floors under the prices of farm and fish products. These measures insure two great primary industries against the hazard of a collapse of markets or prices after the war.
I believe the general understanding at that time was that legislation would guarantee the farmers and fishermen a fair share of the national income. However, I believe we could substitute for those words the words "parity prices". I believe the simple definition of parity prices is fair prices to the farmer for the products that he produces, so he will have a fair share of the national income. I feel the minister has scientific people in his department who could work that out.
In the brief presented by the federation of agriculture on March 1 certain proposals are put forward in support of their discussion of the dairy industry, which I feel are quite constructive. I believe their suggestions regarding price support should be noted. However, this is where I find myself wedged in between the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Assiniboia in their discussions concerning 100 per cent parity. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture brief states in this regard:
We do not believe it is sound or practical to look to a price support program to guarantee the farmer prices which represent a full fair (or parity) relationship for each individual product. The result of such 100 per cent guarantees, if attempted, would inevitably be a high degree of government direction and control over agriculture. We do not believe farmers wish to submit to such extensive government participation in their business, nor do we believe it is reasonable to ask the government to undertake such a commitment.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot go along with that reasoning. I agree that a parity price for wheat may be considered too high, and one might decide that he did not want to go to parity. But I see no reason why those who speak for farmers should not insist on 100 per cent fair prices for the products of the farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member indicate where in that representation by the federation they stated that?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They say here-


James Garfield Gardiner: I said in my speech that they did not agree with you on that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is the point I am making. The federation of agriculture seems to take it for granted they cannot get a 100 per cent fair deal from this government.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not say that at all. They simply made up a table. In the first place, the speech that has just been quoted from was made in Edmonton last January. Then they sat down in committee and worked out the basis on which these support prices should be established. When they worked it out it was found to be almost identical with the one we had worked out before.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the minister is correct-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am correct.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -there is no reason why the farmers' share of the national income should be down to this very low level. If the prices the minister has worked out in consultation-


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend just takes the table there in the article from which he has been reading he will find that the base prices are as they are now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry but I cannot agree with the federation of agriculture and the minister if they are trying to establish that the prices in Canada for dairy products, for meat products, for cereals and for all agricultural products are giving the farmers a fair share-


James Garfield Gardiner: They have not said that, and that is not what you are discussing. They established what they think the floor ought to be. When they established what they thought the floor ought to be it was found to be about what the floor is. Prices have been above the floor many times and are, in many instances, above the floor right now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If I may read this again:
We do not believe it Is sound or practical to look to a price support program to guarantee the farmer prices which represent a full fair (or parity) relationship for each individual product.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then they say it should be from 65 to 85 per cent of parity. All our floors as established are between 65 and 85 per cent of their parity and the prices are considerably higher than that in most instances.
Supply-Agriculture


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The point I should like to make is, if you are going to drop some to 65 per cent you must build some up to 135 per cent or 155 per cent. You must see that for some products the farmer gets a price that is a great deal higher than a fair price in relation to the prices the farmer is paying for his machinery, fuel, taxes and other factors that go into farm costs. Unless you see that the farmer gets above parity in some of these cases he has no chance in the world of getting a fair share of the national income. That is the point the hon. member for Assiniboia has been trying to make, that the over-all structure should, in the final analysis, see that the farmer of Canada gets his fair share of the national income and nothing less.
I cannot see the suggestion that the taxpayers of Canada might share the point of view of the hon. member for Vancouver South that farmers are unreasonable in asking for a wheat board and asking for support prices for Canadian products, when these other countries competing with us in the markets of the world are subsidizing their products to the extent I have mentioned.
My time is running out, but I have had several interruptions from the minister, so I shall conclude shortly. Before I conclude I want to say a word about the international responsibility we should face. I feel the objective of Canadian agriculture should be to produce maximum quantities of food in Canada, for the use of the Canadian people and to be made available to our customers who can buy it, as well as those in other countries who cannot buy it. I feel that the farmers of Canada should not have to pay the price of give-away wheat.
The hon. member for Assiniboia enumerated a 25-point program some little time ago. I should like to emphasize 10 points that we might remember a little more easily than 25. They are in line with what he said.
1.	We should have maximum production of food for use at home and abroad at parity prices.
2.	We should establish a national marketing board for all agricultural products.
3.	We should establish a board of livestock commissioners.
4.	We should support the continuation of the international wheat agreement and the establishment of other international commodity agreements.
5.	Canada should participate in an international food pool to distribute food to hungry people.
6.	We should change the P.F.R.A. to the C.F.R.A.-the Canadian farm rehabilitation act.

Supply-Agriculture
7.	There should be an increase in payments under P.F.A.A. to provide for depreciation in value of the dollar since the act was passed.
8.	We should provide a free school lunch program in co-operation with the provinces, to dispose of surplus bread and dairy products.
9.	There should be federal assistance for the building of storage space and the storing of surplus foods on farms; and,
10.	There should be federal assistance for the maintenance of municipal roads in various parts of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the point I was making a moment ago was that the federation came here with a worked out formula which I called an algebraic formula. That algebraic formula indicated that if we were about half way between the 65 per cent and 85 per cent of parity in setting a floor price for hogs, that price would be 23 and a fraction cents. As a matter of fact it is 23 cents. It was set at 23 cents in January of 1953, and it has been 23 cents all the time since.
But the price of hogs has never been down to 23 cents, basis Toronto, during that period of time. Today it is either 26 or 27 cents. During that time it has been up as high as 38i cents. So when a floor price is set for any particular product you do not say what the price is going to be; you simply say that it cannot get lower than that floor price. If it does, the government will take that product. During that whole period of time we have never had to buy a single hog. Hogs have been above 23 cents all the time. I just wished to make that clear.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, as I have already discussed the subject of floor prices this session I shall not have anything to say on that point at the moment. However, I do wish to discuss another matter that I believe is of major importance not only to the farmers of western Canada but also to those in eastern Canada. I am sure the hon. member for Middlesex East would agree that what I shall say will have application to eastern Canada, though it is true that when I speak I have western Canada in mind.
When the interprovincial farm union council presented their brief to the committee on agriculture they stressed that in their opinion crop insurance was second in importance only to the subject of support prices. Therefore at this time I wish to deal generally with the whole question of crop insurance.
There is no doubt that today in western Canada there is a growing demand for the institution of a system of all-risk crop insurance, which would be put into operation by

the federal government in co-operation with the provinces. It is interesting to note that all western farm organizations, along with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, have urged the government to bring in a scheme of crop insurance, in conjunction with the provincial governments. At the present time hail insurance is the only kind available in western Canada.
I am sure the minister would be the first to admit that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is not crop insurance. I say that because there is no guarantee under that act if a farmer suffers loss he will receive compensation. Payment of compensation depends upon what the situation may be surrounding certain farms. Of course the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been of tremendous value to certain areas in western Canada, and I think no area has benefited more than part of the constituency I represent, so far as the province of Alberta is concerned. In many parts of that area prairie farm assistance has been given practically every year since the act was introduced. On the other hand there are areas in my own constituency, on the gumbo plains, where I doubt if it has ever been paid.
However, you hear this same criticism of the act, both in areas where it is paid almost continuously and in areas where it is rarely if ever paid, that if a farmer is compelled to contribute to a scheme he should be entitled to compensation under it. This is not the case under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In the park belt and on the gumbo plains there are many farmers who rarely have crop failures. When they do have failures it is due to hail or possibly to frost. Drought is almost unknown in those areas.
So we hear farmers, both in areas where it is paid regularly and in those where it is not paid, saying they would be willing to pay a higher levy if in return they had the guarantee that in the event of loss they would receive compensation. In other words, they want a system of all-risk crop insurance instituted.
Last year a number of meetings were held at Drumheller, where the agricultural association discussed the whole question of crop insurance. At that time they brought certain officials from the United States who were familiar with the operation of crop insurance in that country. Those officials were asked to explain the act, and a great deal of interest was shown in their explanation of the way crop insurance has operated in that country. I think the time is long overdue for the institution of a system of crop insurance in Canada.

I am not suggesting that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be changed to a system of crop insurance because, as the minister has said on many occasions, it would probably run into constitutional difficulties. But it seems to me there would be nothing unconstitutional about a voluntary system of crop insurance. Surely we have not got into such a constitutional strait-jacket that if the federal government, in co-operation with some of the provinces, desired to institute crop insurance, we would not be able to find ways and means of doing it. If we could do it in no other way we could do as we have done in connection with marketing; we could have a national crop insurance scheme and then have the provinces pass enabling legislation.
Under a system of crop insurance I suggest the country should be zoned into districts in which coverages and premiums would be adjusted in accordance with crop conditions existing therein over a period of time. Probably it would be necessary to leave certain areas out of the scheme; that is, areas where crop failures are recorded continuously. Those areas could not be brought under a system of crop insurance because the rates within such areas would be prohibitive. They could continue under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
I suggest that if the country were zoned each zone could vote as to whether it should be allowed to continue under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act or should come under a system of crop insurance. Where crop insurance was instituted, P.F.A.A. could be discontinued and the levy no longer collected. Losses could be met by a levy paid on wheat within P.F.A.A. areas, and from the general revenue fund. After all, there is no reason why farmers who live in an area where P.F.A.A. is not paid should have to contribute twice, because if they were not going to be eligible for compensation, then why should they be contributing twice, first by the levy and second by taxation? I suggest in that case losses could be met from the general revenue fund and by levies on the wheat of those within the P.F.A.A. area, and those who went under crop insurance would be paying for their own protection through premiums for crop insurance.
I know some members have argued that crop insurance in Canada is not feasible. Instead of discussing the question on a theoretical basis, I think it is better to discuss it on its past record. We are fortunate in being able to do that, because crop insurance has been in operation in the United States since 1938. I would say the hazards in Canada 50433-278J
Supply-Agriculture
are no greater than they are in the United States, especially when you consider the dust bowls that were created in various parts of that country.
Reference has been made to a study made by the late R. E. Motherwell entitled "A Study of Crop Insurance", published in 1944. I notice that on page 19 he states that it might be said that the experience with allrisk crop insurance in the United States was disappointing. Note that that statement was made in 1944.
Crop insurance in the United States was instituted in 1938, and from that year until 1944 very heavy losses were suffered. During that period there were losses of about $71 million, $7 million being for wheat alone. In 1944 the act was suspended. Therefore in making an analysis of crop insurance in the United States it certainly would not be fair to base it upon the period 1938 to 1944, during which crop insurance was in its infancy and heavy losses were suffered. An interesting point to note is that after 1944 a number of radical changes were made in the act, and during the past six years the act has operated most successfully.
As I say, the act was first instituted in 1938. No private insurance was available in the United States, as in Canada, except hail insurance. During the first year wheat only was insured but in the following year cotton, flax, corn and tobacco were included in the scheme. Insurance could be for 75 or 50 per cent of the average long-term yield. The contracts were for one year only, meaning that the insurance had to be sold every year, increasing the expenses of selling the insurance.
At that time adjustments were in the hands of local committees, and it was found quite often that the local committees were far more interested in paying large indemnities to the farmers than in trying to really assess the actual losses. As I have pointed out, during that period from 1938 to 1944 the losses were $71 million, of which $7 million was for wheat.
I should like to refer to the various changes that were made in 1946 and 1947, and which are applicable today. Now insurance is allowed only up to 75 per cent of the average long-term yield or the actual amount invested in the current crop, whichever is the lesser of the two. Coverage and premium rates are set by areas instead of on an individual basis. Adjustments are of course on an individual basis. A local agent is appointed in each county to sell and service the insurance instead of having it handled by local committees as in the past. The adjusters who

Supply-Agriculture
set the losses are responsible directly to the state authority instead of to the local committee.
Largely as a result of these changes there has been considerable improvement in the over-all position of the insurance corporation, and during the past six years we find that the premiums and indemnities have been virtually in balance. This is in spite of the fact that during the past three years they have had heavy crop losses. In the report to congress in 1953 by the federal crop insurance corporation we find this on page 1:
The 1953 losses were the heaviest of three successive years of serious drought losses under the crop insurance program.
And then at page 5:
The most significant fact revealed by this chart from the standpoint of sound insurance operations is that premiums and indemnities are virtually in balance for this six-year period.
A table shows that during that six-year period the premiums were $106-5 million while the indemnities amounted to $106-6 million. In other words there was only one-tenth of a million dollars lost during that whole six-year period. It is interesting to note that in connection with wheat alone there was actually a profit of $1-3 million, so the losses shown were on crops other than wheat.
Roughly, crop insurance in the United States is put into effect by guaranteeing the farmer a certain amount of production. If his production falls below that amount he is indemnified for the shortage. For instance, if a farmer insures 100 acres at a yield of 10 bushels per acre; if for insurance purposes the price is set at $2 per bushel and then he produces only 400 bushels, the shortage of 600 bushels would be made up to him at $2 per bushel, or a total of $1,200. The first application for insurance must be made before the closing date, which is a short time before planting; but once the first application has been made the insurance continues in force until it is cancelled. After planting the farmer must fill out certain forms and pay the premium, but he may delay paying the premium until his harvest operations.
Considerable interest has been shown in the premium rate for insurance in the United States. Some people are of the opinion that the cost is prohibitive to the farmer, but the actual figures prove the opposite to be true. The premium rate varies considerably across the country, but the average is $75. We find that some large farms paid over $1,000, while small farms would pay $5 or $6. The actual percentage figures are quite interesting. Taking 1953, which was a year of quite

heavy losses, the average premium for all types of insurance bought was 6-2 per cent of the protection afforded. The average premium that actually would have been required if all losses had been met would have been 6-7 per cent of the protection afforded. That is for all crops. On wheat alone, in 1953 the average premium paid was 8-5 per cent of the protection afforded. If all losses had been met in 1953 it would have required a premium of 8-7 per cent of the protection afforded.
It must be remembered that many farmers in the west pay considerably more than that for hail insurance alone. I think hon. members will agree that these are most moderate rates. I am satisfied that under an all-risk system of crop insurance in western Canada the hail insurance rates would be brought down considerably. If you had an insurance scheme applicable to all areas I am satisfied you would get the insurance rate down.
The reason for this is obvious. Those people who insure against damage by hail are chiefly those who feel they might suffer losses from hail. Then, farmers hesitate to insure against hail because they know if they have a crop failure from other causes than hail they are not going to be able to pay their hail insurance premium in the fall. I am sure if there were a system of insurance covering all hazards you would have a wide coverage in western Canada and your rates would be similar to those in force in the United States.
The federal crop insurance corporation is an agency of the United States department of agriculture, with a capital stock of $100 million in the form of a revolving fund. That $100 million is subscribed by the federal government. It covers all hazards except theft, neglect and poor prices. Insurance is not written unless there are 200 applications within a county, or unless 30 per cent of the total number of farmers in the county make application for it. Insurance is on a voluntary basis. Premiums are required to be set at a level that it is believed will be adequate to cover losses that may occur.
Insurance is not available in all counties. In counties where the hazard is very great, insurance is not written and the farmers there have to depend upon some form of relief measure. In Canada, of course, areas like that would continue to be covered by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In most counties insurance is written only for one type of crop. On the other hand, there are cases where two crops have been insured under a form of insurance known as multiple insurance.

It is interesting to note that insurance covers the majority of the heavy wheat producing areas in the United States. In 1954, some 803 counties were insured out of a total of 3,000; that is, more than a third of a million farmers were insured. Wheat is the main crop that is insured.
Some may ask the reason there are not more farmers under crop insurance in the United States. The answer is that crop insurance in the United States is still on an experimental basis, and therefore the government are not willing to allow all counties to insure. But the area is being steadily extended. I should like to quote from the report by the federal crop insurance corporation on that question. This is found on page 22 of their directive, referring to the period after 1944:
As a result of the new legislation and other changes made in the insurance and its operation the financial experience improved greatly on wheat and the experience on flax, tobacco and corn was quite satisfactory. However, large losses occurred on cotton insurance in 1945 and 1946, primarily as a result of droughts in the southwest. By the end of 1946, over three-fourths of the original capital of $100 million had been lost. However, a profit of about $8-5 million was made in 1947 recovering part of these losses, but not before the congress had reviewed the operations in the light of the 1945 and 1946 experience and had decided to reduce the program to more of an experimental basis. Insurance was authorized in only a limited number of counties. There were 200 wheat counties and 56 cotton counties and a smaller number of counties for the other crops. Provision was made that insurance should not exceed generally the investment in the crop in the area. While the number of counties was restricted, the congress indicated that this experimental period should be used to develop insurance for other types of crops so that when the insurance was offered again in some of these counties, it could be offered not necessarily on wheat or cotton but on the crops that provided the major source of income for the farmers there. Since then insurance has been started on beans and citrus fruits and with the multiple crop insurance started in 1948, insurance has been applied to many different crops . . .
The insurance experience since 1948 has been more satisfactory. Insurance operations since that time might be considered as more intensive rather than extensive operations. Congress on several occasions has reviewed the program and has authorized gradual expansion of the number of counties where insurance is offered.
It points out that it was brought down for a short time to 200 counties; that was all the counties where the corporation was allowed to write the insurance. That has now been expanded to 803 counties, and there is every indication they will be able to continue to expand the operation of the insurance. When we say that, comparatively speaking, there is not a large percentage of the farms in the United States insured, I would point out that it is largely as a result of the insurance corporation keeping its operations down rather than the farmers refusing to insure under it.
Supply-Agriculture
The report shows quite conclusively that all-risk crop insurance can be provided at a reasonable cost so long as you exclude the submarginal, heavy risk areas. Those areas have to come under some form of relief measure, and in Canada they could continue to come under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I would suggest that any attempt to bring some of these submarginal areas into a crop insurance scheme would break that insurance program. I am convinced that allrisk crop insurance could operate in Canada, but it will have to be underwritten by the federal government in the same way crop insurance is underwritten by the federal government in the United States. It is interesting to note that the late Mr. R. E. Motherwell, in the study he made of crop insurance in 1944, came to the same conclusion. On page 35 he states:
Since the three prairie provinces are so closely associated in agricultural production, any attempt at crop insurance could best be handled by federal administration affecting the area now affected by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Admittedly, insurance is not a federal matter but this problem clearly seems one requiring a broader scope than just one province.
The part played by crop insurance in the United States has been important. I believe it could play just as important a part in this country. I should like to quote from the federal crop insurance corporation's report to congress in 1953, upon the effect the system has had upon the general economy of the country. I quote from page 1:
The service to individual farmers and the nation that a soundly operated crop insurance program can provide is strongly emphasized by crop disasters such as resulted from the widespread 1953 drought. This program utilizes established business principles of insurance to enable farmers to do for themselves what otherwise requires emergency assistance from the government. The value of this service is not measured solely by the indemnities paid. Crop insurance policies provide security for crop loans which often cannot otherwise be obtained from private sources. Moreover, the protection provided by crop insurance is not limited to the insured farmer but extends through him to the community in which he lives and the channels of trade through which his crop or indemnity dollars pass. The need for such insurance has increased in recent years as the operating capital required for successful farming has increased. There is still much improvement to be made in all-risk crop insurance before it can attain the goal of providing all farmers the opportunity to insure the money spent on crop production against loss from causes beyond their control. The attainment of such a goal will require the development of crop insurance protection on additional crops and in areas where the program is not currently operating.
Those remarks could apply to Canada just as well as they apply to the United States. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would say they apply equally as well to the operation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and I would agree with him; but on the other

Supply-Agriculture
hand the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was never intended to provide crop insurance on a wide scale, nor can it do so.
In view of the high cost involved in producing crops, there is a need today for crop insurance that will make it possible for the farmer to insure the money he has invested in the production of the current crop. At the present time unemployment insurance gives stability to labour. Crop insurance would be able to give a great deal of stability to the farmer. The government contributes to unemployment insurance, and there is no reason why the government should not be prepared to at least underwrite a system of crop insurance. It might mean that in many years they would not have to make any contribution at all. It would merely mean setting up a revolving fund which could be used in case of catastrophe.
There are minimum wages to protect labour. Support prices in the same way should protect agriculture. I would suggest that with adequate support prices and a system of crop insurance we could stabilize farm income; and if you stabilize the farm income you will be helping to stabilize the whole Canadian economy.


Mr. Weir:: Mr. Chairman, as whip of the party I am perhaps not supposed to make speeches. Possibly this would be particularly so with respect to the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. I am supposed to be something like the small boy, to be seen but not heard. However, there is a matter that I think is of sufficient importance to the members of the House of Commons and to the country that they should know more about it, and I am taking advantage of this opportunity, on the minister's estimates, to speak of it. I think I am justified in doing so because it involves agricultural policies and, as well, certain features in the estimates of the minister's own department.
I refer at this time to the serious flooding conditions now existing along the Assini-boine river east of the city of Portage la Prairie and affecting farm lands in the municipality of Portage la Prairie, Cartier, St. Francois Xavier and Macdonald. At the present time there are well over two townships of land completely inundated and which will not be seeded this year. In addition the village of Elie is also in danger of being flooded.
This is the second flood in part of this area this year. The first was caused by an ice jam during the spring breakup. It forced the evacuation of about 300 families in the middle of the night on the south side of the city of Portage la Prairie, as well as endangering the R.C.A.F. station south of the city. The second

flood is of a much more serious character and, of course, of much longer duration. This second flood now under way is due to a heavy rainstorm in the upper reaches of the Assini-boine river and the Qu'Appelle valley in the province of Saskatchewan. Apart from the ice jam which occurred earlier, there would have been no serious flooding along the Assiniboine river this year had it not been for this critical storm in the province of Saskatchewan.
I made a trip to my constituency to view the flood and damage caused by the ice jam during the Easter recess. During the beginning of this week, along with the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for St. Boniface, I spent the greater part of three days looking over what is now taking place.
The Assiniboine river drains an area of nearly 60,000 square miles, which includes a large part of eastern Saskatchewan and all of western and northern Manitoba and includes the run-offs of the Duck mountain, the Riding mountain and the Nut mountain. Its main tributaries are the Souris river, the Qu'Appelle river and the .Minnedosa river. All the water from this area must flow down the Assiniboine river and meet the Red river at the city of Winnipeg. Should those two rivers meet in full flow it could be an extremely serious matter to the city of Winnipeg.
I should like to indicate for a moment just what I saw on this last visit. I saw thousands and thousands of sandbags. I saw volunteers placing those sandbags in an attempt to save the dikes and prevent a break-through. I saw bridge planks and timbers packed in weak places. I saw as well the army taking its part in attempting to protect the dikes and prevent any additional flooding. Perhaps I can describe it best by saying that the Assiniboine river, in full flow, was carrying
20.000	cubic feet of water per second. There was a break-through on the south side about
1.000	feet in width. Through that breakthrough, at its full flow, one-quarter of the river was passing, going down to the south and east over those high-class farm lands in that area.
That is the picture we saw out there. Just how those men have been able to do the amount of work that has been done on those dikes in order to try to protect them is something I do not know. I am surprised that we did not hear of more people suffering heart attacks, exhaustion or something of that nature. That tremendous job was done, and it was done mostly on a voluntary basis.
I should like to say a word or two about the history of this river. It has been classed

as a navigable stream, and it is also an interprovincial stream. Until now, so far as any protective works along it are concerned, that has been considered a federal responsibility. Flooding has not been uncommon on this river. As a matter of fact, as far back as 1916 efforts were made to provide a certain amount of protective work against flooding. It was then done under the department of the interior, and for a while under the federal Department of Public Works. The records show that some $300,000 was spent on protective works in the lower reaches of this river between 1923 and 1950. Since that time I have persuaded the Minister of Agriculture to take this river under the jurisdiction of his department, and the repair work since then has been done under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Since that time about $55,000 a year has been expended on protective works.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did it take your persuasion to get him to act?


William Gilbert Weir: No, he was very glad to do so in that he looked upon it as a reclamation job that the prairie farm rehabilitation organization was well able to undertake. I need not tell my friends from Manitoba that in its lower reaches this river is about as crooked as anything one can imagine; that the soil is of an alluvial character which erodes very easily, and as a consequence, because of these crooks in the river, there is continual erosion leaving it open to overflowing its banks at any low places. That is the problem that has so far been faced in an attempt to prevent the river from overflowing its banks.
May I say also that major floods have been reported on this river in the past. I am told that the most serious floods in the recollection of the present generation occurred back in 1922 and 1923. But I know, as do others who settled there, that there has been serious flooding in the interval. As a matter of fact, in recent times a flood or the danger of a flood has occurred about every second or third year. The problem has therefore become one of major concern. I repeat that this affects the best land in Canada, namely, the lower reaches of the Portage plain. The matter of water control in our province is a critical one in that we are perhaps the lower part of the run-off region from such a large area both to the south and to the west. It is one of the problems that our province has continually been facing. Steps have been taken to try to effect a remedy, but I am afraid something more will have to be done.
Supply-Agriculture
Hon. members will recall the flood of 1950 at Winnipeg. Immediately thereafter a survey commission was set up to see if they could establish some means of protecting this flooded area. The report of the commission was published in 1952 and is known as the conservation and flood control report on the Assiniboine river. I commend the reading of the report to hon. members. It is one of the most readable, practical and scientific reports I have had the experience of reading and is most understandable from a layman's point of view at least. I am going to take the liberty this afternoon, for the benefit of those outside the province of Manitoba who may not be too familiar with the circumstances in our province, of referring to certain parts of the report. First of all I refer to a paragraph on the introductory page which is in the following words:
The following study of the Assiniboine basin problems has been preceded over the past 60 years by various other studies carried out by different agencies. During 1886 an examination of the Assiniboine river was made by the Department of Public Works of Canada with a view to ascertaining the cause of annual floods. As far back as 1920, a scheme was evolved whereby a canal was to be dug from the Assiniboine river somewhere near Portage la Prairie to lake Manitoba. After the floods of 1922 and 1923, the federal departments of public works and of interior undertook various investigations. Their reports concluded that control of floods was possible only by a combination of detaining a portion of the flood waters in the upper reaches of the river and the construction of dikes. The only construction carried out, however, was the building of dikes between Portage and Winnipeg.
I also wish to refer to another part of the introductory section of the report and read a paragraph at page 7 having something to do with the creation of the problem that now exists. It reads:
At the end of the glacial period the topography of the Assiniboine basin was very similar to what it is at the present time, but the water conditions were entirely different. The receding glaciers released tremendous quantities of water, and at the same time blocking off the drainage to the north. A glacial lake stood at the foot of the ice fields extending southward until it found an outlet along the present course of the Minnesota river, thus draining off into the Mississippi basin. The Saskatchewan river was forced by the ice barrier to overflow at the Elbow into the Qu'Appelle valley. Thence the river took its course east, entering the Assiniboine river at the present site of Lazare. From there on the combined flow of the Saskatchewan, the Qu'Appelle and the Assiniboine rivers eroded a very wide and deep valley down to the glacial lake Agassiz.
I simply refer to that as indicating part of the early history of the developments that have taken place with respect to the entire drainage basin of the Assiniboine river. I want to refer now to a section having to do

Supply-Agriculture
with the conclusions in the introductory part of the report. This is what it says, as found at page 17:
Most of the flood water of the Assiniboine river tends to come from the Riding mountain, Duck mountain and Nut mountain, as shown on figure 1. This part of the drainage basin is roughly 25 per cent of the total area of 59,000 square miles. There are no exceptionally high floods in the Assiniboine valley on record since 1900. The information about the extreme flood of 1882 is vague. From a statistical point of view it can be expected that flood peaks about twice as large as the ones of 1922 or 1923 will occur within a hundred year period.
I might say that in more recent times, perhaps owing to the removal of bush and the extension of drainage, flood possibilities have become much greater. That leads me to say something about what is the main purpose of my remarks this afternoon, having to do with the flooding conditions of the Assiniboine river. X should outline to the committee what the policy has been up to now. I said a while ago that this was looked upon as a navigable stream under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The policy that has been followed has been an effort to protect that area most subject to flooding by dikes along the lower places and by straightening out bends in the river by cutting through the crooks. It has not been entirely satisfactory but it has provided a large measure of control. No other step of a practical nature was seriously suggested until the report of this commission was submitted two years ago. I have heard others talk about other possibilities of providing protection, but from the engineering standpoint none of the suggestions has met with engineering approval. The report of the flood control commission that examined the whole problem, and to which I have referred, suggested three ways of providing protection. One was the building of a large storage reservoir at Russell. The second was to build a cut-off from the Assiniboine river, in the neighbourhood of Portage la Prairie, to lake Manitoba. The third was to continue the diking program on a much extended scale. There was also some consideration given to the possibilities of a further diversion near the vicinity of the city of Winnipeg.
No matter which one of these undertakings is considered each one of them is a costly undertaking, so costly that I doubt very much if it would be undertaken at the local level at all. So far as the cut-off to lake Manitoba is concerned, that would go through some of the most valuable land in the province of Manitoba. It would have to pass through a highway and two or three railway tracks. Having regard to the fact that lake Manitoba itself is about 3-5 feet above

normal level, this project could hardly be entertained at this time unless there was some assurance that the level of lake Manitoba could be lowered in order to protect those who live along its shore line.
This brings me to the point where I have come to the conclusion, after living with this problem for 20 years, that a start should be made on providing for protective works upstream. As I review this report I believe the logical location for such a protective undertaking would be at Russell in Manitoba. This, too, is a very large undertaking but I do not believe we can neglect the fact that something of a permanent character should be undertaken. I am prepared to admit that even the building of a dam at an estimated cost two years ago of $6 million is not a guarantee of complete protection against flooding in the lower reaches of the Assiniboine river. But I do submit it would provide a measure of protection in most years of flooding, and on that ground I feel it should be given serious consideration.
The reservoir that would be built up behind this dam would, I might say, be largely in Saskatchewan and only partly in Manitoba. When the proposed dam is in place, it is estimated, the reservoir of water will stretch back into Saskatchewan for 50 miles and will be from one mile to two miles wide. It will contain about 450,000 acre feet of water.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is that 50 miles from Russell or 50 miles into Saskatchewan?


William Gilbert Weir: It is 50 miles from Russell. The drainage area is estimated to be 7,600 square miles. According to this report the engineers have designed a reservoir which, at flood level, would contain approximately 600,000 acre feet of water. With the spillway operating and a normal water level, it would be
450.000	acre feet. The amount of water estimated to be ordinarily in storage is
350.000	acre feet. The surface area at flood level would be about 22,000 acres.
This is a major undertaking, and I am not suggesting to the minister it could be undertaken in his ordinary prairie farm rehabilitation estimates alone. It should be looked upon as a major project of interest to practically all of the northern half of Manitoba, and particularly the Assiniboine river valley. This proposition will have the advantage of protecting the city of Brandon, the city of Portage la Prairie and the R.C.A.F. station located there, as well as the flooded lands lower down against most of the flood conditions that have arisen in recent years. That is one feature of it. In addition to that the holding back of the water, and allowing it out gradually during the summer, would

also be of particular advantage to places like Brandon and Portage la Prairie for their water and sewage projects. I might add that now that the two airports at Portage la Prairie are going to be tied in with the city's water supply, it is of considerable interest to them as well.
I am suggesting this afternoon that while this is a costly undertaking, it is nonetheless a means of making a start in relieving the flood condition that recurs with all too great frequency on the Assiniboine river. I am not unmindful of what is involved in this undertaking. I go farther and say to the house that one of the problems today is not the cost of building the dam itself but the cost of removing or changing the location of existing public utilities and things of that nature. According to the engineers' report the actual cost of the dam is not too unreasonable, but the project involves as well the moving of a railway, the raising of three roads, the building of several bridges and the purchase of the land.
Now, that may seem like a big undertaking; but, having regard to the land that is flooded in the lower reaches and knocked out of production, I think something of this nature has to be considered. It may well be that the cost feature of it will shock some people. However, according to this report the cost, as compared to similar undertakings in the United States, is not unreasonable. The per acre cost of this undertaking is estimated at $15 per acre foot of water. The average weighted cost of 168 flood control projects in the United States according to this report, based on the 1952 price index, is estimated to be $60 per acre foot of water storage. On that basis, by comparison with other undertakings that have been proceeded with, the cost of this project is not excessive.
This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I am urging the construction of this dam at Russell. I believe it would be beneficial, particularly in dry periods, in retaining a supply of water in the upper reaches of the river in Saskatchewan. It will provide also a large measure of control against flooding and will supply a more normal flow of water during low water periods on the Assiniboine river, all the way from the dam to the city of Winnipeg, helping the water supplies of those places along the way.
It of course takes time for undertakings of this nature to be accepted. I know that there will be a good deal of concern expressed by people in the area that is likely to be flooded, if this project is proceeded with. However, I am happy to say that there is an organization known as the Assiniboine river
Supply-Agriculture
control organization set up to press this particular matter of the flooding of the Assiniboine river. It has held two or three meetings. I have before me a report of the discussions that took place at their last annual meeting held only a few weeks ago. I might say that this meeting was representative of the reeves and councillors of most of the municipalities along the Assiniboine. I find in reading the report a very general recognition of the problem and an indication of willingness to co-operate, provided of course that those whose properties might be taken over or subject to damage would be compensated. That is the general tenor of the report. I was going to read certain sections of it, but I do not think I need to do so, more than to quote one or two observations:
Mr. Lacroix of Cartier municipality said this:
"I believe we need the dam, but we do need some dikes as well and some straightening of the river, in order that dikes will be of some permanent use. Some farmers have donated as much as 30 to 40 acres for diking purposes."
That brings me to another point in connection with the Assiniboine river. The department has been doing the work of diking and straightening the river, and providing money for that purpose; but the land has been provided either by the farmers or by the municipalities. In some cases this land has not been forthcoming; and in certain places where dikes should have been built the farmers were not prepared to give the land, or even to sell it, to the municipality.
I am suggesting to the minister therefore that, having regard to the vote already in the estimates, consideration should be given to exercising expropriation proceedings or something of that nature to acquire this land for the dikes and cut-offs, and pay for it out of this vote, so that a logical and more reasonable process of diking and straightening the river could be undertaken. That has appealed to me as reasonable; and I think the farmers in the area have donated about all the land they can be expected to donate.
I was going to make one reference to the flood, and at this point I should like to hand two pictures to the minister. The first I would hand him is a picture showing the flooding of the Assiniboine river where it crosses the highway between Elie and Oakville. The second picture is one of the places I saw myself. It is at the break where the Assiniboine broke through the dikes and is now going across country. I said that a quarter of the river was going through this break. However, that amount is lessening at the moment, and the last information I had was

Supply-A griculture
that the flow was down to about 1,000 cubic feet per second. Men were starting out to plug that hole. I would give a picture of this to the minister, as an indication of the location of the break, as well as its extent. The land below that point is flooded.
My reference now will be to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which admittedly has not been too popular in Manitoba. There have been many complaints about its application, on the ground that it does not meet our circumstances as satisfactorily as some feel it should. The hon. member for Acadia has just referred to crop insurance. Well, we do not have a scheme of crop insurance in operation up to now; but in this area, in the coming summer, the land will be flooded and no crop will be seeded. As a consequence there will be no basis upon which to establish the seeded acreage as a basis for prairie farm assistance. The area will be large; certainly in Manitoba it will be more than two townships.
I am wondering if the minister would entertain or could work out some amendment or some change in the application of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act whereby, in large flooded areas such as we have in Manitoba, these flooded areas could be made eligible for prairie farm assistance payments. Their circumstances are certainly as critical as those who are in the dried out areas; yet, because of the application of the act, they cannot qualify technically for assistance because they are unable to seed. I am suggesting therefore that, with these abnormal conditions developing, perhaps a measure of relief could be provided under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, whereby large areas- townships or half townships-might be included as those entitled to assistance under the act.
I know I have talked on only one subject, but I did so because it is of special interest to Manitoba, including Winnipeg; and naturally it is of particular interest to my own constituency. I think my suggestion, that of building a reservoir at Russell, Manitoba, is a sound one, and I hope that it will be entertained favourably. It would be of advantage not only as a conservation project but also to prevent flooding. It would at the same time provide an added supply of water to places at points lower downstream during periods of dry weather.
I submit this in all earnestness as a first practical and reasonable approach to the flooding conditions in the Assiniboine river.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, if I might speak for a moment-and I will not be more than that-I would point out that, of course,

the report referred to, which I have here, is one which was issued as the result of an investigation we ordered some time ago. That is, it had to be agreed to and ordered by myself as minister. It has been carried out by P.F.R.A. engineers. The matter has been under consideration, and will continue to be under consideration.
I am not in a position at the moment to say whether it will be proceeded with. The very amount which is involved indicates that it could not be proceeded with under the votes we have had for P.F.R.A. If it were going to be considered at all it would have to be considered under what have been known generally as a vote for large projects, to which my hon. friend refers.
So far as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is concerned, let me say that we have been giving consideration to possible amendments. There are difficulties in connection with amending P.F.A.A. to take care of some of the difficulties the farmers have. Nevertheless we have been looking at it and attempting to work out something which would be satisfactory, and we will continue to do so.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being five
o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There being no business under public and private bills, the house will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

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



[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services), $496,998.
Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Chairman, most hon. members who have spoken so far in this debate have suggested that the minister should spend more money for one purpose or another. I am going to suggest that he should spend less on one item. I wish to comment briefly this afternoon on the Canadian butter situation. I realize quite well that probably few members will agree with my views, but one of the advantages of sitting in the independent corner, sir, is that I embarrass no one but myself.
I am going to maintain this afternoon that the government's present butter policy is shortsighted and economically unwise. Not only is this policy costing the taxpayers several millions of dollars; 1 submit it is also resulting in thousands and thousands of Canadians, who otherwise would be eating butter,

switching to margarine and similar substitutes. As a result, the butter industry today is in a serious predicament. The government has set the floor price at an unrealistic level if butter is to compete with substitutes.
There has been a steady piling up of storage butter over the past several years. According to figures which I obtained from the minister's department, on May 1, 1952, the government had in storage approximately 17 million pounds of butter; on May 1, 1953, this surplus had increased to approximately 27 million pounds; on May 1, 1954, the amount on hand was 33 million pounds; and as at May 1 of this year the figure had reached the record high of over 50 million pounds.
Butter is a perishable product and if you keep it on hand too long it is likely to go bad. That is precisely what I fear may happen, if our surplus continues to increase. If this butter should go bad, then the taxpayers will be given a bill for additional millions of dollars. In view of this fact, it seems to me that parliament should re-examine our whole floor price policy in connection with butter which the government inaugurated a short time ago.
I realize that the minister has been concerned about the problem. In an effort to do something about it, last February he introduced a program of selling butter to hospitals, orphanages, et cetera, at a discount of about 21 cents per pound. After four months of trial, it is pretty obvious that this scheme has not been too successful, because according to a return tabled in the house, page 3656 of Hansard of May 11, only 932,523 pounds had been sold up to May 6. That would indicate to me that this scheme has not been too successful. Month after month our butter surplus continues to increase. Probably a great part of this butter sold to institutions would have been sold anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to put the latest figure on the record, as of May 27 the figure was 1,299,611 pounds, which I agree is not as high as I had hoped it would be.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is a slight improvement, but when you compare it with the total amount of butter in storage it is pretty small. Last week the minister announced another step in an effort to get rid of some of our butter surplus. He said that the government would sell storage butter at 56 cents a pound. Of course this means that the taxpayer will have to absorb the difference. I do not think that this step will solve the problem any more than the first effort.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: This is just a repetition of
what we did last year and the year before for a period at the beginning and it will be cut off some time later.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I agree, and that is why I
say that such action is not going to be any more successful this year than it was in 1954 in disposing of our surplus. I do not need to tell the minister that the surplus at the end of the period during which this step was in effect was infinitely greater than it was at the beginning.
It seems to me that if we are going to get rid of our butter surplus, some additional step will have to be taken. I may be alone in the house in taking such an attitude, but I think that the basic trouble with our butter policy at the moment is that the 58 cent floor price is too high. It is too high for the good of the consumer, it is too high for the good of the taxpayer, and it is too high for the good of the producer.


An hon. Member:: You are sure alone.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I know that originally the
58 cent floor price was introduced by the government in good faith, in an effort to help the producer, and in an effort to stabilize the dairy industry. Yet I contend that the legislation is having the opposite effect. As I stated a moment ago, about all that this subsidy has done is to force thousands and thousands of Canadians, who otherwise would probably be eating butter, into eating margarine and similar substitutes.
The statistics will bear out that fact and I should like to quote some from the dominion bureau of statistics. These show that in 1953 the per capita consumption of butter was 20-88 pounds, while in 1954 it had dropped to 20-69 pounds. In the same period the per capita consumption of margarine jumped from 7-45 pounds in 1953 to 7-61 pounds in 1954. As I see it, the Canadian butter producer is gradually losing his share of the Canadian market because of this artificial floor price.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Would the hon. member put on the record the cost of producing this butter?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I must tell the hon. member for Moose Mountain that I cannot put that cost on the record, but I could find it very easily, as could he. I will be ready to help him look it up later on if he wishes to.
What about the export market for butter? The export market for Canadian butter has completely disappeared. The reason is fairly obvious. It has disappeared because the world market price is about one-third lower

Supply-Agriculture
than the Canadian price. For instance, New Zealand today is laying down butter in Great Britain at under 40 cents a pound. Now, if the minister or the government should decide to try to get rid of our surplus butter by exporting it, the taxpayer is going to be called on for a very huge subsidy. If we sold 50 million or 60 million pounds at a competitive world price in the export market to dispose of our surplus, it might cost the taxpayer anywhere from $10 million up.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say this in order not to scare the taxpayer too much. There is no possibility of selling 50 million or 60 million pounds of butter out of Canada without running our own people short.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I should like to tell the minister that sooner or later he is going to have to take some action to get rid of his surplus butter. He does not want it to spoil on his hands. Each month that goes by, the surplus is getting larger as compared with the same period a year ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, I should like to say that the hon. gentleman was just criticizing the method by which that has been done for the last two years. We know that, if we were still holding 1953 butter, it might go bad, but we do not have any. We sold our older butter at 56 cents and got new butter in to replace it. That is the plan, under which we do know butter could not be spoiled.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wish to sum up the present situation as I see it, rightly or wrongly. The Canadian butter producer has lost his export markets. Each month that goes by, he is being squeezed out of the domestic market. What should be done? The present government program has been costly to the taxpayer. I would not object to that, if it were actually helping the producer but, as I say, I am convinced that it has not. I think that both the government and the dairy industry must face certain hard, harsh economic facts. If the producer wishes to regain his share of the Canadian market, he is going to have to bring his prices down to a competitive level. I cannot see any other way around it. I believe in reasonable floor prices for agricultural products-but note that I say "reasonable". As far as butter is concerned, there is a complicating factor because of the substitutes which exist. The only way that this government can eventually deal with our mounting surpluses is to reduce floor prices by four or five cents a pound, to a point where they will be more competitive with margarine. I would remind 
you, Mr. Chairman, and the house, that a year ago President Eisenhower took precisely such action in the United States. He reduced the floor price of butter by a few cents, and immediately consumption increased by 7 per cent. So I say to you that this parliament should give serious consideration to revising our floor price structure on butter. I would say, by all means keep a floor price, but make that floor price more realistic.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on the minister's estimates, I wish to bring up again a subject I have brought up already. It is the most important subject in my constituency, as far as agriculture is concerned.
The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa has made it much easier for me because he has dealt with the flood situation in his constituency. I know what his problem is, because part of his constituency used to be mine. Now I have a worse situation than I ever had before, because we do not have good roads by means of which we can build dikes. The two lakes that enclose the interlake country are 4-7 feet above normal, and everything is flooded. Take the Fisher Branch, Broad Valley, Eriksdale, Riverton, and the St. Martin districts. There is just one lake running into another. The people in these districts had Selkirk wheat to sow, but they have given up the hope now because it is too late to sow it, and they will not be able to sow any crop. It is to be hoped that in July they may get some grain feed in.
The minister knows my problem because I have talked it over with him at different times, and I am hopeful he will be able to do something for these farmers. I do not know what the solution is. I do not know how much money the government can spend on it, but certainly something will have to be done to keep these people alive, so that we do not lose them. They had practically no crop last year, and they have not been able to sow anything this year. I tried to make some calls there at Eastertime, and I had to be pulled out with a tractor four times on the main road. With conditions like that, it is so hard to know what to do. The hay lines are flooded with water. The cows are going along picking branches and they are getting sore feet from walking through the water. Some of the people have put away their herds and have just kept some foundation. I do not know whether the suggestion made by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa would help, that we might take flooded areas into consideration, as the P.F.A.A. only applies to crop land at the present time, or to crop that has been destroyed. It would help some. I do not. know why the provincial government in

Manitoba has not made a survey and got in touch with the federal government on this matter, because it is so serious. I know that the minister is doing some work in conjunction with the provincial government, but I believe it is going to extend over five years. This is something that needs immediate attention. I can go on repeating myself about the terrible conditions of the people in the interlake country, but I do not know that it would do any good. I have made representations to the minister and I have brought it to the attention of other people. Relief of some kind will have to be given to these people. They cannot just lift up and go away. Some of the men folk may go away, but it is hard for these men folk to get jobs in the city of Winnipeg; jobs are not too plentiful there.
The hon. member for Acadia talked about crop insurance. That is all right, but even crop insurance at this time would not help the people in the interlake area. The Minister of Agriculture should have a survey made to see the deplorable conditions these people are in and see if something could be done for them. I could elaborate on this and tell you stories and read letters from the district, but I want you to take my word for it that there is nothing political about this. It would not matter who was representing the constituency of Selkirk; they would run up against the same problem. I appeal to the government most urgently to try to do something for these poor people. Some of them certainly can get by, but a big percentage of them will not be able to get through. I appeal to the minister and ask him to appeal in turn to the treasury benches to try to do something for these poor folks.


Mr. Charlton:: Mr. Chairman, on the first item of the department it is usual to have a general discussion on agricultural problems. This afternoon we have heard a considerable amount about flood conditions in Manitoba and we sympathize with the people affected. I first want to congratulate the hon. member for Middlesex East on his speech last night. If he considered that he was pinch-hitting for anyone, may I say that I am sure he did not need to apologize; he scored many hits.
I want to say a word with regard to this flooding situation. I want to reiterate what the hon. member for Middlesex East said last night, namely that we have never in any way criticized any of the grants or assistance given to the western farmer such as that under P.F.R.A. or P.F.A.A. But in the case of Ontario last fall as the result of "Hurricane Hazel" our losses were simply terrific. Millions and millions of dollars were lost in crops
Supply-Agriculture
that were never harvested. Corn along the Grand river that could not be harvested was a complete loss. Yet those farmers did not receive one nickel for that loss. It is true that the vegetable growers received some remuneration through the Hurricane Hazel relief fund which was mainly taken up by a collection of people in Ontario who realized the seriousness of the situation and gave freely of their own funds to help those people out. Certainly we received a grant from the dominion government of $1 million but that was probably about one-tenth of the loss that was sustained and for which moneys were paid out.


John Horne Blackmore: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I am quite interested in this matter. I was interested in that whole "Hurricane Hazel" matter. I wonder whether the Ontario people asked for more than the $1 million. Did they ask for a considerable sum and find it refused?


John Alpheus Charlton: All the Ontario people asked for was a fair and reasonable amount of money to be given to them in this case of a national disaster.


John Horne Blackmore: Who decided on the $1 million?


John Alpheus Charlton: The dominion government decided on it, apparently. This government here decided on that amount to be given to those people. But the damage was not only the result of "Hurricane Hazel"; it was the result of flooding caused by the extreme amount of rainfall which amounted in some districts to eight inches or nine inches over a period of 24 hours.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to say something about the planning of the debates in this House of Commons in relation to the sittings of the committee on agriculture and colonization. Here we are this afternoon debating the estimates of the Department of Agriculture-


William Gilbert Weir: Where were you yesterday?


John Alpheus Charlton: I would ask the hon. member where he is leaving for tonight that he had to be in such a rush getting his speech off. I will tell you where I was yesterday. I was attending a farmers' picnic in Haldi-mand county at which the lieutenant governor of the province of Ontario was a guest of honour and guest speaker. It was my honour and privilege to be in attendance at that picnic and to show my respect for the lieutenant governor of Ontario. Are there any other questions?

Supply-Agriculture


William Gilbert Weir: Do not complain about not being here when the agricultural estimates are under discussion.


John Alpheus Charlton: The agriculture estimates
were not under consideration yesterday. I am complaining about discussion of the agriculture estimates being held at the same time as the meetings of the committee on agriculture. I have complained about that matter several times but apparently it does not seem to do a particle of good. As I have said previously in the House of Commons and in the committee, the bill that was standing on the order paper from January 11 was called in the house on the very first day that the meeting of the committee on agriculture was called. That is just a sample of the planning of the business of this House of Commons that is carried on by this government.


James Garfield Gardiner: On two previous occasions I tried to answer that complaint and my hon. friend interrupted me in the middle of it, with the result that I did not get back to it. I do not know why he rises now and states it all over again. It has no relationship to these estimates. The Department of Agriculture has not referred anything to the committee on agriculture. The committee on agriculture is sitting to consider a matter that was brought before it by the Department of Trade and Commerce. I have attended the committee on agriculture for only about 15 minutes during all the time they have been sitting. It has nothing to do with this department whatsoever.


John Alpheus Charlton: If the minister thinks he
answered that complaint before, may I say that I did not hear his explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not make it before because you did not let me make it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not interrupt the
minister when he was making his speech. I have never interrupted the minister in any speech he has ever made in the House of Commons.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. My hon. friend rose and asked me a question that got me off on something else and I did not get back to it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I am making a statement of fact and I do not think the minister can refute that fact. Whether it is under the Department of Trade and Commerce or not, it has to do with agricultural matters. Regardless of whether or not he thinks it is under a different department, it has to do with agricultural matters.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have refuted the inference you are drawing. I am not refuting the facts you stated.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: It still has to do with agricultural matters. It is dealing mainly with western agriculture or dealing with wheat. It is true it has to do with the matter of feed problems here in the east and we did discuss that matter to some extent. But I am still critical of his government for having had an occasion arise when the committee on agriculture was meeting at the same time and was called on the same day as one bill that had been standing on the order paper from January 11 was brought forward in the house. That is all I am going to say on that matter, but I think it is an example of extremely poor planning on the part of this government to let that be the fact.
With regard to the farmers' position today, I want to go back a little bit in history because apparently there is a good deal of confusion among people in urban areas as to farm thinking. I regret to say it but there are few people living in large cities in this country or in the United States who understand the farm psychology. They say that the farmer beefs a lot. They criticize him for getting money handed to him by way of subsidies and that sort of thing. But they do not understand what that farmer puts up with. They do not understand his way of life.
Years and years ago the farmer was in fact self-sufficient. He did not need to worry very much about what happened in the cities. He grew his own food. He made his own clothes. He made his own implements, as it were. He even made his own bullets with which to shoot the food he ate or part of it. But as time went along that condition changed. It changed considerably with the advent of an increased population in the country. One hundred years ago probably 90 per cent of the people in this country were on farms and depended on farms for a living, and the agricultural income was in proportion to the number of people getting their living from the farm. At that time the consumer in the city realized where his food came from. In most cases he dealt directly with the man who grew the food. He bought his potatoes, his fruit and his vegetables from the farmer himself. Today the farmer's position has changed in that he is no longer self-sufficient. He requires fuel to use in his tractor. He no longer uses horses for which he grew the necessary fuel. He has to purchase fertilizers, and in many cases he has to purchase feed. Therefore the farmer has placed himself in the position of being a consumer of a great many goods.

But the consumer in the urban districts is also in a different position. He has lost his personal contact with the producer of his food. Many young people in our cities hardly know what a farm is or what a cow looks like. I would even go so far as to say that many young people in our cities today probably wonder what colour of cow chocolate milk comes from. As a matter of fact, I have been asked that question by young people. The consumer now goes to the chain store. He purchases his food in packages, and very attractive packages they are. There is no definite link between the consumer and the man who produces the food. It is more or less an automatic process and I regret to say that many people in our cities take food for granted. There is good reason for that. Never in the history of the country has anybody ever gone hungry because of a scarcity of food. There has always been plenty, and often there have been surpluses. I regret to say, for that very reason many people take food for granted.
In his opening remarks the other night the minister made some statements about prices. I want to quote a paragraph from his speech to be found at the bottom of page 4210 of Hansard of May 27. He said:
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture statement points out that prices of farm products have fallen further in North America than in other countries of the world. This is quite true, but prices in general after the drop are higher in North America than in other countries of the world, all of which indicates that since the war farmers in North America have had the highest prices in the world.
I should also like to quote one sentence from the middle of a paragraph on the next page, and I do not think it is unfair to quote only the one sentence. The minister said:
The shrinkage of foreign markets, however, came about partly because there has been a higher price level here than elsewhere.
In the one case the minister says that our farm prices are the highest in the world, which is true, but later he qualifies that statement by saying that the shrinkage of foreign markets came about partly because there has been a higher price level here than elsewhere. Certainly the only thing that actually counts is the net income the farmer receives. As found on page 4212, the minister said:
No sound conclusion can be reached by comparing anything related to production or returns from farming, by comparing one year with the one before it or the one immediately after it.
Then the minister went on to say that the prices in any four-year period since the Liberals have formed the government have been higher than they ever were in the period from 1931 to 1934. We have heard that argument so often, Mr. Chairman. Does
S upply-A griculture
the government believe that the farmers of this country will accept that sort of statement? There was a world depression then and prices were down, but later in my speech I hope to show by figures that the situation in proportion to other prices was not as bad then as the government would like to lead people to believe.
Net farm income for 1954 was down by something like 48 per cent. In 1951 net farm income was $2,154 million, and in 1954 it was $1,125 million. The minister says that, taking the average of the last four years, prices have been better than they ever were before. I have here the April, 1955, issue of the Economic Annalist, and I want to give a few figures from this publication. Taking the period from 1935 to 1939 as representing 100, the average figure for farm prices for the five-year period from 1943 to 1947 is 188-9 while the figure for January, 1955, is 221-2. These figures are for farm prices of agricultural products.
Let us now take the composite index of commodity prices. The average of those prices for the same five-year period, 1943 to 1947, was 154-2, and by January, 1955, the figure had increased to 231 -7. What is interesting is the difference between the figures representing the five-year average from 1943 to 1947 inclusive and the figures for January, 1955. As far as farm prices are concerned, there has been an increase of 17 per cent between the average for the years 1943 to 1947 and the figure as at January, 1955. There is an increase of 17 per cent.


John Horne Blackmore: In which direction?


John Alpheus Charlton: Up. I said "increase". As far as commodity prices are concerned, prices for the things the farmer has to buy, there has been an increase from 154-2 to 231-7, an increase of 77-5 or practically 50 per cent. There, Mr. Chairman, is your answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the last one a five-year average too?


John Alpheus Charlton: No, of course the last one is not. I said I took the figure for January, 1955.


James Garfield Gardiner: That just proves what I said is correct. It does not get you anywhere to compare five years with one day.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is never any use in placing figures on Hansard as far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not that kind of figure.


John Alpheus Charlton: He places his own figures on Hansard to show his own trend of thought, but anybody else's figures do not mean a thing.

Supply-Agriculture


John Horne Blackmore: You are doing well.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have taken these figures from the Economic Annalist, and I challenge the minister-


James Garfield Gardiner: This is funny money.


Mr. Lennard:: Yours is sometimes, you mean.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister seems to be having a lot of fun. He does not bother me a bit, so let him have his fun. I say again, that is the answer to our problem today. The net income of the farmer is down 48 per cent, and that is the reason it is down. The prices of farm products have gone up only 17 per cent on an average over the five-year period 1943-47, while the commodities the farmer has to buy have gone up 50 per cent. The farmer's net income has been greatly decreased as is shown by these figures.
The minister went on to quote what the figures were back in the period 1931-34. This Economic Annalist, put out by the Department of Agriculture, does not include comparable figures for those years, so I have no way of proving anything by quoting figures from this pamphlet. In the column relating to farm prices of agricultural products there is, however, another item here, the general wholesale index for 1931-34. This index varies from 94 down to 86-9. I remind hon. members that these figures are all quoted on the basis of 1935-39 equalling 100. Then the composite index of commodities and services used by farmers for the period 193134, as compared with the high of 94 and the low of 86-9 for the general wholesale index, goes from a low of 89-8 to a high of 100-9. There is not as much difference there, Mr. Chairman, in the 1931-34 period as there is now in this 1955 period.
I should like to quote a paragraph from the minister's statement in Hansard of May 27, 1955, page 4212. He said:
I have before me a table which shows that, taking the average price on farm products for the 4 years before we came into office as the beginning, there has been an increase every 4 years since, until now the price on all cereals is from 2J to 3 times as high from 1951 to 1954 as in 1931 to 1934.
Just imagine, 2J times to 3 times as much.
The price on hogs is over 3 times as high, and the price on cattle over 4 times as high. The price on butter is 2i times as high, the price on cheese 3 times as high and the price on eggs almost twice as high.
Now, is that not something to be proud of? The minister compared the average prices in 1931-34 with the average prices in 1951-54, after we have had a war, and conditions have changed so much. Our economy has entirely changed, and our dollar is worth

just half as much, and yet the minister insists on comparing these two periods.
I put a table on Hansard of March 15 that appears at page 2066. This table showed quite clearly that there never has been a year in the history of this country when an hour's wages would buy so much food. That, Mr. Chairman, is the answer to the farmers' problem and the answer to many other problems across this country, especially the unemployment problem. If any other industry or any other class of people were asked to take a 48 per cent net decrease in income in the last four years, I wonder what would happen. But the farmer, has taken a 48 per cent decrease in net income, and people wonder why there is unemployment in this country. The implement manufacturers are practically closed down because they cannot sell their implements. The farmers have not the dollars to buy these implements. Yet, the minister gets up and says they are better off than they ever were before.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask my hon. friend how long * this government would stay in office if we put conditions back to what they were from 1931 to 1935? We would go out as fast as your party went out.


John Alpheus Charlton: It was a Liberal government that put them there in the first place, because that depression started long before 1930 and the minister knows it very well.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why did you not say that from the start instead of arguing the other way?


John Alpheus Charlton: I have listened to the minister now for quite a number of years and I am getting used to him. As a matter of fact, I do not pay too much attention to what he says on many occasions.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some people do.


John Alpheus Charlton: But that is a fact; it is here in Hansard. The minister says that farmers are better off now than they ever were. I am just going to leave it to the farmers themselves to say whether or not they are better off than they ever were. They will probably say it in another way at the next election.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have been making that prophecy ever since you came here.


John Alpheus Charlton: Sometimes it takes quite a while for things to seep in, you know, but the farmers are getting just about as fed up as I have ever seen them. I think probably the minister knows that very well.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is why he is on edge.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not on edge.


John Alpheus Charlton: We hear a great deal, Mr. Chairman, about the subsidies paid to farmers. This afternoon we listened to a speech by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. He has his own ideas, and he is entitled to them. I am sorry he is not in the house now but I do want to say to him that, although I cannot quote the exact figure for the subsidy on butter, the amount is infinitesimal. The amount that'subsidy costs the taxpayers of this country is infinitesimal. I must be fair, however, and say that the farmers of the country do appreciate the fact the government kept the floor price at 58 cents. The government showed very good judgment in doing so. They knew what would happen under the circumstances if they had lowered that floor price, on top of the importation of 2-25 million pounds of New Zealand cheese. The farmers of this country were up in arms just a little farther than I have ever seen them in my life before as a result of that importation. As I say, I have to be fair to the minister, and the farmers do appreciate the maintenance of that floor price.
It has been suggested that the farmers should be able to compete in the free market of the world and left to themselves to go along in the best way they can, without any support prices and without any floor prices. I will say that in most things the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is consistent, although I wonder if he would like to see everything thrown wide open. I think the farmers of this country would take their chance if that were the case, but when one industry has protection they believe they are entitled to some protection at least.
It was stated also that the floor price did not help the producer. I cannot conceive of anyone making that statement. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that the maintenance of the floor price on butter helps the consumer just as much as it does the producer. It stops these great fluctuations in price. I will say that during the period from 1947 to 1953 inclusive the total subsidies paid to agriculture, including the subsidy of $69 million paid out for losses as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, amounted to less than 15 cents per capita per year.
It is true that in 1952 there was an increase in the price of butter. It was unnecessary, and of course it stayed up for only a day or so, because when it was found that stocks were not as low as some people had led us to believe, the price broke. I think it dropped as much as 17 or 18 cents in one day.
I wish to point out that by maintaining the floor price on butter the consumers of this country are assured that they will not have to pay an extremely high price for their
Supply-Agriculture
butter in the wintertime, even though they might get it at a low price in the summer. The cost of the subsidy has been saved many times over through the maintenance of stability and farmer purchasing power.
A number of years ago the farmers of this country were promised that if they would accept lower prices during the war they would receive a square deal after the war was over. Let me quote what was said in this connection in a radio broadcast by the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, on December 4, 1943, he said:
If, to help win the war, the farmers are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to insure them against an agricultural depression after the war.
The farmers were also promised that markets in Great Britain would be retained if they accepted lower than the world price during the war. But what happened? Practically all those markets were lost. I mentioned a moment ago that subsidies have been criticized from many quarters.
I should like to put on the record some figures concerning other subsidies-and these are not paid to farmers. I have before me the answer to a question appearing in Hansard of May 4. On that date the hon. member for Jasper-Edson asked the following question:
What was the total amount paid in price support of gold mining industry in 1954?
To that question the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys replied:
Assistance paid by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys during the calendar year 1954 amounted to $14,879,334.33.
Strangely enough immediately following this question was another asked, again, by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. His second question was:
What was the total amount paid for price support on all farm commodities in 1954?
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture replied as follows:
The estimated net cost of operations of the agricultural prices support board during the 195455 fiscal year ending March 31, 1955, is $3,210,928.
In other words about four and a half times as much was paid by way of subsidies to the gold mining industry in this country, which employs approximately 25,000, as was paid to agriculture in which 660,000 are employed. I place these figures on record at this time to point out to the people of Canada that farmers are not the only ones who are receiving subsidies. It is costing the taxpayers of this country very little for the help being given to the farmers. As I said before it amounted to 15 cents per capita per year over a six-year period.
It is claimed that prices are high. I said a few moments ago that there never has


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that at any time in my life. I never have said the farmers were well off.


John Alpheus Charlton: Perhaps the minister did
not say so, but-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am a farmer, myself, and I know.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then we will have to presume that they are not well off, and he is now admitting it.


Mr. Sinclair:: Better off than they were under the Tories.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister says that they are better off than they ever were before. The government has a long way to go to make it possible for the farmers to say that they are well off. And the minister admits that they are not well off.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have been getting along so well as compared with the way they got along under other governments that they are content to keep us here.


James Sinclair: There are no fishermen going to California, I can tell you that.


John Alpheus Charlton: I would like to put a few
more figures on record.


John Horne Blackmore: Could we call it six o'clock?


John Alpheus Charlton: This will not take long. Out of 630,000 farms across Canada we find that
423,000	have no water supply piped into the

house; 528,000 have no bathrooms or showers;
473.000	have neither flush nor chemical toilets; 275,000 have no electricity for lighting;
535.000	still use wood or coal for cooking and 427,000 have no refrigeration.
These figures show that 51-5 per cent have electricity, 17-5 per cent have hot and cold running water, 15 [DOT] 5 per cent have bathing and shower facilities and 21-9 per cent have refrigeration. I will let the people of Canada be the judge of whether the minister is correct in his statement that the farmers are better off than they ever were before.


Mr. Bryson:: May I ask what we shall be discussing after eight o'clock?


James Sinclair: We will continue with these estimates.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I ought to say to hon. members who asked me last night to try not to go on tonight that we have tried to make arrangements, which we could not, to have others do so. That was impossible for certain reasons, not all originating on this side of the house, and for that reason I will go on tonight.


James Sinclair: In view of the social engagements which Saskatchewan members have, as acting leader it is my intention to ask for the adjournment of the house at a quarter to ten this evening so that they may attend the Saskatchewan functions.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, I hope I may be permitted to tell the minister that during the recess tonight we were very much impressed by the group of young men and young women coming from his own province, carrying the banner of the Saskatchewan golden jubilee and representing the high schools of the prairie province.
Before six o'clock I was very sorry to hear the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand making a comparison between the subsidies paid by the federal government to the agricultural industry on one hand and those paid to the gold-mining industry on the other, for the simple reason that a great part of the gold subsidy is benefiting the farmers of northern Ontario and northern Quebec. I would be very much afraid to think of what would become of our farmers if the goldmining industry was closed down. The gold subsidy is one way of helping the farmers, and there should be no suggestion of discontinuing it at this time.

I shall be brief in my remarks, Mr. Chairman. First I wish to congratulate the minister on his comprehensive statement on the general situation in Canadian agriculture at the present time.
I also wish to offer my sincere thanks to the officers and the technicians of the department for all they have done to help the farmers of our district. More particularly, I wish to say that the farmers of northwestern Quebec are grateful to the directors, the technicians and the other employees of the federal experimental farm of Kapuskasing and of the experimental substation of 'Maca-mic for their guidance, and the good advice and encouragement they have supplied in performing their duty. We are in great need of this kind of service and we hope that it will be accelerated.
Agriculture gradually becomes a basic industry in northwestern Quebec, more particularly within the clay belt which is eminently suited to the production of fodder plants, and consequently to stock farming, either for meat or for dairy products. Also, small-scale farming and gardening can be made profitable around the larger centres such as Rouyn-Noranda, Malartic, Val d'Or-Bour-lamaque and Amos. In this respect, I would hope that the division of horticulture of Kapuskasing would conduct some experimental work in the growing and preparation for market of vegetables in those centres. There are a great number of small farms which are suitable for that kind of production, and their owners are in urgent need of guidance and encouragement. I will go as far as saying that an experimental station for that purpose would be a profitable investment.
As it is, in northwestern Quebec, the development of agriculture depends mostly on the mining industry. The latter injects a pecuniary serum, enabling the settler to live through the difficult years when he has to work on virgin soil which will bear fruits only after years of unceasing labour. The settler finds in the mining centres a ready market for his lumber and other farm products, and the mining industry provides work for him during the off-season. So, gradually, the settlement lot becomes a productive farm, and the settler a real farmer ready to take his rightful place in the community.
Now, the majority of our farmers are at a stage where they need more help, additional guidance and encouragement. They need help in connection with their livestock and in connection with the classification, storage and distribution of their products. Studies of these various problems are now being made by local organizations, but it is only with
Supply-Agriculture
the help of duly qualified technicians, the guidance of good management, the encouragement of the business people of our district and the financial aid from both the federal and provincial governments that a program of such breadth can be carried out.
There are over 65,000 people in the cities and towns of northwestern Quebec. Carloads of such commodities as meat, vegetables, dairy products and poultry come from outside the district and are distributed by many merchants in the different localities. In such a situation we would think that the local products would find an outlet. We are aware of the fact, however, that a grocer cannot buy products that are not classified. Moreover, if he is not assured of a steady flow of products from the local farmers, he cannot buy from them. Our farmers need a distribution centre in which they can find facilities such as a slaughter house, cold storage and good management for the distribution of their products. These facilities are lacking at present, so the flow of products is not steady. This is partly due to a lack of guidance in distribution. Further progress could be made also by a livestock improvement program, jointly operated with a program for the development of grasses. This would enable the farmers of the district to continue the production of livestock on a more sustained basis.
Finally-and I have mentioned this before- so that the farming industry in northwestern Quebec may fulfil expectations, let us hope that a large-scale program of drainage will be undertaken with the co-operation of both federal and provincial governments in the whole of this part of the Pre-Cambrian clay belt, which is level with the farm lands. In addition to improving arable land, it would help reforestation and the development of large marshlands which are now absolutely useless.
The farmers of northwestern Quebec keep toiling to clear and improve their farms. The heavy work they took on from the beginning is now producing results. However, if we want the progress of the farmers of our district to be on a par with that of other industries, we will have to give a hand, we will have to help those who have worked so hard to clear the land and, finally, we will have to try to make it easier for the farmers to distribute their products. We know how steadfast our farmers are, and if we help them ever so little we may be sure that they will do their full share in the development and progress of that part of the country.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, last week in the committee on broadcasting we were

Supply-Agriculture
privileged to hear representatives from the musicians union. The suggestion was put forward by that group that it might be a good idea if members of the House of Commons organized some sort of musical group in order to increase harmony in the chamber.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: We have one on this side of the house.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: After hearing the excellent performance by the western young people during the supper recess, I am sure that we would all agree that the union representatives had a worth-while suggestion to make for members of the house. Already tonight I think the discussion on agricultural subjects is proceeding on a more harmonious note than before the commencement of the recess. In my contribution I hope to continue on that same level as far as is possible.
I was delighted this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa take up the cudgels in no uncertain terms in behalf of the proposed Russell reservoir. I say that I was delighted to hear him take this stand because hitherto the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa has rather inclined to the view that diking instead of the reservoir was the solution for the problem of flooding in the Manitoba area.
I have been interested in this subject ever since I came into the house. Each year since the report was prepared by P.F.R.A. on the problem of flooding on the Assiniboine river I have asked the Minister of Agriculture on the estimates when action might be contemplated on the basis of the report. Last year, unfortunately, the minister was not able to be in the chamber during the discussion of the estimates. I therefore presented the question to his parliamentary assistant who was acting on his behalf. As reported at page 6738 of Hansard for 1954, I put this question to the parliamentary assistant:
Last year when I questioned the Minister of Agriculture on the matter he referred me to a report on conservation and flood control on the Assiniboine river that was prepared by the P.F.R.A. branch, and completed and published in December, 1952 . . . The report to which I have referred recommends two major projects in flood control and conservation in the Assiniboine basin. I refer to the Russell reservoir at Russell, Manitoba, and the Portage la Prairie diversion ... As I indicated, the minister said last spring when we were considering the estimates that the matter was under consideration. As this condition has been developing from 1886, and has been under consideration since that time, I would hope this year that some specific information might be available as to what the department contemplates in regard to the recommendations of the report.
In reply to that question, Mr. Chairman, as reported at page 6750 I finally succeeded in

getting from the parliamentary assistant, after I had queried him further, an answer as follows:
I understand that was with respect to the survey made of the Assiniboine river. That survey was undertaken along with the Red river survey at a time when they had flood trouble in the Red river valley a few years ago. These few projects were undertaken together but what is going to take place with respect to the survey in which my hon. friend is interested, X am not in a position to say.
I repeat the question this evening, Mr. Chairman, because it is becoming quite obvious that the problem on the Assiniboine river requires urgent attention on the part of the federal administration in co-operation with the other government levels concerned.
The reason I think the emphasis is being placed on the effectiveness of the Russell reservoir project today is the formation of the Assiniboine river control association last fall. It was my privilege to attend the organization meeting of this group made up of representatives from all the municipalities adjoining the Assiniboine river. At that time they spent several hours considering the three alternatives that have been proposed in solving this problem, namely, the reservoir; second, continuation of the program of diking; and third, the Portage diversionary cut-off into lake Manitoba. Even as far back as last fall members of the association came to the conclusion that neither diking nor the Portage diversion was the suitable solution and began to press for the Russell reservoir. Just two weeks ago they had another meeting to which the Minister of Agriculture was invited. At that meeting some further strong recommendations were forthcoming supporting the reservoir solution to the problem. Some of these resolutions were placed on record by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa this afternoon.
While the association has moved towards solid support for the reservoir, it has not entirely abandoned the principle of diking. It suggests, however, that diking is only a temporary solution to this flooding difficulty. The correctness of that suggestion definitely has been demonstrated by recent events in the district of Portage la Prairie. It will be recalled by hon. members that the city of Brandon was in the headlines, both in the press and on the radio, for a period of almost two weeks recently because in that city a heroic struggle was taking place to maintain their diking system intact. I am pleased to be able to say that largely as a result of action on the part of the municipal authorities, assisted by an excellent civil defence group supported by police and fire departments, Brandon was able to maintain its diking system intact and that no major

flood damage took place within the city proper. However, while Brandon was saved, the dikes erected there merely succeeded in pushing the additional water in the direction of Portage la Prairie and, as has already been indicated, the Portage dikes were breached and considerable damage done to the extremely fertile farm land of the Portage plains.
In reference to this diking problem I would further point out that the city of Brandon has spent in the past two years some $70,000 of its own funds. Of course I think it will be understood that an expenditure of that kind to cope with the flood problem is much too high for any one municipality to bear. I would therefore join heartily with the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa in suggesting that some definite action be taken with reference to the recommendations of the P.F.R.A. report on flooding on the Assiniboine river published in 1952 and that this action be taken in consultation with the municipal authorities as well as the provincial authorities.
Just before leaving the subject of flooding, which comes under the general heading of P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A., I want to say I have received certain resolutions from municipalities and areas affected suggesting that something be done by way of compensating farmers who have been flooded out, in some cases for three years in succession. There is a group of farmers along the Assiniboine river in Saskatchewan as well as in Manitoba west of Brandon who have suffered almost complete crop failure during the past three years because of the regular flooding. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia, there is just no way under the P.F.A.A. scheme whereby these farmers can be compensated.
I know the government is aware of the problem because two or three weeks ago I submitted a motion for the tabling of letters, documents, etc., relating to the problem of flooding on the Assiniboine, and I have been informed by the government departments concerned that the correspondence is so voluminous they hardly know where to begin in responding to my motion. Obviously the government is well aware that the farmers of Manitoba are quite exercised over this difficulty. They are and have been so exercised that in the past year the provincial government established a committee to examine thoroughly the question of crop insurance. This of course is related to the whole problem of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and its adequacy in meeting present-day problems in the prairie provinces. While the committee has not yet submitted its final report
Supply-Agriculture
there is every indication through preliminary press releases that the consensus will be that the present P.F.A.A. legislation is quite inadequate to deal with the problems of floods and other agricultural hazards as they apply to the province of Manitoba.
From time to time farmers in Manitoba have complained because it was becoming increasingly obvious that Manitoba farmers were not receiving proportionate returns from their contributions to the P.F.A.A. scheme, largely because Manitoba does not have so much submarginal agricultural land as the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Even this year the figures for P.F.A.A. assistance, if I remember them correctly, are something like $19 million for Saskatchewan and $3 million for Manitoba. In addition, I have already had letters from farm constituents pointing out that any assistance they have been able to obtain under P.F.A.A. as it stands is quite inadequate to deal with the problem created largely by the flood emergency.
I am not going to take the time of the house tonight to deal with the question of crop insurance as comprehensively as did the hon. member for Acadia. That would merely be going over ground already covered. I would, however, point out very emphatically that Manitoba farmers are very much exercised over this matter, and no doubt when the report of the committee investigating crop insurance is brought down there will be strong recommendations that something be done to provide more adequate protection on an actuarially sound insurance basis not only for Manitoba farmers but for other farmers of the prairie section of Canada.
There is one final point, perhaps an incidental one, on the question of flooding to which I should like to refer before leaving this section of my remarks. I wish to draw the attention of the house to a report that emerged from a government department a few weeks ago concerning moisture control experiments that have been taking place in southwestern Manitoba and in two areas of west central Saskatchewan during the past two years. The Canadian Press report on the matter emanating from the government weather service branded as a failure the commercial rain-making experiments carried out in 1953 and 1954 in sections of the prairie wheat belt. The official summary of the weather service report says that the most likely effect of the cloud seeding was a decrease in rainfall of 14.1 per cent.
Since this official statement was made by this government source the group carrying

Supply-Agriculture
on these experiments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan have issued a counteracting statement in which they point out that the appraisal of the experiments is completely inadequate, if not entirely wrong or distorted, because no final opinion concerning the rain-making experiments can be formed until there have been at least seven years of experimentation in this particular section of the country. I am taking the opportunity tonight to point out that there has been considerable interest in this experiment among the farmers. Earlier in my remarks I talked about flooding, but most hon. members will recall that an excess of water is not the only problem of the prairie region. For many years during the so-called dirty thirties we had the problem of drought to contend with. This work relating to the drought problem has been carried out on a voluntary subscription basis by the farmers interested, and it is unfortunate that the government weather service allowed a premature report to be circulated before the scheme had had an opportunity to prove itself one way or the other.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni also dealt with this subject in the house on the 17th of May, and as found at page 3869 of Hansard for that day he stated:
As I stated somewhat facetiously, I admit, in conversation with some of my colleagues, if this situation were permitted to develop it is conceivable that we in British Columbia would have the power to turn the entire prairie provinces into a desert by taking all the water out of the clouds coming in from the Pacific.
The hon. member was. referring to similar experiments that have been taking place west of the mountains. He himself described his remarks as being somewhat facetious, but unfortunately the press picked up the statement I have quoted and headlined it in the west. They said that a member of parliament had .suggested the possibility that the prairies might become a desert as the result of cloud seeding weather modification experiments being carried out on Vancouver island. That, I trust, will put the record straight. I have taken the time of the house to do so because this publicity has been somewhat disturbing to the farmers who have invested substantial sums in this experiment.
Now before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have a brief word on general agricultural matters. This is the first time I have taken part in any agricultural debate in this chamber during the present session. There has been a great deal of time consumed in discussing the agricultural picture. Because it is in the process of transition, I have waited until we had the opportunity of hearing statements from the responsible

cabinet ministers, and particularly until we had the opportunity of getting the picture from the farm organizations, the representatives of the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners who appeared before the agriculture committee. The pattern that has been taking shape during the year has definitely come into focus during recent weeks.
I admit that the minister, in his general preamble to this discussion a week ago tonight, was very optimistic in his generalizations. I would conclude from his remarks, to use a phrase that might appropriately be used by one who is an Indian chief as well as a minister of the crown, that he believes all the smoke that has been raised in this chamber is, "heap big smoke and no fire". However, the Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, emphasized that agriculture was having a difficult time. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is also an optimist, made the announcement of the final payments for western grain and said he was disappointed in the final price which was the result of strong competitive factors in the export market, particularly competition arising from the United States surplus disposal program. There is, therefore, definitely some cause for alarm on the part of those who are vitally interested in the prairie agricultural economy.
The current review of agricultural conditions for Canada gives the farm net income for Canada by provinces for 1953 and 1954. I was interested to note that every province with the exception of the four western provinces pretty well maintained its net income position as between 1953 and 1954. On the other hand, Manitoba net income for 1953 was $110-6 million and for 1954 was $72-5 million, a percentage change of minus 34. The percentage change for those two years in Saskatchewan was minus 73, and the percentage change in Alberta was minus 42. I put that on the record, Mr. Chairman, merely to suggest that things are not too rosy in the prairie agricultural picture at least.
This fact was verified-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest that that verifies every statement I have made here in the last six months.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not quite understand that, Mr. Chairman.


James Garfield Gardiner: Every time I have spoken on this question I have pointed out that the reduction in farm income in 1954 was brought about by what happened in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I get the point.


John Alpheus Charlton: Not altogether.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am speaking largely from the viewpoint of the westerner, and therefore I stressed the prairie position.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do, too.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is obvious.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The appearance of the interprovincial farm union before the committee again indicated that they were very unhappy with the prairie agriculture position. I was most interested in one statement on page 4 of their brief to this effect:
For many years Canadian farmers advocated complete free trade, and if given that offered to produce in competition with all the world. This offer was spurned by Canadian industry which insisted on protection. Since that is now the accepted policy of Canada, we contend that Canadian farmers are entitled to equivalent benefits in some effective form.
I stress that phrase, "since that is now the accepted policy of Canada". I think that is the first time I have ever seen any western farm group appreciate the fact that the free trade propaganda that has been promulgated by a Liberal administration at Ottawa during the past two decades is a myth. They are now aware that Canada has a protectionist economy which favours the industrial provinces of central Canada. I think that is most significant. So far as I am concerned, it is the first time I have seen that expression of opinion from a prairie farm group.
The farmers' union opinion, as I understand it, is merely a new expression of the agricultural discontent that is peculiar to the prairies, and has been peculiar to the prairies ever since the early part of this century. It is the old agrarian protest raising its head again, a protest that has had such dramatic effect on Canadian social, political and economic life. But it is expressing itself in a somewhat different form this time, and definitely demonstrates that it has seen through the myth of the so-called Liberal free trade.
I have not much time left, but I want to say that the one observation that kept coming to my mind as I listened to the proceedings in the agriculture committee was this: After 20 years of continuous Liberal administration in Ottawa the prairie economy is still in a vulnerable position. We are still beset by the crisis of price and market, and this has been eloquently demonstrated in the remarks made by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the various groups before the agriculture committee. In fact, if it were not for the existence of the wheat board the situation would be much more difficult than it actually is. If I might be allowed to say so, Mr. Chairman, I would
Supply-Agriculture
remind hon. members that the Canadian wheat board principle was laid down by a Conservative administration in 1935. There are many historical references in this chamber from time to time, and I am amazed at the tendency in all parts of the house towards the distortion of history.
I am reminded of a criticism that was once directed at Hitler and his henchmen when they were playing with history a few years ago in the greater Reich. Someone dared to criticize that gentleman to the effect that in the long run history would catch up with him; history would tell the true story. Hitler replied that he did not have the slightest misgiving in that regard because they would be writing history. I am afraid it is the tendency for all politicians to write history according to their own lights. I merely indicate that the wheat board principle, which emerged as a result of the economic crises of the thirties, was a by-product of a Conservative administration.
I would like to emphasize further, Mr. Chairman-because this point was discussed to a certain extent this afternoon-that, in turn, the depression of the thirties was a by-product of a century that had been saturated by what economists call Liberal laissez-faire economics. It was Mr. Bennett, with his new deal, and with his central bank principle, that first put a halt to the rather illusory and fanciful principles underlying Liberal laissez-faire economics which had dominated the western world ever since the industrial revolution.
I think that fact should be placed on the record, because sometimes even opposition groups are taken in by distortions of history, emanating from government sources. Just a short time ago the hon. member for Peace River, referring to the same period, suggested that Mr. Bennett had done nothing during the thirties to solve the problem. This is what he said, as it is reported at page 3986 of Hansard for May 20:
Every time anybody said to the Conservative government, "Why don't you get some purchasing power in circulation to start the wheels of industry going again?" the answer he got was, "There is not any money." They kept on saying that all through their regime up to 1935 when they were pitched out by the people of Canada largely because they had not found a solution or begun to find a solution for the unemployment problem.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I hope the hon. member will not continue to read into this debate the record of another debate on a different subject. I am sure he will agree with me when I suggest that if we are going to go into matters of history, other than those connected with agriculture, we will be a very long time disposing of the estimates of this

Supply-Agriculture
department. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the estimates of this department.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I accept your gentle reprimand, Mr. Chairman, and shall conclude by saying that the significant and shocking fact that emerges from the recent discussion of agricultural problems is the fact that we in the west are just as vulnerable, just as unstable and just as economically immature as we were 20 years ago when a Liberal administration first took over. We will have these problems with us, and we will be wrestling with them until such time as we are able to establish a diversified and mature economy, not only in the two central provinces but right across the country. And I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that is the alternative the Conservative opposition has been offering for several years now-the development of national resources, both human and natural, so that we might deal with the basic and fundamental difficulties of the western economy.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, we in this group are not only concerned, but we are disappointed that at this session of parliament the government has failed to appreciate the very serious decline in Canada's agricultural position. We feel that at this session the government should have introduced some comprehensive farm program that would have placed agriculture back on a sound economic base.
In order to do this we believe that the new program should take into consideration a completely new approach to the problems agriculture is now facing. We believe that is necessary, if agriculture is going to make that contribution to the Canadian prosperity of which it is capable. And so it is because of these things I rise this evening to speak in criticism of the present agricultural policy the government is pursuing and has pursued in the past.
Certainly it is not my intention to place once again on the pages of Hansard the many arguments that have proved our contention that agriculture is in a difficult position. That has been done on numerous occasions, and was done again very well this afternoon by the hon. member for Mackenzie. However, in spite of the fact that many members on the opposition side of the house try to set out the problem faced by this industry in Canada, during the budget debate the Minister of Finance pointed out that in 1954 Canada's gross national product had fallen to the extent of some $400 million, and that in large measure, as a matter of fact to the extent of three-quarters, that drop was due
[The Deputy Chairman.]
to the fall in the income of farmers. On that admission therefore we can safely say that agriculture does play a tremendous part in the economy of the country.
It would be equally difficult to argue that the economic recession we see all across this country is not largely attributable to the very serious position in which agriculture finds itself today. Certainly the great measure of unemployment experienced throughout the country can be traced to the very unfavourable position of agriculture. That unemployment to a great extent has come about through lack of operations in the farm machinery industry, an industry which must be associated with agriculture; and the condition of that industry is due to the lack of purchasing power in the hands of Canadian agricultural producers.
Surely this condition has many repercussions. Figures from the dominion bureau of statistics show that in the last six months there has been a decline in retail sales in this country to the extent of $129 million. Businessmen throughout the country are holding meetings among themselves to try to devise some method whereby they will be able to continue in a liquid position, and still be able to supply in some measure the goods and services required by the agricultural producers. I am sure these men, not only in western Canada but in all parts of the country, have come to realize that we cannot let the farmer slide down the economic rat hole without its having very disastrous results on their own businesses. No wonder these businessmen are worried. When we look at the economic picture in agriculture we find that, in spite of the fact that we have experienced at least 10 years of good crops and high production, the agricultural policy being pursued by the government must stand condemned. In spite of this tremendous production in Canada farmers are experiencing a serious decline in purchasing power. I think it is a rather different situation. The farmers of western Canada have experienced five normal crops in so far as production is concerned in three years. It does not seem reasonable to me, when a condition like that has existed and one crop failure follows, that the farmer should find himself in a most embarrassing economic position. I think that there must be something wrong with the agricultural industry of this country when it is not able to survive one crop failure after having harvested five normal crops in the three years previous.
This afternoon the hon. member for Acadia spoke in support of crop insurance. Apparently he has given a great deal of study to

this matter because he spoke at length and in detail. It is not my intention to discredit anything he said, as I think this is a question that needs considerable study. Personally I have reservations as to the merits of a comprehensive crop insurance plan that will do the job.
I believe that subsidies of any kind are not going to provide an answer to the agricultural program. I believe that agriculture, like any other industry, should stand on its own feet. I believe it could do that and we would be able to eliminate many of the subsidies now being paid, and which are not doing the job, if we had an agricultural program that gave the farmer a return that had some relationship to his cost of production.
The average net income of Canadian farmers is in the neighbourhood of $2,000 per year. Agricultural producers feel that they should have an income not less than that of workers in non-agricultural industries. As I mentioned before, when we say that, we do not mean that the non-agricultural workers should get less, but we do contend that the agricultural workers should get more.
With the average income of Canadian farmers being in the neighbourhood of $2,000, that means that a great many farmers in this country are getting less than $2,000. I submit that that is rural poverty with a vengeance. We contend that agriculture should get its fair share of the national income. I am aware that arguments are made that that can never happen. We are told that agriculture must become more efficient; that you cannot expect the national income to be shared among farmers who are not efficient. I agree with that to some extent, but I think this talk of inefficiency in agriculture is overdone. I believe that this talk of efficiency in industry is overdone. I doubt very much if industry is as efficient as we are led to believe. So I do not think we should take that kind of argument into consideration when we ask that the farmer get a fair share of the national income.
This afternoon the hon. member for Mackenzie placed on the record the fact that while some 14 per cent of the people of Canada are engaged actively in agriculture they get only about 8-7 per cent of the national income. The farmer's position has deteriorated over the last 20 years and it has deteriorated very quickly over the last three years.
I should like to place on the record one set of figures to substantiate my argument that last year the farm net income declined by 30 per cent according to the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics. In 1953 net farm 50433-279
Supp ly-A griculture
income in this country was $1,669,600,000, yet in 1954 that net farm income had declined to $1,125,600,000. In all probability it will be even lower this year. During the last three years the net farm income of agricultural producers has fallen by 50 per cent but on the other hand operating costs have remained constant or have declined only slightly. As a matter of fact in 1954 they declined by only 2 per cent. For the three-year period to which I just referred in which farm net income declined by 50 per cent the cost of production dropped by only 5 per cent.
I think it is common knowledge that when farm production in respect to grain and livestock falls by as little as 5 per cent, farm prices fall by as much as 20, 30 or 40 per cent. Again, when the demand for some particular farm product drops off by 5 per cent farm prices fall, not by 5 per cent but by 10, 20 or 25 per cent.
This price squeeze, this disparity between the prices received by the farmers for what they produce and the cost of production, bears no relationship. This is the thing which is causing great concern today to the industry. There is no relationship between the prices the farmer gets and costs involved in his production. Under the present economic setup today agricultural producers are trying to operate when their costs are administered. Not only is the farmer open to all the hazards of farming, he must deal with things beyond his control outside of these administered costs. He seems to be legitimate prey for everyone.
As someone has said before, and I think this is significant, the farmer is the only person who sells at wholesale and buys at retail. As was said by an hon. member this afternoon, farm prices have changed most radically over the last 25 years. Mechanization is costly and because of the tremendous mechanization that is taking place in agriculture the farmer must have a greater return to support it.
The government is concerned over surplus production of wheat and many people in the government are advocating that production should be cut in the hope that prices will be maintained. I admit that that is a policy which can be carried on most effectively in industry where you can maintain prices by cutting production, but the very opposite is true with respect to agriculture. As soon as prices fall, the agricultural producer, in order to maintain his income, increases his production. That has been the story in Canada over and over again. We believe that the time is overdue when we must have some new approach, if we are
4426	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture
going to solve this problem with which we are faced. As I said a moment ago, I believe it is impossible to hope that subsidies are going to do the job; I do not believe they will. Subsidies should not have to be used. I believe that, if there were some relationship between farmers' prices and their costs, we would not need many of the subsidies which we are using today; but until that happens we have no alternative but to continue to ask for subsidies and to expand them.
In connection with this question, I should like to ask the minister something concerning P.F.A.A. Certainly I do not look on that as a subsidy in the same way as I did the other matters I mentioned, but it is rather unfair that, in certain parts of the country where farmers had a crop failure last year and have no prospect of a crop this year, they are being denied P.F.A.A. payments because they are forced to take some part-time employment in order to keep their families. I hope some leniency will be shown in some of those cases. I can very well understand the overall policy and I see nothing wrong with it, because we all know that a great many people living in every town in Canada own land. Certainly sometimes it is only a part-time occupation, but I feel that, because of the crop failure that was experienced in most of western Canada last year, where a farmer went out in the winter months and took parttime work, even when he knew he was not going to harvest a crop, some consideration should be given in those cases.
We believe that, if we are to evolve a farm production that will do the job, it should be based on the parity concept where we would have some relationship between prices and costs. In advocating such a policy, we believe we are completely justified. This is nothing new. I will admit that the Americans are in trouble to some extent in some phases of their parity scheme, but in the main much of that could have been avoided if some different administration had been used in that policy. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other important farming bodies of this country are supporting the principle of parity. Whilst the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is advocating a sliding scale, I cannot accept that. Parity means equality; it means justice; and if anybody can tell me that there is such a thing as 70 or 75 per cent of justice, then I have something to learn. You cannot have 75 per cent of justice. You either have full justice or you do not have any justice.	So I
maintain that we in this country must advocate full parity. When I say "full parity", I do not mean full parity on everything


across the board. I do not think that is necessary; I think it would be disastrous. I do not mean that at all. We should establish a system of parity prices. We should establish the principle of parity. I cannot think of any other industry or any other business in this country that operates on any other basis than that they have some regard for what the product is going to cost them. If they do not take that into consideration, they are just not in business. Yet the farmer goes on year after year in the hope that he will get back the cost of his production, and he very seldom has. We believe that agriculture is important enough in Canada's economy to warrant our . asking that it should receive the same consideration as that enjoyed by every other industry in this country.


Mr. Philpott:: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the house and tha minister that I have no intention of delaying him. I understand that the Saskatchewan concert meeting down town is waiting for the highlight of the evening, that is for the Minister of Agriculture to open the meeting. Judging from the rate at which we are going now, he will not get there in time to pronounce the benediction. I wish to deal tonight with one point in particular, and that is the price support on butter. I am strongly in favour of all sound price support schemes. When I think of all the price support schemes we have had in Canada so far, I believe the price support on butter is the soundest. For one thing, as a city man, I am strongly in favour of maintaining the farmer's income by any reasonable and sound method; and I believe this is a sound method.
But I want to point out that there are two sides to a pound of butter. If you have price supports which keep the income from butter high enough to enable the farmer to make a living, perhaps at times you make the price of butter so high that some people who should be able to eat butter cannot afford to eat butter at all and have to eat that unspeakably poor substitute for butter, namely margarine, which I am sure is having a lot to do with the bad health of some of the people because it does not have the vitamins in it.
I for one do not believe there is any solution to the butter surplus problem, if it is a problem, by foreign give-away programs or by trying to dump the butter which we have over and above our own needs for the domestic market. I for one would not even favour selling the butter at cut rates behind the iron curtain, as I have heard some people suggest from time to time. I should think that the only thing the Canadian people would not forgive with regard to a price

support program would be this, that in our price support program we accumulated surpluses from which no human being got any benefit. I should think that, if we are trying to get a good sound farm support system, we must be sure that we have no stagnating surpluses, and we must be sure that the butter which enjoys the price support gets to the ultimate consumer. With all respect, I should like to make this suggestion for the consideration of the minister and the consideration of the government. If it should turn out that we have an accumulating surplus, I should like to see careful consideration given to the issuing of coupons to people in a certain amount of need, especially to people on old age assistance in Canada and on war veterans allowance in Canada. These coupons could be issued on a monthly basis.
Last year I had the duty and privilege of looking over the family budgets of a good many hundreds and perhaps even thousands of people living on old age assistance or old age pensions, and I was appalled to learn, after they had their budgets figured to the last cent, how few of these people were able to afford butter. They did not have enough fats; they did not even have enough margarine.
I would suggest to the minister and to the government, with all respect, that if they are considering disposing of the surplus, they do not try to dispose of it behind the iron curtain, that they do not try to dispose of the surplus in Asia, that they do not try to dispose of the surplus in Europe but that they do dispose of the surplus, if and when it occurs, to our own people and on the basis of those who need it most. We could try it out in a most moderate way by experimenting with the group on old age assistance; I refer to the people living on old age pensions with a means test from 65 years of age to 69. If that experiment proves to be sound,-and by that I mean if it is proved that it does not demoralize the regular market for butter; and indeed that is the real test, for whatever we do, it should not take away the profitable sale of butter through the regular channels- and if on a moderate and experimental basis it is proved that it can be done through old age assistance groups, I cannot see any reason why there should not be tried as an experiment, maybe once a year, the issuing of a cheap pound of butter or even a free pound of butter to everybody drawing family allowance, one for every child.


Mr. Trainor:: I was interested and, I must confess, to a degree gratified by the remarks made by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa this afternoon when he said he 50433-279J
Supply-Agriculture
advocated the amelioration of the flood conditions on the Assiniboine river. I can recall that no longer ago than last summer I had the honour of attending, with the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa and the hon. member for St. Boniface, a meeting with a number of farmers from the Assiniboine river area. At that time the hon. member indicated to that group that he did not consider the flood conditions along the Assiniboine river to be sufficiently grave to justify federal intervention. Consequently I am gratified that the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa has changed his opinion in this regard.
As a matter of fact, this situation along the Assiniboine river has been a real problem to farmers in this locality because, as the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa has pointed out, this river has been in an almost perennial flood condition. It is a fact that in the year 1950 the city of Winnipeg had a narrow escape from total catastrophe owing to the fact that the Assiniboine river did not coincide completely with the Red river in the matter of flood conditions. Had the two coincided, the-city of Winnipeg would have been inundated', completely and would have been under approximately three feet to four feet of water. I suggest that this would be a situation that would be completely catastrophic.
In his remarks subsequent to those of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, the minister indicated that this is a situation that deserves a great deal of special consideration on the ground that amelioration would be extremely costly. I would suggest that the cost would be not considerable in comparison with the cost to the country, and particularly the cost to the Winnipeg area, of a catastrophe such as that which I have outlined.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Owen C. Trainor: I agree with the minister in this respect. I would suggest that he devote every effort to obtaining that extra appropriation that is required, because it is definitely required and it is certainly justified by the facts of the situation. Here we have a situation of which we had a foretaste in 1950. Those of us who experienced that foretaste have a healthy appreciation of what the situation might have been had the Assiniboine

Supply-Agriculture
coincided with the Red river in flood. We know beyond any shadow of doubt what that situation would have been.
I would suggest to the minister that if he can do anything to protect us and to put into force measures that will give protection against the possibility of such a situation developing in the future, it would be a laudable effort on his part. I hope that he will do so. I believe that the possible economic results of such a catastrophe would be far beyond any possible economic outlay to which the government might be subjected.
The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa gave what I thought was an excellent outline of the facts of the case. I thought he indicated logically the facts of the Assiniboine river and put them forward in a sensible sort of way. One point that he perhaps did not bring forward sufficiently clearly was that this is not an unusual situation but that it is virtually perennial. I can recall that in years gone by, in the vicinity of Poplar Point, almost perennial flood conditions have existed along the Assiniboine river. As was indicated by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, the farm lands that are threatened by these floods are among the best farm lands in western Canada. Certainly the economic loss that has accrued to these farmers over the years must have been severe. Perhaps that economic loss in the aggregate would amount to far more than the economic investment that might be required to prevent such a situation occurring.
I would therefore urge the minister to do everything in his power to see that the resources of the government are brought to bear to ensure that this Assiniboine river is harnessed as far as flood conditions are concerned. Perhaps, in the harnessing of it, it might be found that the periodic drought that occurs along the western plains in the basin of the Assiniboine river might be contemporaneously ameliorated.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I make no apologies for taking the time of the house to say a few words on behalf of the farmers of my constituency. I want to say at this point that the few lonely trumpets that are blown on behalf of the fruit growers of British Columbia do not pretend in any sense of the word to compete with the very effective 35-piece brass band from the prairies. I happen to represent a lot of small general farmers, fruit farmers, dairy producers and poultry farmers, the type of farmer whose battle with nature has been a somewhat different kind than that of the farmers of the prairie provinces. While prairie farmers have certain climatic hazards and possibly climatic
[Mr. Trainor.l
disadvantages on occasions, the farmers I represent have to work 12 months a year and slave from morning until night on the whole in order to make a living on farms that have been wrested from the forests surrounding them. Therefore I am sure the minister will pay very careful attention to my representations.


James Garfield Gardiner: As long as you do not think we do not work on the prairies.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am suggesting there is a difference in the type of work. I had to place the thing somewhat in focus in order to get the minister to appreciate the peculiar difficulties of the farmers I represent. When the minister spoke I was very interested that he repeatedly dealt with the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I was most interested in that because it indicates the growing impact of farm organizations on the government and on public opinion in general. Because of that I cannot fail to mention the fact that the British Columbia federation of agriculture was first organized in 1933 by Mr. Charlie Hayden, Mr. Dodsley Barrow, a former minister of agriculture of the province to whom British Columbia owes a great deal, Mr. Clarence Oldfield and others in the interior of British Columbia. They have done some excellent work throughout the years.
The British Columbia federation is supported by the British Columbia fruit growers association, the Fraser Valley milk producers, the fruit and vegetable producers and the Vancouver island farmers in general. I think they led Canada in advocating the necessity for marketing legislation for the improvement of co-operative marketing, in respect of such things as getting the carbon content of fence wire improved so that the tensile strength of fencing is sufficient, and in arranging for marketing conferences on a provincial basis something along the lines of the federal conferences. They have been interested in getting the federal government to use live vaccine in connection with Newcastle disease. They have been very interested in conservation, taxation and agricultural policies, and all those things that are in the best interests of the farmers in general.
They have also shown a very forward looking approach by the fact that they were the first organization in British Columbia to make representations to the provincial government, which they did in 1950, urging that the water resources of the Columbia river be carefully preserved to the advantage of Canadian interests and that any deals made with the United States should be on the basis

of payment in full in the form of power. I mention these few things because I was active in the early days in the formation of the British Columbia federation of agriculture, and know of its good work.
That organization was the parent organization of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture because in 1935 the late Major Hutton, who came from the interior of British Columbia, went to the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto and at that fair the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was organized. I am very pleased to know that the organization is so well thought of at this time.
I want to pay tribute to the good work that has been done by the members of the federation in British Columbia throughout the years and to the good work being done by the present officers of the federation because, while they work without the publicity of other organizations, the work that is done by the farmers' organization has a tremendous effect on agricultural legislation both provincially and federally. It is true to say that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was conceived in the interior of British Columbia. Second, it is true to say that the first natural products marketing act established anywhere in Canada was the result of the organization and the activities of the British Columbia fruit growers association. I mention these things to indicate the progressive and constructive approach that the agricultural organizations in the interior of British Columbia and in British Columbia generally have had throughout the years.
The marketing situation in British Columbia has changed considerably in recent years. Prior to the second world war about half the apples grown in British Columbia were marketed in Great Britain. During the second world war thousands of pounds of vegetable seeds such as onions, carrots, beets, lettuce and so on were grown in the southeastern portion of British Columbia particularly and shipped to Great Britain and some other countries. Owing to the shortage of dollars in Great Britain these markets have largely been lost, although we are glad to know there is a slight resumption in the sale of fruit to the British market.
But while these overseas markets have been lost to a considerable extent we are fortunate, owing to the 40 per cent increase in population in British Columbia and the great industrial expansion, that the domestic market in British Columbia has increased considerably and has to some extent offset the loss of the export market in some phases of agriculture. I think it is fair to say that the farmers I represent are doing all they
Sup p ly-A griculture
can to produce high quality produce at a reasonable cost. An increasing number of them are making effective use of labour saving equipment, fertilizers, irrigation and agricultural chemicals. They are also doing what they can as the result of building up efficient co-operative organizations which have a history of good management throughout the years. The farmers I represent and those in British Columbia generally are first of all producing as efficiently as any farmers in Canada, and possibly lead the rest of Canada in the building up of well-managed co-operative organizations to market their produce, particularly through British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited, the interior and coast vegetable marketing boards, the Kootenay cooperative poultry producers, similar organizations representing poultrymen at the coast, and the beef cattle producers.
I say that to indicate that the farmers have not sat back idle but have tried to help themselves as far as possible. They have done the best they can. They have used all facilities available, their energy, capacity, experience and intelligence, to organize some of the best co-operative marketing organizations in Canada at this time. However, regardless of that they are faced at the present time with a problem of increasing costs and falling prices, the same as other farmers in Canada. That means they are facing a very difficult period particularly in certain sections of agriculture.
I am not going to deal at length with that matter, but they need a measure of government action, both on the provincial and federal levels, to assure them the security they are entitled to as a result of the efforts they have made on their own behalf. I think we need adequate provincial and federal marketing legislation which will enable them to develop broad marketing of their own products on a national scale. I think they need a program of price supports which, on general principle, will be available to all farm products if necessary.
I am not going to say any more about the question of floor prices or price supports because other speakers have dealt very fully with that question and have gone into it in detail. I would simply be taking the time of the house by repeating what these speakers have had to say. But I do believe there is a great necessity for an over-all policy of floor prices and price supports to give the farmer the basic security to which he is entitled as a result of helping himself to the fullest extent possible.
Then, we need a national agency with full authority to administer an over-all program of price support under specific terms of reference established by legislation. In addition to that, particularly in British Columbia,

Supply-Agriculture
the fruit industry is of the opinion that provision must be made for establishing whatever import controls may become necessary in connection with administration of price support. These should be of a regional or seasonal nature wherever appropriate. Now, that is all I am going to say with respect to marketing in general.
I want to deal with another question for a few minutes because it is of particular interest to a number of producers that I have the honour to represent. In spite of the growing advances in agriculture in British Columbia there is an urgent need for additional research and extension work designed to promote the production of heavy yields of high quality produce at low cost without impoverishing our soils. It is very necessary in our district because we have very different conditions from those existing on the prairies. We have such changed circumstances, even with climate, within a few miles and our soils vary a great deal even from mile to mile. Generally speaking, many of our soils on which fruit is grown are what is known as benchlands, and are the lighter type of soils which can very quickly be impoverished by poor agricultural practices.
I want to take a minute to draw the minister's attention to a resolution or two passed by the British Columbia fruit growers association in convention on January 18, 19 and 20 of this year at Kelowna. I want to use these two illustrations as an indication of the interest of the farmers of interior British Columbia in an extension of certain research work. One resolution was adopted unanimously at the convention with respect to research in dwarf and semi-dwarf apple tree stocks. The resolution reads as follows, and I am going to place it on the record because it is an important resolution from our point of view:
Whereas many apple plantings in the Okanagan and Kootenays are 30 years of age and older, and
Whereas in the near future considerable replanting will have to be undertaken to replace those trees which are no longer economical producers as well as those producing unmarketable varieties, and
Whereas it is becoming increasingly evident that the pruning, thinning, picking and spraying of standard type trees are both time and material consuming to such an extent that the profit from fruit growing is diminishing even in years of good crops and prices, and
Whereas growers are becoming increasingly interested in dwarf and semi-dwarf stocks such as those from East Mailing,
Therefore be it resolved that this B.C.F.G.A. convention petition the experimental station to place greater emphasis on the propagation and planting of dwarfing stocks in order to find out whether any of our present marketable varieties are incompatible with certain root stocks, and to find the stocks best suited to widely different soil conditions of this area.

The area concerned is the Okanagan and the Kootenays. There is no reflection on the staff of the experimental station at Summer-land which has done excellent work throughout	the years.	The resolution merely
indicates that the staff must have suflflcient funds to carry on that type of research. 1 want particularly to draw the minister's attention to the fact that it is necessary in view of the large replacement of older trees which will be taking place in the Okanagan and Kootenay valleys from now on at an increasing rate.
I now	deal with another resolution
adopted in connection with research because it is of particular interest to the Kootenay district. This is the resolution in connection with little cherry disease. I know the minister's officials have been carrying on research for some years, but it is a serious problem and has caused great loss to some growers. There is a feeling that more extensive research should be carried on in this connection. The resolution adopted by the convention in this regard was:
Whereas development and research work on Kootenay little cherry disease has been carried on for the past eight or more years and while considerable knowledge of this disease has been obtained no solution seems to have been reached in regard to control or eradication nor have varieties been found that are resistant, and
Whereas little cherry disease is becoming an increasingly serious problem each year in the Kootenays and has now appeared in the Wenatchee area south of the international border,
Therefore, be it resolved that this 1955 B.C.F.G.A. convention ask the federal and provincial departments of agriculture to greatly increase the work being done on the little cherry disease and that the ministers of agriculture of both the federal and provincial governments be asked to see that adequate funds are made available for this work.
I am particularly interested in this, Mr. Chairman, because in the Kootenays we have the climate and soil, as well as conditions in general, to produce the finest cherries that can be produced anywhere in Canada. I think that is recognized, particularly so far as Bings, Lamberts and some of the other later varieties are concerned. A number of our cherry growers have suffered severely from little cherry disease, and it is a great impediment to them and the district. Until the disease is conquered the development of the cherry industry in the Kootenays particularly will be retarded because people are somewhat sceptical of putting in new plantings. It is a very important part of our agricultural development in the Kootenay area, so I support in full the representations of the B.C.F.G.A. and ask for further funds for extended research work in this very necessary field.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have another resolution or two passed at the convention, and I

want to deal with one about fruit reaching the market in the best condition, which is a very important thing. This resolution was adopted in that respect:
Whereas it is of the utmost importance that fruit reach the market in the best possible condition, and
Whereas the least bruising will be effected in those railway cars carried nearest the engine,
Therefore be it resolved by this 1955 B.C.F.G.A. convention that all cars of fruit carried by railways be spotted next to the engine.
I mention that to indicate how much consideration they have to give to the handling of fruit by rail transportation. I give credit to the transportation companies and to the officials of the department, both federal and provincial, for the great progress that has been made in recent years in the provision of fast, efficient freight service for the delivery of fruit from the Okanagan and the Kootenay valleys to prairie and other points. I mention this resolution to indicate that there is still room for improvement in this connection.
I want to bring to the minister's attention the question of the shipment of cherries, peaches, apricots and certain soft fruits from the Arrow lakes north to Revelstoke on the main line where that freight is often loaded into fast freight trains which proceed to prairie points. The fruit comes up the Arrow lakes by steamer. It is fairly cool and it is taken care of there. A steamer moving on a large lake provides certain air ventilation and coolness that prevents any deterioration of the fruit. In recent years when it reaches Arrowhead it has been unloaded from this steamer on hot days-and cherries are very susceptible to the heat-and loaded onto the dock at Arrowhead. From there it is loaded into baggage or freight cars and put into the yards at Arrowhead and left there for some time, often in the very strong sun. These cars are then hooked onto a mixed train whose average speed is about 15 miles an hour. Consequently, these fruits are sometimes subjected to very high temperatures for several hours, before reaching Revelstoke. As a result, when they reach the market, sometimes in the case of cherries, they show some development of plum rot or some development of mildew and defects of that sort.
I do urge the minister's officials responsible to do what they can to see that these smaller collecting points get as good service as possible from the railways. Possibly if there were more people living in that area, and the volume of fruit were greater, they would receive more consideration. The points of which I am thinking would not ship more
Supply-Agriculture
than 25 or 35 carloads in a season, but those 25 or 35 carloads are very important to the people concerned.
In the fruit industry of British Columbia in recent years there has been devised a very efficient system of advising growers when to spray-that is, when the trees are in a proper condition, the dormant, the pink blossom, and at other stages. Then there is also an efficient method of advising fruit growers when to pick certain varieties and have them transported to certain points to meet marketing requirements.
This is being done by radio. At the last convention of the British Columbia fruit growers association the matter was discussed, and the following resolution was adopted:
Therefore, be it resolved by this 1955 B.C.F.G.A. convention that the executive of the B.C.F.G.A. make every effort to have this broadcast included in the program of the C.B.C. booster stations at Oliver and Osoyoos.
I would add the booster stations at Creston and Castlegar, and one or two other points. It is also a very necessary and a very worthwhile service to the fruit growers living away from the main lines of transportation. It is useful to them to receive instructions when to spray and pick.
In connection with the question of booster stations I would point out to the minister that the farmers in west Kootenay district are anxious to listen to Canadian radio programs in general. I do hope he will urge the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to erect another two or three booster stations for general service of the farmers in the area I represent.
I see I have only a moment or two left before the hour mentioned for adjournment. I wish to support the remarks of previous speakers with respect to the good effect the price support on butter has had in this country, so far as the dairymen are concerned. I hope the government will continue this policy.
On behalf of the farmers I represent, may I voice my protest against reductions in freight assistance. I have mentioned this on two other occasions, but I feel I should not let this opportunity pass without mentioning it again. It has created considerable hardship to the dairymen and poultrymen particularly in my district.
I see we have almost reached the suggested hour of adjournment, and I shall conclude my remarks at this point in the hope, as usual, that the minister will give serious consideration to the representations I have made.
Item stands.
Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


James Sinclair: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is one slight change in the order of business announced by the Minister of Finance last night. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will not be here on Monday afternoon, so that his bill, No. 3, goes to the bottom of the list.
First there will be item No. 1 on the order paper, which is Bill No. 5; the second is item No. 11, a resolution; the third is item No. 12,
another C.N.R. resolution; the fourth is item 14, a resolution concerning fishermen's loans; fifth is item No. 10, the second reading of a bill amending the Prisons and Reformatories Act; sixth is item No. 13, an act respecting the boundary between Alberta and British Columbia. Item 7 will be next, a bill concerning the Defence Production Act. Then, last, will be Bill No. 3 respecting international river improvements.
That is the program for Monday and Tuesday.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.45 p.m.

Monday, June 6, 1955