1955-02-18

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of certain remarks last evening by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) which were made during my absence and for that reason were not replied to at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member would care to do so, I would suggest that it might be more appropriate to raise the point when we resume the adjourned debate on immigration.



CORRECTION OF REFERENCE TO SIR LYMAN DUFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I rise on a question of privilege. Looking over Hansard of yesterday, I see that I referred inadvertently to the "late" Sir Lyman Duff. I am very pleased to say that I was informed today I was quite wrong and that Sir Lyman is still with us and hale and hearty at the age of 90. I should like to add that I hope his judicial spirit still imbues the supreme court to the confounding of the department of immigration.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think this might be an appropriate moment for me to give a further answer to the question asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. When he asked whether the government would reconsider its position in the case of George Sylvestre Sim-monds, in the light of the observation of Mr. Justice Rheaume of Montreal, I replied that I would be pleased to reconsider the matter. I had felt that it was not appropriate for me to give consideration to this case while it was before the courts, but I had already made myself familiar with the facts of the 50433-82J
case and, in view of the fact that Mr. Sim-monds married a Canadian citizen twelve days after he was ordered deported and four days after his appeal was dismissed by the minister, I have directed that, since Mr. Simmonds was not previously a landed immigrant, an application for landing be now considered. Before he can land it will of course be necessary for the department to be satisfied that he can meet the requirements of the law.



POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture. Did any one of the three ministers receive a delegation of turkey or poultry producers complaining of recent importations of dressed turkey and poultry products into Canada? If the answer is yes, then what was the outcome of the visit? Was any satisfactory solution arrived at by the government so far as these people are concerned? If so, would the minister tell the house what it was?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this question is similar to that asked yesterday by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McBain), though perhaps not quite in point. Yesterday the hon. member for Elgin asked if any special representations were being made to the government with respect to equalizing the tariff arrangement that exists between Canada and the United States with respect to the import and export of dressed turkey and poultry products. I saw three delegations with regard to this subject during the fall and early winter months, and every consideration is being given to what they have said.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschateleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the Quebec government or the city of Montreal discussed

Inquiries of the Ministry with the federal government a proposed slum clearance and rehousing project in Montreal? If so, at what stage are the negotiations? Will the minister also state if the Quebec government has informed the federal government that it approves the project and is going to participate?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the city of Montreal have discussed with officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation a proposed large slum clearance project in the city of Montreal with a view to a subsequent rehousing development under the federal-provincial partnership arrangements provided for in section 36 of the National Housing Act.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation wrote on December 23, 1954, to the chairman of the advisory committee on slum clearance and low rental housing, Montreal, respecting aspects of the proposed project which were discussed at a meeting of the officials of the corporation and the city held here on November 17 last. As regards negotiations between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the city of Montreal, the matter rests there.
The Quebec government has not up to this time informed the federal government that it approves the project, nor that it is willing to participate. Under the terms of the National Housing Act, the project cannot be developed unless and until this approval is forthcoming.



PHYSICAL FITNESS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare care to comment on a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of Tuesday last in which the premier of Manitoba is reported as criticizing the federal government for withdrawing assistance under the physical fitness legislation "without notice or bonus" and expressing dissatisfaction with the whole principle of joint federal provincial projects?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to reinforce what I was going to say by way of reply but the voluminous documents at my side have not been properly perused so my answer will not be as complete as I would like, but it will be satisfactory.
[Mr. Deschatelets.l

The hon. gentleman will recall that the National Physical Fitness Act was repealed on June 15 last, and on the occasion of first reading the decision of the government to repeal the act won such wide unanimity that I was able to act upon the initiating suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and to state that that was one occasion when I was happy to be in a position of fully agreeing with what he said. The entire house likewise agreed. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had indicated in outlining the agenda of the session some time before that the government intended to repeal the physical fitness act. * I, myself, had given instructions to our departmental officials to advise the departments concerned in the provinces of our intention to repeal the act. I may say that as an earnest of our good faith in the matter we had decided that, since these physical fitness agreements were for a term of ten years, rather than catch the provinces suddenly and unawares we would agree to extend the term of agreement for a period of one year. This was done.
I might say that I have had no complaint from any province since the repeal of the act, except one, and that province was not Manitoba.


Owen C. Trainor: A supplementary question: Is the minister prepared to comment on the general condemnation of the whole principle of joint agreements between the federal government and the provinces?


Mr. Marlin:: No, except to say that I am sure, on reflection, whoever was the author of the statement would not find it desirable to repeat it.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hector Dupuis (SI. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions to put to the Minister of Transport.
Would the minister tell me whether the traffic lanes on Jacques Cartier bridge will be widened soon, and whether steps have been taken to ease the flow of traffic at the bridge's entrances and exits?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was so kind as to give me notice of his question. In answer to the first part, that is, whether the traffic lanes on Jacques Cartier bridge will be widened soon, I would like to tell him that plans and specifications, together

with the tender forms, should be ready by March 15, and that tenders will be called around March 31 with regard to the construction of an extra traffic lane on Jacques Cartier bridge; we hope that work may begin as soon as possible after the contract has been let.
Now, as for the second part of the question, whether steps have been taken to ease the flow of traffic at the bridge's entrances and exits, I would like to say that the national harbours board has filed drawings with the Quebec department of highways with regard to the temporary improvements it is planning to make at the southern end of the bridge. However these sketches have not yet been approved by the department of highways. For the time being we have to resort to a merely temporary solution, since no lasting changes can be made as long as the bridge has not been raised to meet the requirements of the St. Lawrence seaway project. Other steps are also being considered in order to ease up traffic conditions.
Preliminary negotiations are at present under way with the municipal authorities with a view to finding a solution to the traffic problem at the north end of the bridge. As matters stand, the city streets are unable to absorb the four-lane traffic flow from the bridge.
(Text) :



CARGO SHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government turned down an application for an export permit by the East-West Export-Import Company, Vancouver, requesting permission to export Canadian built cargo ships to the U.S.S.R? If so, will the minister explain to the house the reason for that, and will the department reconsider the application?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The department has not in actual fact turned down an application, Mr. Speaker, for the export of a ship, since the ship does not exist. The department was consulted as to whether Canada would be prepared to export ships of certain types to the U.S.S.R. We were able to say that certain types would be authorized and certain types would not be authorized. We pointed out which types were which. We are quite sure there was no bona fide requirement behind the application. In other words, we
Inquiries of the Ministry are quite sure that no order had been placed by the U.S.S.R. or was about to be placed in this particular case.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport, or perhaps it should be the Prime Minister, a question which perhaps they would prefer to take as notice. The question is: Is the sale or other disposition of the northwest communications system or the Alberta-Saskatchewan section of the government telegraph and telephone service or either of them under active consideration? If so, is either minister able to give an indication of the possible outcome?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. friend to allow me to take his question as notice, and I shall try to reply later.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Owen C. Trainor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Is the minister prepared to support the thesis that the interests of Trans-Canada Air Lines outweigh the convenience and financial interest of the travelling public?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Owen C. Trainor: If not, why does he not allow air passengers for Europe to travel from Winnipeg to Copenhagen via Scandinavian Airlines?


Some hon. Members:: Order.



REPORTED SALES AT LESS THAN SUPPORT PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Vicloria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that I told the minister as long as 18 days ago about this subject and he replied that he needed information, and in view of the fact that I produced that information for him 14 days ago, would he make a statement to the house on the question I asked him in reference to eggs being sold across the country at from 18 to 28 cents a dozen, when the floor price is 31 cents?

Immigration


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have replied to the hon. member by letter. If he has not received it as yet, he will shortly.

The house resumed, from Thursday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris that the house go into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fulton.



IMMIGRATION

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order arising out of what the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) said last night about a document cited by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker).
The hon. member for Prince Albert is reported at pages 1258 and 1259 of Hansard to have said that he was reading from a report of the subcommittee on civil liberties dealing with immigration, the committee members being John H. McDonald, Ottawa, John H. Dickey, M.P., Halifax, N.S., and John R. Taylor, Vancouver.
The hon. member later changed his statement and said what he was reading was something attached to the report and that the names of the three committee members were to be found at the very beginning of the document.
I then rose to point out that I had read the whole report and the passage the hon. member for Prince Albert was reading was not in the report I had read.
The hon. member nevertheless continued to read from this unidentified document which he persisted in calling a report of the subcommittee on civil liberties.
The senior hon. member for Halifax made it clear in his speech that the document had nothing whatever to do with that report and I submit, sir, that the hon. member for Prince Albert should explain to the house what the document was he cited in the debate, who the author was and how it came into his possession.
I believe, sir, that the house is entitled to have this mysterious, unidentified document tabled so that hon. members may see for themselves what it does actually contain and whatever evidence there may be of its origin.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a statement made last night by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) who, having attained greatness, is endeavouring to divest himself of his new-found position, in that last evening

in my absence from the House of Commons he made a number of statements, none of which I shall refer to, with one exception. It is this, as found at page 1275 of Hansard:
He found he was unable to do so, and not being able to find justification in the report for the statements he was making, he went outside that report to other documents. He attempted to suggest, and even persisted under questioning by myself, that the documents to which he was referring formed a part of the report, and that these documents were accordingly made with the responsibility of the members of the committee. I state that any such impression is false and misleading. I propose to prove from the documents themselves that such an impression is false.
And then a little later on, toward the end of his remarks, he said that the statements made were unfounded.
Now I propose to refer to the documents in question. I refer first to the report of the civil liberties section to the council of the Canadian Bar Association on September 3, 1954, and I shall read only that part which has to do with this matter. It says:
The section met on September 1, 1954-
That is the civil liberties section.
-in the Royal Alexandra hotel, Winnipeg, Manitoba. The chairman, Mr. A. J. Cowan, Q.C., presented his report for the year. It appeared that the civil liberties committees had been appointed in all of the provinces except Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
At the last annual meeting, the chairman of the Quebec committee suggested that each of the provincial committees should make a study of all the provincial statutes, with a view to finding out how far provincial legislations-
Perhaps it should be "legislatures".
-have gone in removing boards and tribunals from the control of the courts.
Then it deals with the report of the province of Ontario, and refers to Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, and says this:
Mr. John H. McDonald, the chairman of the subcommittee on immigration, presented his report. In view of the unfortunate publicity which has been given to this report, a copy of it is attached hereto.
At the outset it should be said that the chairman of the section has consistently refused to give any statement to the press until the matters have been dealt with by the council. He is of the opinion that any report, or any material prepared for a report to a committee of the Canadian Bar Association belongs to the association and may only be released by proper authority.
Objection to the action of the sub-committee in presenting the 1953 report of the sub-committee to the minister, and to making further recommendations, was at once made by two members of the bar. It was pointed out that this could only be done on authority of the council, and as no authority had been given, the sub-committee had exceeded its authority.
As chairman of the section, I should mention that I had no knowledge of what the sub-committee was doing, and it wasn't until I arrived in Winnipeg that I was advised of these actions.

Then he proceeds to deal with the report of the British Columbia association. Then Mr. McDonald placed before the council of the Canadian Bar Association the following documents: the report given by the committee, and then the report upon which that report was based. I shall read from these documents:
Canadian Bar Association Committee on Civil Liberties Subcommittee on Immigration A. J. Cowan. Esq., O.B.E., M.C., Q.C.,
Chairman of the Civil Liberties Committee,
Canadian Bar Association.
Dear Sir:
I have the honour to submit the 1953-54 report of the subcommittee on immigration.
And then that report is submitted, and signed by Mr. McDonald.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the date?


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member sit down. I am speaking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might go into this matter with all the seriousness which the occasion calls for. Apparently the hon. member does not wish to have the minister ask the question, and he is entitled to refuse that permission. Perhaps the minister may ask at the end of the hon. member's remarks; or, if the hon. member wishes to answer, he may do so now.


John George Diefenbaker: Because of the fact that publicity had been given to the reports that were made to the committee, Mr. Cowan, Q.C., stated that the entire record should come before the council of the Canadian Bar Association.
Now I shall read from the next document, which was filed. It is dated July 13, 1954, and is headed as follows:
Report to the Members of the Canadian Bar Association By the Subcommittee on Immigration
Committee members: John H. McDonald, Ottawa (chairman); John H. Dickey, M.P. Halifax, N.S.; John R. Taylor, Vancouver, B.C.
1.	The committee has been requested, among other things, to report on the curtailment of the rights of Canadian citizens by the immigration department.
2.	The report enclosed deals with the East Indians who are also Canadian citizens.
Then the next report-and again with the names of the committee indicated, as it is on each of them-is dated July 20, 1954, as follows:
Canadian Bar Association Subcommittee of civil liberties dealing with immigration
Committee members: John H. McDonald, Ottawa, (chairman); John H. Dickey, M.P., Halifax, Nova Scotia; John R. Taylor, Vancouver. British Columbia.
Immigration
It gives examples of the type of thing that I object to and to which I made reference yesterday and upon which the final report was determined. It reads as follows:
1.	The previous report to the subcommittee dealt with curtailment of rights of Canadian citizens (East Indians).
2.	The present report, like the previous one, is for the purpose of supplying the committee with facts and evidence in order that the committee can draft a final report on all phases of the problems under review.
My hon. friend, in a moment of weakness yesterday, admitted that he had seen some of these reports, but that he had not signed the final one; that he had asked for some changes, and those changes had not been made. It is not my responsibility, or the responsibility of hon. members, to act as nursemaid to my hon. friend and see that the reports that are signed and purported to be by himself and given by the chairman were indeed made with his authority.
I read from the next report, and I read from that yesterday also.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member exactly what he is trying to establish, because, as I understand it, the hon. member in his speech yesterday, spoke of the report of the subcommittee of several members dealing with immigration, the committee members being Messrs. So and so. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), who was mentioned as being a member of that subcommittee, explained his position last evening. Now,
I want to keep the subject matter of this debate within the ambit of the discussion which takes place here, because if there is anything to be fought out between the members of the Canadian Bar Association, perhaps it should be done at the next meeting of the association.


John George Diefenbaker: It was only because the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration injected himself into this that I refer to these things.
The final report was given on August 10, 1954, and again it has the names of the members of that committee. All I have to say, Mr. Speaker, is this: Every statement that was made is borne out by the documents that were placed before the council of the Canadian Bar Association by what purported to be the three members of that committee, including the hon. member for Halifax. Having joined in those reports, last evening he stated that he had not read those interim reports carefully. All I can say is that the final report should not have been brought before the committee. If my hon. friend has any objection to the information contained in those reports, this is not the place to

Immigration
revise his views as expressed in that report. The time was on September 2 last, not on February 17, 1955.
The statements I read from were the statements of the subcommittee placing its views before the committee of the Canadian Bar Association and were brought before the council of the bar association. Because of the fact that Mr. McDonald had given publicity to those interim reports, Mr. Cowan, the chairman, decided to place the whole matter before the council of the Canadian Bar Association. Far from being anything in the nature of placing before the house a matter that was not in the reports, I quoted in every case from his reports. My hon. friend possibly has some reason for saying today that what was said in those reports is different from what he wishes.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can deal briefly with what the hon. member for Prince Albert has said. I do not propose to change my own views, but what I object to is the hon. member trying to misrepresent my views and what is in the documents which are in his own possession. It is an example either of the unfairness of the hon. member's position or his inability to understand exactly what he is reading. I now point out that he has put on the record parts of the report of Mr. Cowan, the chairman of the civil liberties section. He read out that Mr. Cowan had informed the council of the bar association that in order for the council to consider the report of the subcommittee he thought it advisable to place before the council not only the report but the entire record. That certainly indicates to any hon. member that there were things in the record that were separate from the report, and that was my only point yesterday. There was a report and there were separate documents. What I complained about was that the hon. member attempted to read, as coming from the report, statements that were in the separate documents which I later identified in my speech last evening, and which I showed did not form any part of the report. I definitely stated to the house that any of them that I had seen I had specifically rejected as committee documents in advance.
To indicate the completeness with which the hon. member tried to make his point this afternoon, I would draw to the attention of the house that he read from a document dated July 13 in an attempt to prove that

this was part of the report of the subcommittee. He read paragraphs 1 and 2 but he neglected to read paragraph 3, which is as follows:
The report is one of many to be submitted to the committee in order that the committee may draft a final report on the entire subject under review.
In connection with the document dated July 20, he started to read the first paragraph and then stopped. The first paragraph reads: The previous report to the subcommittee dealt with curtailment of rights of Canadian citizens (East Indians).
The second paragraph reads:
The present report,-
That is, July 20.
-like the previous one, is for the purpose of supplying the committee with facts and evidence in order that the committee can draft a final report on all phases of the problems under review.
What I objected to by my remarks last evening was the attempt of the hon. member for Prince Albert to read these documents and their contents as part of the final report when they were clearly intended only to be part of the record.


John George Diefenbaker: No such thing.


John Horace Dickey: If the hon. member does not think that his language yesterday afternoon gave that impression to the house he had better reread Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to read-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment, no one rises. I am the one who rises. I cannot hear two hon. gentlemen at the same time. It is always preferable for only one member to have the floor. To link the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax who has complained about the wording of the hon. member for Prince Albert with the hon. member for Prince Albert, I think I ought to hear him first in order to have some sequence in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot allow my hon. friend to make a statement that is not borne out by the facts. Here is what I said at page 1259 of Hansard:


John Horace Dickey: The document from which the hon. member is reading is not the document that he has identified.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the text here. It is difficult to follow unless there is some indication of where the quotation starts.


John George Diefenbaker: It starts on page 1259, column 1, first paragraph, as follows:


John Horace Dickey: On a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Horace Dickey: The document from which the hon. member is reading is not the document that he has identified.


John George Diefenbaker: The document X am reading from is an official document that was filed with the Canadian Bar Association and attached to the report. It is dated August 10, 1954, and it is that document from which I am reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that the minister had injected himself into this discussion. What are we discussing? We are discussing a document on which a vote of want of confidence in the minister's department is based. How the minister can inject himself into that kind of discussion I do not quite understand. It seems to me that perhaps the hon. gentleman, who read the minister a lengthy lecture yesterday on arrogance, might be well advised to read it to himself.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister should state
his question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question of privilege
is this: yesterday I read into the record the full report as it was handed to me of this subcommittee. The hon. gentleman comes here with a lot of other documents of which I have no knowledge, which he does not identify, and which so far as I can discover have never been published until he published them under the privilege of this house. I ask the hon. member if these documents have ever been published anywhere, what are the dates of them and when he is going to lay them on the table.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The dates have been given.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand it, the hon. member for Prince Albert had before him a document which I understand was the final report of the subcommittee of the committee on civil liberties of the Canadian Bar Association. He also had documents relating to that final report which might be termed interim reports or other documents connected with the final report.
There is a misunderstanding there between the minister, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). On the one hand, the minister and the hon. member for Halifax say that the hon. member for Prince Albert attempted to indicate that whatever he was quoting from was the final report. The minister and the hon. member
Immigration
for Halifax claim that that was some other document separate from the final report. We are not so far apart.
The hon. member for Prince Albert has quoted from that document which is not the final report. He was asked at one time what was the date of the document and I think he could give that as he has it before him. For that matter the hon. member for Halifax has it also, and the minister has just said that he has it too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know what the document is.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the minister to say that a few minutes or a few hours ago he was given the whole report about this matter. Of course when documents are quoted by an hon. member, that hon. member must divulge the source. Quotations must not be read into the record from unidentified documents.
I am at a loss at this moment to understand why hon. members should insist so much upon having more details about this particular document because apparently it is known. Is there any further reference to it that the minister would like to make? The hon. member for Prince Albert has given the source; he says that it is a document connected with a study made by a subcommittee of the civil liberties committee of the Canadian Bar Association, but he has not given the date.


John George Diefenbaker: Every date.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is so, what more is required at the moment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In rising on my original point of order I asked to have this mysterious unidentified document, which I repeat I have never seen, nor am I aware of its contents except in so far as bits and pieces of it have been quoted in this house, tabled in the house. I asked that we be told what it is, where it came from and whether it has ever been published. To the best of my knowledge it has never been published before. It would appear to me to be a confidential document that the hon. gentleman has taken the responsibility of reading in this house without the permission of the people from whom he got it.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Prince Albert like to comment?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend had it before him yesterday and I have no objection to his reading all the excerpts that I read yesterday.


An hon. Member:: Table it.

Immigration


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We will have to soon put an end to this discussion. I think that hon. members who are also members of the Canadian Bar Association could debate the whole matter whenever they meet again. In the meantime, as far as this particular debate is concerned, the hon. member for Prince Albert knows perfectly well that whenever a member attempts to quote from a certain document it is the rule that the source shall be divulged.


An hon. Member:: He did that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member claims that he has done that. I do not think he should be called upon to explain how he got it, as that is his own personal affair. I do not think he has to explain to anyone where it comes from provided he identifies the document. He says that he has done that by divulging the source and identifying it as a document connected with the subcommittee of the civil liberties committee of the Canadian Bar Association. I should imagine that with these words we should all be ready to resume the adjourned debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair.


Mr. Coldwell:: Just in connection with that-


Mr. Tucker:: When a member purports to read from a public document I submit that he must-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of order in connection with what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, you said that the hon. member was quoting from a document and it was his business to indicate where he got it. That is not the position that this house has taken on former occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know about the other occasions to which the hon. member refers, but what I have in mind is that the document which is now being considered is one which emanates from an institution or organization which is completely detached from any government service. Whenever a document is being quoted which may have emanated from an officer or official of one of the departments of government that may be a different proposition. I think one must make a distinction between a document quoted by a member of this house which was obtained from the Canadian Bar Association and a document which he might have obtained from a department of government, for instance.


Major James William Coldwell: I was not thinking of that. I was thinking of the occasion when I was

compelled to table a letter for which I was prepared to take responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: On that very point, I know the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is very much interested in this particular point. At one time he was involved and he asked Mr. Speaker Glen to give a ruling. Unfortunately the ruling that Mr. Speaker Glen gave was not perhaps what he expected. Ever since that time Speakers have decided as I have today, that once a document is quoted the source must be divulged.


Walter Adam Tucker: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the very reason you have given applies to the necessity of having a document tabled, giving the source of the information. If that document is not available, then it should be tabled so that members may know whether or not it can be fully and properly quoted from. When an hon. member quotes from a document that is available to everybody, then of course there is not the same necessity for tabling it. But when, as Your Honour has pointed out, he is quoting from a document that is not available to all members of the house, then of course, obviously, in fairness to the members of the house and to the people he is using that document against, he must be ordered to table the whole document so that they can see whether or not he is quoting from it accurately and whether or not he is giving a proper picture of what the document contains. I think that all the rules of evidence, fair play and everything else require that when a person undertakes to quote from a document he must table the document if he is asked to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: It would appear to be quite logical that whenever a document is quoted from, if it is a public document, it should be made available. But in this case it is not a public document, it is a private document. What hon. members are required to do, under our rules, is to divulge the source and identify the document, but not necessarily to make it the property of the house. There is no objection to the hon. member's tabling it if he wishes to do so. Under our rules the limit to which I can go is to ask him, as I did, to identify the document and to divulge the source. He claims that he has done that. With that, I would think we ought to continue the debate.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, judging from the number of exchanges that have occurred during this debate, I think you will agree that the time is long past due when the whole subject of immigration requires a complete airing.

Immigration
Several members from this side of the house who have taken part in the debate thus far have emphasized the point that in recent years there has been a failure on the part of the government to provide an opportunity to discuss thoroughly this extremely important subject. This year, with a new minister responsible for the department, I for one awaited with keen anticipation his first statement of policy as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. That statement came yesterday. The minister comes originally from the same province as I do, and naturally we would expect that he would have the western viewpoint towards immigration matters. He is, of course, temporarily on loan to another province but still he has the basic viewpoint of western members in this whole subject.
In listening to his speech yesterday unfortunately I failed to have my grasp of immigration policies extended in any way, shape or form. It began with a rather obscure quotation to the effect that in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king. That quotation went right over my head and, I think, the heads of most hon. members. As I listened to the minister's extended discourse it seemed to me that perhaps the reference would have just as much significance for his side of the house as it has for this side. Perhaps I will be pardoned, particularly in view of the exchange that has just taken place, if I begin my remarks with a quotation from a wise old Indian medicine man who said something to this effect: This country would not be in such a mess today if the Indians had adopted more stringent immigration laws when they were responsible for affairs here. Certainly I think that sentiment has a great deal of merit and should be pondered upon carefully by members of this house.
The interest that has been aroused in the press as well as in this house during the past few days during which the debate on immigration has taken place is indicative of the importance of this subject to the average citizen across Canada. Just two years ago, in 1953, the Canadian Citizenship Council circulated an inquiry among various groups in Canada requesting that they indicate their interest in this subject of immigration. No less than 121 organizations responded. I think that response indicates a widespread interest on the part of the general public.
It is unfortunate that there has been so much confusion on immigration matters during recent days. This confusion is indicated by the headlines that appear in the press from time to time. I have just a few selected ones in front of me. Some of them are diametrically opposed in their viewpoint.
Here is one: "Immigration Flow Nearing Million". Here is another: "Most Canadians Oppose Immigration". Another reads: "Immigration Eases Skilled Labour Shortage", and another: "Why Immigration When Many Jobless?" On and on it goes with each successive newspaper headline being almost diametrically opposed to the other. As I said, Mr. Speaker, we had hoped that the new minister of this department would throw some light on the subject yesterday in his presentation but unfortunately, as has been indicated by the exchange of a few moments ago, the problem seems to be more obscure than ever.
Coming to a direct consideration of the problem of immigration, I am not going to deal with it on the rarefied legalistic level. The resolution that we have before us brought forward by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton)-I shall read it just to refresh our minds-says this:
in the opinion of this house, the immigration policy of the government is not clear, consistent or co-ordinated; is not in conformity with the needs or the responsibilities of Canada; and in its administration denies simple justice to Canadians and non-Canadians alike.
Looking at that resolution in the light of policy statements that I have been able to extract from Hansard or other sources of ministerial or departmental statements, I think it can be clearly demonstrated that the resolution we have before us is right to the point. The basic policy of the citizenship and immigration department is based on statements made by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King back in the year 1947. They have been referred to several times but if I am to establish a basis for my remarks I think I shall have to refer to them again. In 1947 there were four major aspects to the policy set forth by Mr. King. First of all, immigration should increase Canada's population. That is obvious. Second, it must have regard to Canada's absorptive capacity. Third, it must not alter the fundamental character of the people. Finally, immigration is not a matter of privilege or of right. That still stands, according to the statement of the minister yesterday, as Canada's basic approach to the problem. As the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to suggest that he made a slight lapse. He said that immigration was not a matter of privilege or of right. I think what was said was that it was a matter of privilege, not of right.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Excuse me-a matter of privilege and not of right. Thank you for that

Immigration
correction. As the hon. member for Prince Albert indicated yesterday, that is a typical statement of the former prime minister in dealing with a very delicate problem, and certainly there is a lack of unanimity in Canada on this question as I have indicated by the diverse viewpoints brought forward in representative newspapers of the country. The statement of Mr. King can only be compared in lack of clarity with that classical statement, immigration if necessary, but not necessarily immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Only a million.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As far as I am concerned, the stickler is the phrase "the fundamental character of the people". Who is to decide what the fundamental character of the Canadian people is to be? Is it based on colour, is it based on race, is it based on culture, is it based on religion, or is it based on any number of considerations that could quite justifiably be included in that phrase, "the fundamental character of the people"? I think one of the reasons why it is so dangerous to have so much power in the hands of the minister and officials is the very looseness of the definition as enunciated. I was disappointed that there was not a further clarification of this point yesterday, but in my search I have come across attempts to clarify in greater detail particularly the phrase, "the fundamental character of the people".
I have before me a speech by the former minister of citizenship and immigration which he delivered in the city of St. Thomas, Ontario, at Knox Presbyterian church on January 11, 1954. The topic of his address was, "The New Canadianism". As soon as I came across this speech my interest was stimulated because the title seemed to suggest it was going to deal with the problem of determining what the fundamental character of the people of Canada should be. That is a tremendous responsibility for politicians. At that time the former minister said:
Mr. King, then prime minister, said that immigration should not and would not alter the fundamental character of our people. Mr. King, I believe, meant two things by that phrase: (a) that the racial background of our people would be maintained within reasonable balance, and because he was not a Presbyterian for nothing, he also meant (b) that we would avoid an influx of persons whose viewpoint differed substantially from that of the average respectable God-fearing Canadian.
That makes the problem even more obscure than ever. But let me read the rest of the paragraph:
It is true that from time to time racial origin may not be in balance and some alarmists might be concerned about a temporary trend, but we should judge the results on the over-all period. For example, we have always felt that the British

people should represent the greater proportion of our immigrants and we have done our best to increase the flow from the United Kingdom in the past four years, realizing that the figure of 13,000 at that time was too low. The figure has risen steadily to over 48,000 this past year.
At the same time, one cannot disregard the advantages of having a mixed population and of adding to those other national groups already here who have demonstrated their ability to adapt themselves to Canadian conditions.
The first part of the definition referring to racial background is fairly easy to understand, but I should like to deal with the second part, that we would avoid an influx of persons whose viewpoint differed substantially from that of the average respectable God-fearing Canadian. That point is prefaced by the statement that Mr. King was not a Presbyterian for nothing, and I wonder whether you would interpret that to mean that only good Scotch Presbyterians are going to be regarded as respectable God-fearing citizens. I know that might please the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) but it is hardly a broad enough definition.
Here is where the dangers involved in bureaucratic control of a policy so vague as that which I have just indicated arise. No politician, no civil servant, should have the final say in judging as to who should be classified as respectable God-fearing Canadians. I feel that is why we have become bogged down in so many difficulties in the immigration department, difficulties that have been indicated by the recent outburst of the Canadian Bar Association.
Let it be noted that was not the first hew and cry raised in the country concerning immigration. On June 26 last, in what was, unfortunately, a very hurried debate because time was catching up with us and the governor general was waiting at the door, complaints similar to those raised later at the bar association meeting were made in the house. Unfortunately they did not draw very much press attention at the time. In rebutting many of the observations made by hon. members on this side of the house, there has been an attempt to pin down the whole basis of the complaints to those made by the Canadian Bar Association. I reiterate that the complaints have a much broader basis than that one incident.
Taking it for granted that the policy is as enunciated in 1947, in practice how has it been carried out? The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) put some statistics on the record last evening. I will not cover the same ground that he did, but in terms of performance what has this policy statement achieved? In performance what does the maintenance of racial background, for example, amount to?

Immigration
According to the 1951 census 48 per cent of Canada's people are of British stock and
30	per cent of French stock, which leaves 22 per cent of other European stocks. But according to the immigration figures up to 1951, of the 960,000 post-war immigrants only
31	per cent came from the United Kingdom and only 2 per cent from France. That immediately raises the query: How are you going to maintain the racial background of the people of Canada on the basis of statistics indicating 31 per cent immigration from the United Kingdom and 2 per cent from France? It immediately suggests there is a wide divergence in practice from the theory of the policy statements enunciated. I believe you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is little wonder the Winnipeg Free Press recently referred to government immigration policy as nothing but high-sounding, meaningless platitudes, because that is exactly what they are if you weigh them alongside the practical immigration figures.
The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais), and I listened to him carefully, slightly broadened the definition of the statement of government policy the other day. Instead of using the phrase "maintaining the fundamental character", he used the phrase, "immigration should not be the cause of an undue change in the ethnic balance". This considerably broadens the definition and several members who followed the hon. member for Charlevoix in the debate picked up the word "ethnical" and used it instead of "fundamental character" or racial derivation. Of course, by definition, the word "ethnic" means much more than race; it refers to a way of life, a system of values or a social culture. Now, that only tends to confuse the issue further, because it is going to be extremely difficult for immigration officials to maintain a proper flow of immigrants to maintain an ethnic or cultural balance in this country.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the very vagueness of this policy is a studied vagueness. It is a use of the technique of compromise to get around a very difficult subject in the body politic, and there is actually method in what seems to be madness. For example, returning to the former minister's speech at St. Thomas and the first section to the effect that the fundamental character of the people and the racial background of our people should be maintained within a reasonable balance, there is a certain taint of racial discrimination in that policy. Of course, any government that calls itself Liberal cannot be accused of racial discrimination, because that is an illiberal attitude.
Mr. King was aware of that when he first enunciated the policy back in 1947, and I quote:
With regard to the selection of immigrants, much has been said about discrimination.-
Apparently at the time he made his policy announcement in the house, this same suggestion came up.
-I wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right" of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestic policy. Immigration is subject to the control of the parliament of Canada.
Then there is this proviso.
This does not mean, however, that we should not seek to remove from our legislation discrimination which appears to be objectionable.
The spokesmen for this side have gone along with the necessity for having selective immigration; that can be taken for granted. But it does not follow as an axiom that the selection should be on the basis of race or of colour, for example. I suggest that in the kind of world in which we live today, to have a basic emphasis on racial discrimination in regard to immigration selectivity would not indicate an awareness of the tremendous responsibility of Canada in international world affairs today. In fact, it is a denial of the fundamental biblical statement to the effect that He hath made of one blood all nations to dwell on the face of the earth. There is, nonetheless, an element of racial discrimination in that very broad and vague enunciation of policy. It is because this element appears that the policy has been kept deliberately confused and vague.
Taking this matter a little farther, we no longer believe that there are fundamental differences between races so far as inherent mental ability or inherent superiority or inferiority are concerned. These points have been pretty well proven today by social science research. The selectivity we should really be practising, of course, is on the basis of other factors, cultural factors or ethnic factors, if you wish. I shall deal with that in a moment. I just want to give one or two illustrations of the tendency towards a selection on the basis of a strictly racial approach. I am sure that every member of this house could produce evidence of a discriminatory tendency in regard to the problem of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin. If we have Canadian citizens of Chinese origin in Canada, certainly they should be extended all the rights and privileges pertaining to Canadian citizenship, and particularly so far as the maintenance of the family unit is concerned.

Immigration
On this point of differentiating between race and culture, I happened to be associated a few years ago with a Chinese-Canadian citizen at Brandon College. He was a member of the staff in charge of the physics department. At the time of the outbreak of revolutionary conditions on the Chinese mainland, he was besieged by the good citizens of Brandon to give his viewpoint on the attitude of the Chinese communists. He was born in this country, and his cultural background was entirely Canadian. I recall that he referred to this situation in a public speech, and told the folks he was afraid he could give them no satisfaction because he knew no more about the situation than he read in the Brandon Sun. There was a feeling on the part of the public he should have some inside knowledge of the mind of the Chinese communists because of his racial background.
This same problem, of course, applies also to the East Indians in Canada. We have no East Indians in the mid-continent area or in my constituency, so this problem does not affect my constituency. However, from time to time briefs have been brought before hon. members-two members have already made reference to these-concerning the East Indians. They belong to a commonwealth country, and they are asking for no more than the maintenance of family solidarity, the privilege of bringing in immediate relatives.
If there is any real problem of assimilation, the quickest way to overcome the problem is through the medium of the family. Any new cultural group coming into a country requires at least three generations to become completely assimilated because as long as the second generation is partly in touch with the old and partly in touch with the new, there will be some cultural conflict. It is only when they reach the third generation that they can be completely emancipated from the former cultural emphasis. And so, if we would really extend the full privileges of Canadian citizenship, which should be the case in a liberal democracy, and if we would really carry out an enlightened program so as to make our contribution toward easing tensions and misunderstandings in the confused world situation, we should be quite specific on these points and indicate just what we mean, instead of talking in vague generalities about maintaining the fundamental character of the people.
As I have indicated, we would agree that where selection is made on a basis of health or of economic security, and where there are extreme differences of viewpoint, some degree of selectivity is necessary. You cannot bring

an individual whose culture is that of the heart of darkest Africa and hope to have him adjust suitably to our Canadian way of life. But I think we can be much broader in our interpretations than we are at the present time. In any case I do not think it should be the responsibility of the minister and his officials to have the power to determine as to the interpretation of these very vague generalities.
If on the other hand we are trying to make selection on the basis of ethnic considerations -and I use the word as applying in a sense broader than race-then we should have all the data available and all the immigration statistics so that we may know whether we are trying to maintain a proper ethnic balance in this country. Religious background is important in this respect; and yet there is no possible way of obtaining statistics concerning the religious derivations of our immigrant population. This has been attempted by several members, but the information has not been forthcoming. The whole policy is one of confusion, and an attempt to hide the true facts of the situation.
I have one final word on this matter of general policy, and that has to do with the problem of security screening. The first immigration case I ever had was stymied because of a certain difficulty I shall relate. Shortly after I was elected to the House of Commons in 1951, being somewhat naive as to my responsibilities in the chamber, and also as to my powers, I submitted the matter to the immigration branch. After the passage of a very considerable length of time I received a reply stating that the parties concerned were not admissible, but that the grounds for their inadmissibility were confidential.
I was somewhat disturbed about this, and it was then my interest was first aroused in the matter. I pursued my investigations further and was informed that it would be best not to look into the situation too closely, because if I did it might embarrass the intending immigrants.
I carried on an investigation of my own. The case involved intending immigrants from Holland. I had certain connections in that country which I had established during world war II, and I wrote asking them to interview these people and to give me their report in the matter of their security reliability. It turned out that these persons were suspected of having communist tendencies.
I obtained statements of character from employers, church officials and others, but these were not sufficient to satisfy the immigration authorities. Apparently back in the

Immigration
thirties they had attended one of the strength through joy camps, and forever after they are tainted as being security risks. The tragic part is that there has been no final appeal, except to the minister. And there the matter stands. The inquiry came to me through two daughters who had emigrated earlier to this country, intending to bring their parents and younger sister later. They purchased a home and were prepared to bring the parents, when this technical difficulty arose. The result is that the family circle is broken, and considerable strain has been placed on family solidarity.
There the matter stands because, as has been indicated by most speakers in the debate, there is no final appeal whereby satisfactory clearance of cases of this kind can be made. That is why I say the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) comes right to the point. The policy of immigration is not clear, it is not consistent and it is not co-ordinated. And, in the result, it denies simple justice to Canadians and non-Canadians alike.
I shall not deal with this latter aspect, the denial of simple justice, because I think that was done in a mastejly fashion by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he referred to the Star Chamber methods of procedure. I believe some judicial procedure is needed where we can deal with cases such as I have described on the basis of simple justice.
One final word with regard to absorptive capacity. Vague as is the policy statement regarding the fundamental character of the people concerned, no less vague is the phrase with regard to the absorptive capacity of the country. No one can measure absorptive capacity. It depends upon geographic factors, and also refers to the capacity of economic absorption. I might also suggest that the viewpoint of members from mid-continental regions with regard to absorptive capacity is much different from the viewpoint of members from the more heavily populated sections of the country. I need refer only to speeches made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Decore) and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), and to newspapers such as the Winnipeg Free Press, all of whom disagree with the interpretation by the government, of the phrase "absorptive capacity", as indicated by immigration policy in recent years.
Actually of course the absorptive capacity of Canada has been somewhat limited since the war because of the nature of our boom. We have been going through a boom period- and I have spoken about this before, and do
not wish to stress it too much again. However, in the west we have been moving ahead industrially and economically to a limited extent, and as a result we have had a fairly prosperous economy.
But the remarkable feature of this boom is that, through it all, we have been suffering a decline in population. And that, as all economists recognize, is not conducive to beneficial and lasting effects. If a period of prosperity means anything for the future, it must also have had some stimulating effect by way of population increase. Until fairly recently the prairie provinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Manitoba, suffered a decline in total population.
I suggest that the degree of prosperity we have had has arisen from the development and exploitation of our natural resources, rather than from a development of secondary industry or any widespread development of industrial conditions such as would provide the basis for greater population. What we need in the west, what we need in Canada, is the kind of boom that occurred in the United States and in the United Kingdom in the past that was marked by population explosions. We have never had a population explosion in this country. May I read from a document I hold in my hand, which deals with an editorial from the Windsor Star, headed "When Populations Explode". The editorial reads:
This occurred in England following the industrial revolution. The population doubled, from 8,890,000 in 1801 to 17,900,000 in 1851, and almost doubled again to 32,500,000 in 1901.
That rapid increase in population is referred to as a population explosion. Unless you have that sort of situation, any boom that emerges in an economy is not going to have a stable and lasting basis. The United States economy followed the same pattern.
The United States population increased from 5,300,000 in 1800 to 23,000,000 in 1850 and to 75,000,000 in 1900. The rate of increase averaged from 25 to 35 per cent per decade during the 19th century. It was a period of unrestricted immigration.
I would suggest that if the party I support had a chance to deal with the administration of the country and was able to implement its emphasis on the establishment of secondary industries in contrast to emphasis on primary industries, Canada would enjoy the population explosion that has been so long delayed owing to the long incumbency in power of the present administration. That is the western point of view and it is expressed not only by western members on this side but is beginning to be appreciated I feel by western members in the cabinet as well as by the backbenchers on the Liberal side of the house.

Immigration
Finally, to bring these remarks to a conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated -


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am obliged to interrupt the hon. member to advise him that his time has expired.


Harold Edward Winch: I desire to make a few remarks on the amendment which is now before the house because I have for a long time found it very difficult to understand some of the reasoning in the policies and the decisions of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It had been my hope, when the minister spoke yesterday, that he would give us a very clear picture of government policy and the reasons therefor, and how they came to some of their decisions. I regret, sir, that after listening to the minister for almost the full length of his talk I have no evidence of that clear picture. As a matter of fact, sir, over coffee a number of us were discussing that remarkable tour de force of the minister to see what we could get out of it, and we all came to the decision-perhaps the minister has heard this before-that if any of us were charged with homicide we would love to have the minister as our lawyer because by the time he got through his plea to the jury we would all be dead of old age.
I want to touch upon only two particular phases of immigration that have already been mentioned, but I think they should be emphasized. I definitely want to add my words in support of those who think it is a wrong policy to find a person guilty when he has not had an opportunity of pleading innocent. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the minister on this matter of immigration, on this matter of not informing a person why he has been turned down in his application to enter Canada. I can understand, and I would agree with the minister, that on questions of that nature the reasons why a person is turned down should not be broadcast. I definitely agree with that; they should not be made public. But, sir, in all decency, in all justice, I do think that when a person is turned down, if he desires to know the reason he has been turned down, he should be told, because it is quite conceivable that he has been turned down on a wrong basis and because of false information. If a person has no chance whatever either of knowing the charge or of pleading innocent I do not think it is following out the meaning of democracy as we have come to understand it in this dominion and the meaning of justice of which we boast in this dominion.
I want to give one illustration. There is in my own constituency of Vancouver East a fine family of immigrants. The family is
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
composed of a mother and father and seven children. Nearly all the children are adults. They came here from Italy a couple of years ago. At that time the family was composed of not just the mother, father and seven children; there were eight children. The eighth child was an adult. They went through all the rigmarole for admission to Canada and they were all set to come. They called for their visas, and when they did they all got them but one. Why that one person was turned down he does not know. The parents do not know. I do not know. But I do know, or at least I can understand, the heartbreak of that young man who is still in Italy, and I most certainly know of the heartbreak of his mother, father, brothers and sisters in Vancouver, who are not only separated from their loved one but do not know the reason why.
I took this matter up with the minister of citizenship and immigration at that time, who is now the Minister of Finance, as far back as April 26 of last year. At that time the minister very kindly agreed to look into the matter and find out the reason why this young man was turned down. He also agreed -and I appreciated it-that the case would be reviewed to see Whether or not the decision could be changed.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that was on April 26 of last year. I have received numerous letters from the former minister. I received letters from the present minister, for which I thank him. But, sir, I still have not the faintest idea why that young man was turned down, even although it is now almost a year since the former minister started the investigation. The last letter I have I received from the present minister in the middle of January, telling me that they have not forgotten the matter and that he would be able to give me an answer in the near future. I have had that, sir, in every letter since the first letter from the present Minister of Finance early last May.
I do not think it is right, sir, first of all that a person should be found guilty and not be allowed to plead innocent. Second, sir, there must be something wrong in the efficiency of that department if they in a period of ten months cannot find out why somebody was turned down as an immigrant, one out of a family of ten, and if in that period of time they cannot review a case and come to a decision.
I wanted to mention that phase and only one other. This is also a case that is already in front of the present minister. I drew it to his attention only a week ago. I want to say that. He said that he would look into it and would find out just what it is all about.

Immigration
I want to mention the case in principle and not by name, because it is one of the difficult things that many of us cannot understand. It is the case of a Chinese. His father and mother live in Canada. As a matter of fact, they live in the city of Vancouver. His brother lives in Vancouver. His uncle lives in Canada. He himself was born in Hong Kong so he is a British citizen. He married a girl who was born in Hong Kong, so she is British. They have two children who were born in Hong Kong, so they are British.
This young man, who is British, whose wife and children are British, whose mother, whose father, whose brother and whose uncle live in Vancouver in British Columbia, is attending the University of British Columbia in Canada. He graduates in April of this year. This young man has been refused permission to remain in Canada on his father's application that he be allowed to do so.
I know that eventually, and I hope it will be soon, I will get an answer from the minister. I hope sincerely that favourable reconsideration of this matter will ensue. It is a matter of principle. This young man is Chinese, but what of it. I am white because my parents are white and I was born in Great Britain. All the way through the family of this young man are British. With the exception of one, they all live in British Columbia. What is the reasoning of the departmental officials in refusing an application of this nature?
I rose to speak on these two points because I feel they are important. I do not think there is too much difference in age between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and me, and perhaps I should not put myself in the position of giving him fatherly advice, but I do think he is making a serious mistake in his application to his present position. I am afraid that for far too long a time he was a civil servant, in a position where he had to be a defender of government policy or an apologist for government policy; that everything was right, nothing could be wrong in the maintenance of the status quo. I am afraid that the minister is doing a disservice, not only to the country, not only to his own department but to himself, in that he cannot get rid of that old attitude and psychology of the past, in that he cannot realize that there may be something wrong, that there may be opportunities of improvement, that there may be things that should be corrected. As a minister he is still taking the position that that is it, that that is the status quo and it must be right, that he will be weak if he gets off the defence. In all sincerity I say to the minister that he will be a great deal stronger and greater when he admits that perhaps he
does not know all there is to know, that he should face up to things and correct them.
I certainly hope that that metamorphosis will take place in the mind of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and that from this day forward we will see a correction in his attitude about which a great deal has been said these last few days. We hope that there will be a greater degree of efficiency so that we will get results, so that answers will be obtained more speedily than we have been able to get them up to the present.


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to share briefly in this debate and I do so because I believe the subject of immigration, while a sensitive one, is perhaps the most important matter that has come up for discussion at the present session of this parliament. I should like to sum up some of the ideas which came to my mind as I listened to the various speakers. On the one hand it seemed that we have had speakers advocating and speaking favourably of increased immigration and on the other hand we have had silence from the government with respect to the exact policy which is to be followed in the future.
It may be all right for the government to quote broad, cleverly-worded statements of past ministers with respect to immigration, but it seems to me that the people of Canada are anxious to have a businesslike, clear and concise enunciation of immigration policy. I firmly believe that were we to study carefully and objectively the merits of increased selective immigration into Canada, in the final analysis we would discover that such immigration would bring beneficial results to all phases of our national life, economic, social and cultural. This has been the result in the past. This is the history of countries which have had problems similar to our own and I am sure that it will prove true in the future.
This subject is also timely because to give encouragement and sympathetic consideration to the admission of people to Canada, people who are liberty-loving, healthy and hopeful, has always been good business, and I submit that it is in the national interest. This subject is also timely because it touches, so to speak, on the status of over one million new arrivals in our midst who came to Canada during the post-war years.
The announcement of a clear-cut policy is desired when we remember that it is that policy which will determine the actual destiny of many people who are presently desirous of coming to Canada to share in the building of this great land, to start life anew and to earn for themselves the privilege which comes

Immigration
to those who live in a free and unfettered society which it is our good fortune to have in Canada.
I think we have been very happy in the choice of immigrants we have been receiving during the last little while. These are fine people who are making and will continue to make worth-while contributions to this country. I believe that one of the principal characteristics of the immigrant who is presently available to this country is the value which he attaches to liberty and freedom. Most of them came from countries which were dominated by fear and terror. In my opinion the best qualification that any immigrant could have is the very one I have mentioned. I think I can best illustrate my point by a simple yet meaningful story. A young immigrant was asked why he liked Canada. He replied, "I love Canada very much, but mainly because I am not afraid in Canada. When I fall asleep and am wakened in the wee hours of the morning by a sharp rap on the door I am not afraid because in Canada I know it could only be a friend, neighbour or perhaps an early call by the milkman."
The minister has given no reasons for the dwindling immigration to Canada. The figures for 1954 indicate that the number is lower than in 1953, and the prophecy is being made that the figures for 1955 will be lower still. I think all of us are anxious to know whether we are running out of suitable immigrants or whether this is due to red tape and ever-increasing discriminatory decisions in this vital department of government. It is for these reasons that we will support the resolution because it calls in the main for an airing of the workings of this important department.
Further, such examination will show whether there is any justification for the charges that are being levelled at this department. I also believe that some explanation should be given of the situation which faces us at the present time, namely that although over 174,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada we know that many tens of thousands of Canadians are leaving yearly for other parts. It does not require a giant mind or for one to be an economist to realize that if we subtract those who left from those who have arrived, the net gain to our economy has been extremely dismal and represents, I believe, the closed-door policy which seems to be advocated by this government.
Surely nobody in his senses will advocate that we throw open our doors to every Tom, Dick, Harry and Zulu in the world who wishes to come within our borders. But it seems to me there is some justification for the widespread discontent and the charge that many of the decisions which are made

in government are due to bias, prejudice and petty discrimination. I realize that the government is under constant pressure by various well-organized groups who maintain that the entry of more immigrants interferes adversely with the ability of Canadians in the matter of their own employment. But surely immigration means much more than the entry of people into this country. To me immigration means new hands for land development, new skills, new talents, new professional abilities, new productive power, and greater consumption of the great abundance of goods which we have created in Canada and for which we have no market. Immigration means additional manpower for our own national defence. It means new investments and extra shoulders to carry the heavy tax burden which is placed upon the people of this country, thereby making our own particular burden a little bit lighter. Finally, I believe that immigration means the acquisition of an element which is dedicated to the very principles which we cherish above all else. As I pointed out earlier, most of them come from countries where they did not enjoy liberty and freedom.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that if this country is to be a major power-and surely all of us wish it to be-the vast unpopulated hinterland of this country must be developed and must be settled with human elements. I think it is wise for us to develop and to settle that hinterland by considered policy rather than having circumstances force us to do so.
There has been a great deal of violent accusation to the effect that there is discrimination in the department. Frankly, I am not sure whether that discrimination exists. I certainly hope it does not. However, I know that there seems to be more than the usual amount of beating around the bush in the decisions of the department. When we speak of discrimination, I should appreciate greatly knowing why we allow certain legislation to exist which seems to savour of it. With respect to old age security legislation, why should a person who has become a Canadian citizen be denied the benefits of this social measure available to Canadian citizens over 70 years of age simply because he has not qualified under the 20-year residence requirement? Such a citizen is a taxpayer and has the responsibilities of a Canadian citizen; yet we deny him the privileges of a Canadian citizen. It seems to me that respect for social justice and fellowship cannot be the feeling of him who is denied these very things. Further, why should the family allowance not be paid to newcomers whose children are bom in Canada during the first year of residence instead of making them wait a year?

Immigration
On the one hand, our law accepts these children as being Canadians by birth; yet on the other hand that same law denies them the privileges which are given to newly-born Canadians. It seems to me that here is an example of discrimination. Let us remember that it is in the first year of their residence in Canada that every bit of assistance means such a great deal to these new arrivals. Once again may I say that I just cannot see how dignity and the feeling of equality can be developed in these people when in legislation they are denied that equality.
Then again, what is all of this talk about Canada being unable to absorb immigrants because such absorption will upset the character of our people? I do not know, but it seems to me that giving expression to thoughts of that particular kind is a repeat performance of what took place on several occasions in the past history of our country and that subsequent events proved them to be brazenly false, unjustified and unworthy of utterance. May I be permitted to read two brief quotations from the back files of Hansard? One dates from the year 1899 and the other from 1943.
Said the member for Victoria, Mr. E. G. Prior, from the floor of this house on July 7, 1899, referring to peasant settlers:
"... I am told by men whom I can trust that these people are wanting in all the principles of loyalty, patriotism, cleanliness-in fact, all the principles that go to fit them for good citizenship ... If the government does not hold its hand and stop this class of immigrants now coming in, I think the end will be disastrous to the prosperity of the northwest and Manitoba . . .
Forty-four years later, the words spoken from this very floor by the son of one of those settlers were quoted with pride in the House of Commons in London, stressing that they were pronounced not by a descendant of immigrants from Britain but by the son of Ukrainian settlers in Alberta. I quote the words of Mr. Anthony Hlynka, former Social Credit member for Vegreville:
To me-he said in 1943-the British crown is the heart and symbol of the British commonwealth of free and sovereign people. To me. the British crown is the symbol of unity and heritage of British ideals for more than a thousand years. More than that, we should prize our position within the commonwealth, beecause we are beneficiaries in all and everything that has been achieved over centuries of progress.
He expressed the opinion of all people, and many thousands of sons and daughters of those early settlers whom the member for Victoria in 1899 suspected of "wanting in all the principles of loyalty, patriotism ... in fact, all the principles that go to fit them for good citizenship . . ." These same sons and daughters of the early settlers paid the highest
price at Hong Kong, at Dieppe and on the beaches of Normandy in defence of their country, in defence of democracy for which we stand; in fact, in defence of all principles that go to fit us for good Canadian citizenship.
I should also be pleased to know what is the attitude of our government to the immigrant when he finally arrives in our country, what steps are being taken to offer him the welcome hand and to encourage him to take an active part in our social and cultural life. We speak a great deal about integration. Frankly, I am not concerned about that because I know it will continue. What I am concerned about is that there is a hostile attitude toward many of these new arrivals which makes integration difficult.
Further, I should like to know what the government does to encourage and support the foreign language press. Last year the former minister of citizenship and immigration made an address in Toronto in which he praised the role of the foreign language press. In the Toronto Daily Star of April 8, 1954, there is the following:
He told the editors the government recently had decided to use the foreign language press for advertising and disseminating information.
I think this would be a worth-while gesture and would result in great benefits to our country, because we must understand that in most cases the foreign language press, which for the greater part is democratic, is the main reading material of these new arrivals, and at the same time that press must compete with the very well financed and anti-democratic press which has as its main purpose the alienation of the newcomers from our Canadian society. Whenever the minister has an opportunity to answer some of the questions that have been asked I would certainly like to have some indication from him of what is the policy of the government in that respect. Surely some of the moneys that are being used at the present time to glorify various departments could be wisely spent in an educational program by way of advertisements in the foreign language press.
I have noticed that too often we have a frame of mind in discussing matters in the house which indicates that we look upon many of the great surpluses that exist in our country as liabilities. Perhaps I should say that the policies that are advocated accept these abundances as liabilities rather than the great blessing which they are. Practically every day some question is asked about wheat and it is said that we have too much wheat. Or there is a debate on butter and again it is said that we have too much of that. Last

Immigration
session we had a prolonged discussion on coal and the serious problem being created because there was so much of it.
Today we are discussing human resources, and somehow I feel that in the attitude of the immigration department there is that same feeling that increased immigration represents increased economic liabilities. It seems to me that far deeper than the consideration of people coming into our country is the fact that Canada has a moral and humane role to play in helping to alleviate the suffering caused countless numbers of people whose lives and homelands have been subjected to the havoc of war. I believe there is an attitude in the administration of the immigration department which justifies me in saying that most of their decisions seem to be governed by a restrictive rather than a humane interpretation of the law. I believe that humanity could be displayed without in any way lessening the full intent of the law. I have had numerous cases where the department has even violated the basic and infinite laws of compassion and a common-sense approach.
Our great country, with its tremendous wealth, with its freedom and free institutions which each and every one of us cherishes above everything else, is indeed blessed. Tomorrow people of various ethnic groups will make our country greater still. I am sure that together they will weave a cultural pattern that will be the envy of the world and make Canada's contribution to the treasures of mankind outstanding. But to accomplish this end and make Canada stronger and greater still, we must do what we can to achieve more population. If we were able to do so by the normal process of increase by birth there could be no better way, but no matter how hard we try this process alone will not give us within a reasonable time the desired increase. Therefore, because of actual necessity, an efficient, unbiased immigration policy on the one hand, coupled with a sound domestic fiscal policy on the other, appears to be the common-sense approach to the important problem of immigration.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall only deal with one or two aspects of the problems which confront us in the department now under review as a result of the amendment to the motion to go into supply. To cover the whole field requires much more study than I have been able to make at this time. First of all, I feel as several other speakers do, namely that we have fallen down badly in our efforts, if there were any, and in our appeals, if there were any, to maintain an adequate flow of United Kingdom immigrants. I am quite

convinced that there are many thousands of people in the United Kingdom desirous of coming to Canada; and I am not convinced that their failure to come has resulted from their not having the money to pay the fare, or that if we evolve a fairer assistance program the problem will be entirely removed.
Rather I think the restriction on the removal of capital from the United Kingdom still presents the greatest deterrent to the United Kingdom emigrant. Surely this government could devise a scheme whereby it would take over United Kingdom securities as collateral and advance at least part of their value to persons wishing to come to Canada. It is true that some ceiling would have to be applied to each individual case, but in this way persons from the United Kingdom could be assured of a start in life in Canada at the same business and social level they would leave, and they would not have to depend on friends and relatives to get their start.
There are those who will say that we, advocating economy, are again suggesting further outlays of the taxpayers' money, but I know of no better investment than an investment in human beings. The money which new arrivals would put into circulation in this country under such a plan, the homes to be bought, the businesses to be started, the demand for [DOT] all goods and services, bringing with them an all-round increase in production, would soon underwrite both the risk and the capital outlay involved. This country would see strengthened our standard of living, our ties of nationality, our belief in and adherence to the system of government which we prize so highly.
I might add that such a fund would enable us to relieve our surplus position in agricultural products. Eventually complete convertibility would be attained. In the meantime, we could trade with Britain in items such as butter. We could move the fund from our right hand to our left, and we would not affect our domestic market in the way this philanthropic government is doing by selling butter to charitable institutions at reduced prices. It is removing at least $10 million of business from the butter producers and dealers of this country.
I believe there is another problem that confronts us in connection with the immigration situation. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) interjected during the remarks of the last speaker that the flow of immigration was decreasing because of the unemployment situation. I do not believe that labour groups here sincerely feel that an influx of new people to this country constitutes a real and continuing threat to the

Immigration
employment picture. The real worry of our labour groups is that this government has failed to plan and carry out a flow of immigrants to the jobs and at the times they have been needed. In addition, and I believe this is important, our labour groups have established and retained a standard of living for their members over the last 20 or 25 years. They are very reluctant to see people offering their services at rates lower than the current market value of labour in this country.
I am wondering whether there is any other reason for the failure to induce more people to come from the United Kingdom to this country. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be most careful when I refer to any documents today. I would read from this morning's Montreal Gazette. Perhaps I could have read the same material from Hansard. On page 1 I find this:
Referring to a statement by Davie Fulton (P.C.- Kamloops) that the government is "planning for a little Canada", Mr. Pickersgill said he presumes this means that Canada should have more immigrants.
But Canada's population has increased 25 per cent since 1947 and more than one million immigrants have been admitted.
I assume that these are the same million immigrants to whom reference is made in a letter to the Toronto Globe and Mail, reproduced in the issue of February 15, 1955, and written by Stanley R. M. Fryer of St. James, Manitoba. He says:
Speaking before the Liberal-Progressive convention of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Mr. Duncan Mac-Tavish, president of the national Liberal federation, is reported in the press to have said: "More than one million new Canadians have joined us since the end of the war . . . They can be counted on to help carry on the ideologies of liberalism" . . . "They are liberal in outlook, liberal in their approach to life, and liberal in politics".
The gentleman who made this speech is a very substantial businessman in this country. As a matter of fact, in the very next issue of the same newspaper, on February 16, it is indicated that he has been appointed a director of another new corporation. I would suggest to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that there is not the same psychological hazard for such a man making speeches as there is for the occupants of the government benches. I would think that speech may be one of the reasons the flow of United Kingdom immigrants is not what we would like to see in this country. I say it is a matter that this government should explain and explain very fully, or be faced with the accusation that there is an immigration conspiracy afoot.


Walter Edward Harris: I am grateful to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) for permitting me a
few moments before we complete the debate, because we have agreed to have a vote before five o'clock. If I happen to approach the hour too closely I hope you will remind me, Mr. Speaker.
It is not my purpose to deal with policy with respect to immigration. The present minister has dealt with that most adequately, and will deal with it in the future. I do want, however, to answer just a few questions which were raised by hon. members in the course of the debate, having to do with decisions I made when I was minister of citizenship and immigration. I do that out of a desire to give information to hon. members, as I think I have always done on all occasions with respect to particular cases.
I begin by referring very briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops, who criticized regulation No. 20 concerning those persons who may be admitted to Canada. Reference was made to some people of peculiar customs, habits, modes of life and so on. I want to point out to him now, as I have already done personally, that that regulation was part of the Immigration Act from the year 1910 until we revised it two years ago, at which time we made it a regulation. I suggest it is a most useful regulation, and it permits the government of Canada and the department administering this act to exclude, as it says in the final sentence, from admission to Canada any person whose ability to become readily assimilable or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time after his admission is in doubt. The final decision with respect to immigration must rest there, Mr. Speaker. If, in the eyes of those who are dealing with the application, an immigrant cannot within a reasonable time become assimilated and become a good Canadian citizen, then I suggest he should not be admitted to this country.
My second point is with respect to the arguments which have gone on as to appeals to the courts against decisions made by members of the immigration department. Without arguing the case, because I know there will be further arguments on the subject, may I point out that ever since there has been an immigration policy there has been this continued disagreement as to whether a government department should administer immigration or whether the courts should do so. It is a disagreement which goes to the root of the approach to the immigration problem. If you wish to have quotas for immigration purposes, if you wish to pass a law saying this country will in fact accept so many people of a certain type or of a certain

Immigration
nationality, then you will deal with it in the courts. You will have appeals made to the courts to see if the persons applying can bring their applications within the definition of that law.
We have always taken the opposite view, that it would not be desirable in the interests of the Canadian people to fix rigidly, at any given time, the type of person, the nationality, the age if you will, the occupation, of those persons who could qualify to enter Canada. Let me just point out the consequence which would follow if you did. You would not be able to exclude people in time of economic difficulty, if you chose to do so, unless at that time you passed a special law abrogating what you had already said was the law of the country.
On the other hand a flexible policy under which a member of the government would be responsible to parliament has always been the basis upon which immigration was permitted into Canada. This distinction was made before the committee which examined and completely revised the Immigration Act two and a half years ago. On that occasion this problem was mentioned. It was discussed, as I say, and only one member-and he happened to be a government member, Mr. Speaker-advocated a change in the approach and suggested that we should get away from the policy of ministerial discretion. Not a single member of the opposition groups advocated in that committee a change to a system of legal decisions as to who would be admitted to Canada.
Now I gather that hon. members may have changed their minds. Of course that is why we are here. If hon. members opposite feel they should have court decisions on immigration to Canada, then of course this is the place to say so. But I suggest that the manner of saying so should be to suggest a specific amendment to the Immigration Act, which has been mentioned hardly at all in this discussion.
Yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) suggested that the figure given by my colleague with respect to deportation was probably very small, having in mind the larger number who, as he said, probably had been notified to leave and had voluntarily left the country. Well, I have had some time to look into this, and I find that in the period I have had a chance to review, namely September 1, 1952 to November 30, 1954- two years and two or three months-the total number who were notified to leave and who did leave voluntarily was 32. Therefore the figure of 1,500 my colleague gave represents almost precisely the total of those

persons who were deported from this country, out of the three-quarters of a million immigrants who came in during the time I administered that department.


Colin Cameron: Are the 32 included in those who had issued to them official deportation orders from the department, or are they also included in those who were notified by the department that a deportation order was going to be taken against them?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, I do not know that we ever notified anyone that a deportation order was to be issued against him, unless it was going to be issued.
As I say, I wish only to refer to cases, because I must say I was somewhat sorry that the change occurred in the department at the time it did. However, I wish to take full responsibility for all decisions I made, and I am sure the house would agree with me that the new minister should not be in the position of having to accept responsibility for them.
Yesterday the hon. member for Prince Albert referred to the case of a man he described as a Canadian citizen, who had not been permitted to come back to Canada. I need not read at length what the hon. member said, in a rhetorical manner which I always admire; but he asked in effect, what business have you to say to me, as a Canadian, that I cannot return to my homeland?
Well, the gentleman he was talking about is not a Canadian, and he never has been a Canadian-and his family have stated so, in writing. I shall read only the second paragraph of this letter that was sent to me in 1950 on behalf of the family:
Our father Ante Prpich, came to Canada In the year 1924. He was living all the time in Canada, as a Yugoslav citizen. He was working; he had ail benefices of every resident of Canada, so he really did not feel, that he could and should apply for Canadian citizenship. So he remained a Yugoslav citizen, though he was living in Canada for over 20 years, and though we his children, were Canadians, attending Canadian schools, and brought up in Canadian spirit.
This gentleman chose to return to Yugoslavia on the Radnik. The policy of this government has been explained many times to the house, that we do not feel under any obligation to permit the return to Canada of non-Canadian persons who went on that ship.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister table the letter?


Walter Edward Harris: I have no objection at all, unlike my hon. friend.

Immigration


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As it is now five o'clock the house will consider private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 9, respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation-Mr. Mitchell (London)-Mr. Apple-whaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Anderson Applewhaite Ashbourne Balcom Batten Benidickson Bennett (Grey North) Boisvert Bourget Bourque Breton Brisson
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Buchanan
Byrne
Caron
Car rick
Carter
Dechene
Decore
Demers
Deschatelets
Deslieres
Dickey
Dumas
Eyre
Fairey
Follwell
Fraser (St. John's Ea
Gardiner
Garland
Garson
Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
NAYS Messrs:
Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras Goode Gregg Habel Hardie Harris Harrison Hellyer Henry Hosking Houck
Howe (Port Arthur) Huffman Jutras
Kickham	.
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare) Lafontaine Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun) Lefranpois Legare Lesage MacDougall MacEachen MacNaught McCann
McCulloch (Pictou)

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper. Shall they be considered under the one motion?


Mr. Goode:: I have something I should like to say about Bill No. 93. I have no objection to the rest of the bills going through if the house so desires, but I do have some remarks to make on that bill.


Mr. Knowles:: Perhaps it might be just as well to take that bill first and then see if we want to take the rest under one motion.



BARBARA NORMA DEMAINE DAVIES

Mr. W. G. Weir (for Mr. Hunter) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 93, for the relief of Barbara Norma Demaine Davies.


Tom Goode: Mr. Speaker, during the time this bill was being dealt with in another place, by coincidence I happened to be in the committee room and heard the evidence given by one of the investigators. I believe that evidence should be brought to the attention of this house. I have no great regard for the gentlemen who perform this type of service, but this gentleman was accused of impersonating an officer.

Private Bills-Divorce
I heard the evidence which he gave, and I think it should be brought to the attention of this house so that some authority outside of the house may take action.
The gentleman's name is George C. Hider, and he was giving evidence as an investigator on behalf of the petitioner. As reported on page 11 of the transcript he said that he was an investigator living in Dorval. He stated also that he was formerly a policeman. After being employed by the petitioner he had occasion to go to check a room in a hotel. I do not intend to go into the evidence in the case. He knocked at the door, and in response to an inquiry from within he said he was a policeman. Immediately he gave that evidence the chairman of the committee quite properly asked him about it. He admitted that he was formerly a policeman, that he carried a badge as an investigator and was employed by a firm known as Maxham Associates of Montreal.
The chairman questioned him about having called himself a policeman, and he admitted readily that that evidence was correct. .. None of us in this house takes credit from having to handle as many divorce cases as we do, but we hope that when these cases have been heard in the other place the evidence given is at least true. I do not wish to prejudice the case of the petitioner, because I think the divorce was properly granted in the other place. This witness admitted before the committee of the Senate that he had impersonated an officer. We now have the same evidence before this house. I bring this to your attention, because I think some action should be taken outside of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with
the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) in the remarks he has made, and to say that to my knowledge there are similar circumstances in connection with a number of other cases which are on the order paper for our consideration today. In a vein similar to that in which I spoke a few days ago I want to congratulate Senator Kinley for standing up to this man and objecting to the course he was following. For example, I find that Senator Kinley said to him:
But that badge does not give you any right to go into the room, does it?
The investigator in question tried to justify what he had done. Later on, after about a page of evidence, I find that Senator Kinley spoke to him again. The investigator having said that he obtained the authority from his employer, the investigating agency,

this was the question asked by Senator Kinley and the answer of the investigator:
Q. I do not think he has any authority to give you that right.-A. I don't know, my lord, but if we did not say that sometimes they would not open the door. It is an easy matter of getting in, and you don't have to see the manager or the bellhop or somebody like that to get in.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond can be found in reading the evidence in a number of the cases which are before us today. In one instance one of the senators got an investigator to admit that there is a difference in status between an investigator and a detective. Time and again these men simply reiterate that they have gotten in by saying "I am a detective". Senator Kinley pointed out on one occasion that they more or less scare the persons inside a room by flashing a badge.
The fact of the matter is that, as the senators have brought out, deception is being practised in connection with these matters. I do not think that is a proper basis on which to ask parliament to pass judgment in connection with matters of this kind. I congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond on raising this matter. I congratulate Senator Kinley on trying to bring it out in the evidence. With my hon. friend across the way, I hope that something will be done about it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are still a number of divorce bills on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you call the next one by itself, Mr. Speaker?



RETA MURIEL HADDEN MOFFIT

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 94, for the relief of Reta Muriel Hadden Moffit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the house, for the reason that I do not think we should spend the time of parliament on this business, that it is not my intention to ask that any of the other bills before us today be considered by itself. I felt, however, that this one should be singled out along with the one we have already spoken about briefly, because there is some similarity in them.

Private Bills-Divorce
A moment ago the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond gave the name of the investigator who admitted what he was doing in the other case. In this instance we find another name, that of Charles Charron, who is a member of the same firm. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond nods his head to that statement. Charles Charron is a member of the same firm and he follows the same tactics. On page T2 of the evidence in this case we find that Mr. Charron was before the committee in the other place and that he said this:
The man came and opened the door and I showed him my badge and I said, "I am a detective" . . .
Elsewhere in the evidence it was admitted before the committee that his status was only that of an investigator. He does not have a legal right to impersonate a police officer and carry on on that basis. There is far too much deception and far too much falsehood underlying the evidence upon which we are asked to pass judgment on these cases in parliament, and I think it is clear that we should get out of this business altogether.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



SECOND READINGS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There now remain on the order paper a number of divorce bills, items No. 37 to No. 65 inclusive. Shall these bills be considered in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will make another 29.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Meta Avard Wheatley Griffin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Emma Melite Latvaityte Vairogs.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Marie Jeanne D'Arc Marcelle Bernier Lemieux.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Lois Audrey Jemima Patch Howell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Dorothy Izenberg Lenetsky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of George Reilly Hunter.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Donald William Downie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Rita Barlatti Devlin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Ruby Kitts Shea.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Margaret Pearl McNamara Rowlatt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Mabel King-horn Marshall.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Shirley Norah Farrar Mizener.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Jane Schubert Clark Bernard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Irene Joan Fabian Jefford.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Lois Silby Walker Torunski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Lillian Dorothy Menzies Drennan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Henry Edwin Lasnier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Elsa Kremer Ellmaurer.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Christine Bennie Kelly Mooney.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	114,	for	the	relief	of	Shirley
Patricia King Craddock.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Nomi Meijero-wicz Goldenstein.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Edith Dora Hyndman Ross.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Irene Annetta Thomas Bromby.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	118,	for	the	relief	of	Arthur
Edmund Oliver.'-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	119,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Zawiski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Mary Jagiello Kaczynski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Eleanor Honor Connolly Sutcliffe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	122,	for	the	relief	of	Marie
Laurenza Suzanne Bolduc Hawkins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Daniel Joseph MacLean.-Mr. Hunter.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (misbranding).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to observe as I move second reading of this bill that here we are dealing, if not with another form of adulteration, most certainly with another form of

Food and Drugs Act
deception. The object of this bill is to make it impossible for those persons or concerns who package meat to deceive the public by wrapping their meat in cellophane or other similar wrappings with red stripes.
I should perhaps read the section of the bill. It is short; in fact it is the whole bill. It will place the matter before the house in its full context. The section reads as follows:
1. Section 24 of the Food and Drugs Act, chapter 38 of the statutes of 1952-53, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(3) For greater certainty, but without restricting the generality of any of the foregoing, such regulations shall provide that it shall be an offence against this act to sell or offer for sale meat or any meat products wrapped in cellophane or other wrapping which bears any stripes, printing or other marks of a red or red-tinged colour".
The context of this bill with relation to the Food and Drugs Act as a whole is this. Section 24 of the act, incidentally, was enacted during the session of 1952-53 but was proclaimed and came into force between the adjournment of last session, that is 1954, and the calling of this session. Section 24 of that bill gives to the governor in council powers as follows: The governor in council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect, and, in particular, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations . . .
(b) respecting . . .
(i)	the labelling and packaging and the offering, exposing and advertising for sale of food, drugs, cosmetics and devices, . . .
to prevent the consumer or purchaser thereof from being deceived or misled as to its quantity, character, value, composition, merit or safety or to prevent injury to the health of the consumer or purchaser.
It would seem to me that there is ample power now in the hands of the governor general to make regulations covering the subject matter of the bill now before the house, but the fact is that up to the present time that has not been done. It has been the experience of many shoppers-I would say probably 95 per cent of those who buy bacon and similar products in the stores, particularly bacon-that it appears on the meat counters wrapped in cellophane packages which contain a large number of red horizontal stripes, the effect of which is that when you look at the whole package it appears that you are buying bacon or other meat products with a great deal of lean meat in it. I am quite sure that other members of this house have been in the position I have been in, when occasionally-it seems to be mostly on Saturday afternoons-the head of the household takes over the shopping. I beg your pardon; I should not call him the head of the household; rather shall I say the male member of the household.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a rather ambiguous way of saying that someone else is the head of the household.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Equal pay for equal work.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not going to get off on side issues here. However, when it comes to the matter of keeping the household running every man knows who really is responsible for that end of it. Anyway, it is the general experience of those who buy bacon in packaged form that they are misled as to the quantity of lean meat in the bacon by this type of packaging.
It used to be the case, so I am told by my wife, that many women, expecting as it were to be misled if they relied upon the outward appearance of the package, used to unwrap it and have a look at the contents before they actually bought it. It appears that those who package these meats found that was happening, because now I am told that in many cases when you go to the meat counter and pick up one of these meat packages it is wrapped and bound in addition with sticky paper, so it is impossible for you to open the package without actually destroying the wrapping. Of course once you have done that you are pretty well morally bound to purchase the article, because it cannot be restored to the shelf.
The situation is that this practice of wrapping meat products, whether it be bacon, ham or any other type of meat, though I believe it is mainly bacon, does have the effect of misleading customers and making it impossible for the customer to ascertain the quality of the article that is being purchased. If the customer relies upon the outward appearance of it, then he or she is certainly misled as to its actual quality or nature.
After introducing the bill for first reading, I received quite a substantial volume of correspondence from housewives and others who have indicated their support for the project. There have also been drawn to my attention a number of articles in the press in which local officers of consumers' associations and similar women's organizations have expressed themselves as in agreement with the principle of what the bill is trying to do.
I understand that as a result a statement was recently made by an officer of the Department of National Health and Welfare, which is the department responsible for the administration of this act, to the effect that the department have had this matter under consideration and that they had recently, as the result of conferences with the processors and packagers of meat products, brought about a situation in which it is expected that these types of packaging will disappear. I understand that an order in council has not

been passed, but that it has rather been by agreement between the department and the industry concerned.
I am not going into any more detail because I understand that the minister will be outlining to the house the action his department has taken and the results they hope for. I will only say that I am very glad indeed this action has been taken. I say in no unduly critical sense that I think it is long overdue, because this is not a new complaint. I recognize that it may be a difficult problem, but the power to deal with it has been in the Food and Drugs Act for a number of years.
I have referred to the present Food and Drugs Act, which is chapter 38 of the statutes of 1952-53. The former food and drugs act, which appears as chapter 123 of the revised statutes of 1952, gave the governor in council similar power to make regulations to deal with this situation. That power was found in section 3 of the former act. Section 8 of the old act deals specifically with the offence of misbranding and states:
Food or drug shall be deemed to be misbranded within the meaning of this act if . . .
(d) It is so coloured or coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed, or it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is.
Alternatively, under subsection (h) of the old section 8 an article was misbranded if it was packaged in a form which would have a misleading effect. Therefore in my submission there has been power in the governor in council for a number of years to deal with this situation by making a regulation which would constitute it the offence of misbranding to package meat or meat products in cellophane or other wrapping which bears any stripes, printing or other marks of a red or red-tinged colour.
It is my view that it is incumbent upon the governor in council to protect the public from this form of misleading packaging by the purveyors, processors or packagers of food products. I find, incidentally, that there is a very similar power in the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, which again provides a general regulation giving power to the governor in council. Section 32 is as follows:
The governor in council may, with respect to any live stock or live stock product produced within or imported into Canada, make regulations . . .
(b)	respecting inspection, grading, packing, labelling, branding and marking and the manner thereof;
(c)	prescribing types, sizes and specifications of packages, packing material and methods of packing.
In these two subsections and in other parts of the act there are, I submit, and have been since 1939, powers in the governor in council 50433-83i
Food and Drugs Act
to deal with this type of practice. However, since it is specifically covered under the Food and Drugs Act, and since the jurisdiction of the federal government under that act is not open to any question whatsoever, it seems to me more appropriate to deal with it under that act, and it is for that reason I have drawn my bill as it is.
While this bill-I should not call it "my bill" because it is now the property of the house-deals only with the packaging in this misleading form of meat or meat products, I do not wish in any way to be taken as indicating that this is the whole of the problem. I think that in too many cases there are attempts by processors and packagers of food to mislead the public; but this, I think, is one of the most glaring cases. Perhaps, if you like, it is one of the easier types to deal with; therefore parliament should insist that effective action be taken.
I would hope that effective action in this case will be a salutary warning that effective action will be taken without delay in other cases of similar offences or misleading practices. Referring particularly to the products of our farms and fields, surely Canada can and does produce food of the highest order and our consumers are singularly privileged, or should be, with respect to the standard and quality of the foods offered to them for sale and consumption. This practice is to my mind profoundly irritating and most definitely against the public interest from every point of view; commercially from the point of view of the farmers who initially produce this food; economically from the point of view of the interests of the trade which depends in the long run upon the good will of its customers, and most certainly from the moral point of view. People going into a store are entitled to rely upon the general standard of those who offer goods for sale for eventual consumption, and are entitled to believe they are getting goods of the quality indicated by the outward appearance of the package they buy. Practices of this sort are among, the most despicable that could be indulged m, practices which have the effect of misleading the consumer who is up against sufficient problems himself or herself without having to worry about whether the article he or she is buying is actually of the standard which it would outwardly appear to be.
I want to say this. I know that probably the majority of our food processors and packers are reputable firms. They will suffer, of course, from the unfortunate and misleading actions of others who seek to make what: amounts to a dishonest dollar. There are many, even of the larger firms, who have resorted to this type of packaging. I feel it
1304	HOUSE OF
Food and Drugs Act
does not matter whether they be big or small; those who indulge in this type of practice are all open to equal condemnation.
As I have indicated, I understand the minister will say what action his department is taking. I hope it will be indicated that the action will be effective. I would therefore suggest, without having authority to in any way bind anyone else in the house, that if after the minister has spoken it is felt he has established a good case, then debate on the bill might be adjourned. This procedure would have the effect that the bill would stand on the order paper and would be there if in the course of a few months it would appear that the action taken by the department was not having the desired result. The bill would be there and it could be proceeded with on some other occasion in this hour between five and six.
Speaking for myself, I would certainly undertake that for the space of a few months, at any rate, I would be happy to see the matter adjourned. I confess I would rather handle it in that way than withdraw the bill. I should like to make it clear that I am not suggesting that now I have spoken, no one else should do so, but it seems to me it might be handled that way. Perhaps after the minister has spoken, and those others who want to speak have done so, the debate might be adjourned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe I should take part in the debate now, in view of what my hon. friend has said, so the public will be given the assurance which I believe they are entitled to receive. I shall take the position, of course, as my hon. friend has anticipated, that the law as it stands at present is adequate to deal with this particular problem; accordingly the proposed amendment is not necessary. Indeed, I do not think it is as effective as the provisions of the law now are.
My hon. friend complained, of course, that ;he law has not been enforced. I take it that is the sum and substance of what he has said. I should say to the hon. member that I feel the action he has taken will serve a purpose in that it will afford the house generally an opportunity of expressing its views on this matter. I shall readily admit at once that it is a practice which cannot, under any circumstances, be condoned.
The Food and Drugs Act, as a federal enactment, was specifically drafted so as to bring it within federal jurisdiction as criminal law, as being an act to protect the public against fraud and injury to health. The provisions thereof, therefore, must either relate directly to fraud or health or be necessarily


incidental thereto. I am afraid that if we were to accept this bill, altogether apart from the question of whether or not the existing law is adequate, we would be creating great danger to the constitutionality of the Food and Drugs Act itself. My hon. friend shakes his head, but may I tell him that is our concern in the matter.
Section 5 (1) of the existing act provides:
No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety.
That section, by itself, certainly is adequate to deal with the practice complained of. The only exception to section 5 is contained in section 6, which deals with standards and really has nothing to do with the particular issue. Section 5 (1) which I have just read is complemented by section 24 (1)	(b), to
which my hon. friend directed the attention of the house, and that section authorizes the governor in council to make regulations respecting the following:
(i)	the labelling and packaging and the offering, exposing and advertising for sale of food . . .
(ii)	the size, dimensions, fill and other specifications of packages of food . . .
(iii)	the sale or the condition of sale of any food . . .
to prevent the consumer or purchaser thereof from being deceived or misled as to its quantity, character, value, composition, merit or safety . . .
This regulation is identified, of course, with section 5	(1) by section 5	(2) which
provides:
An article of food that is not labelled or packaged as required by the regulations or is labelled or packaged contrary to the regulations, shall be deemed to be labelled or packaged contrary to subsection (1).
If wrappers such as are the subject of my hon. friend's bill are deceptive, then their use is in violation of section 5 (1).
I have referred to the section which gives the governor in council the power to make regulations, under which a specific regulation could of course be made to deal with the point raised in the hon. member's proposal. I think it is important to keep in mind enforcement in the event of court action. If, of course, striped wrappers are not deceptive, then the validity of a regulation under the authority I have mentioned would, in my view, be open to challenge as not coming within the area of deception which is the basis for regulations under that authority. If such wrappers are deceptive, then a specific regulation could, of course, be made prohibiting their use.
But this would involve, in my judgment, an undesirable departure from the general pattern of the regulations, in that it would

deal specifically with the packaging of a particular food rather than with foods in general, which is the pattern of the present regulations and the pattern of the present act. We would be singling out one particular food. We want to cover not one food but all foods in order to make sure that deceptive practices are not carried on with regard to foods generally.
Now, apart from the fact that such a regulation would be unnecessary as being already covered by section 5, I need not point out where such a departure could lead in terms of a variety of special packaging regulations for a host of foods which we have felt could be better dealt with under the broad authority of a single section.
We have examined a number of packages of bacon on which pink striped wrappers were used. I have been struck with the fact that the real deception is not so much in the use of the striped wrapper as in the way in which the bacon slices are placed one on top of the other so as to reveal through the cellophane only the portion which the processor wishes the public to see, namely the lean with small streaks of fat, but making it impossible without a visual examination of the contents of the package to see what the remainder of the bacon looks like.
In any action taken under section 5 I would think it important to involve this feature of the packaging, as well as the use of the pink striped cellophane wrappers. That is exactly what we would want to do. Assuming the acceptance of the amendment it would still be possible to carry on a practice which would deceive the public-my hon. friend's wife, my wife, and all the rest-as to the real contents of the package.
So for these reasons it seems to me the commendable motive of my hon. friend in bringing in his amendment is already taken care of in the present legislation. Therefore any such amendment would be not only unnecessary but undesirable, in that it mentions specifically a particular class of food. The hon. member has practically admitted the implications of what I have just said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: His chief complaint is with the enforcement of the law. In the administration of the Food and Drugs Act we have sought to bring about a spirit of collaboration and co-operation with the trade. My hon. friend implies that this is desirable, where possible.
Last September we called members of the trade to our departmental offices. At that time the director of the Food and Drugs Act, acting on the instructions of the minister,
Food and Drugs Act
pointed out that we thought this was a deceptive practice that ought to be abandoned. Naturally there were discussions, not only with the trade but with other departments of government. We made it very clear at the time that it was our view this was a deceptive practice that ought to be abandoned. Having in mind the belief that in the long run we achieve more by co-operation than by compulsion in the first instance, there has been some delay in the acceptance of the department's view. But I may tell my hon. friend that we have issued a directive to the trade telling them that in our judgment this practice is not valid, that it is not legitimate under the act, and must be stopped.
The trade, as I say, has been notified of this, and we have been given the assurance from a responsible section of the trade that the practice will be abandoned. If it is not abandoned, of course, we shall resort to another course. I am satisfied, however, that the trade are now aware of the attitude taken by the department, and I am sure this debate will supplement the realization that the practice complained of must be stopped.
I should think no good purpose would be served by allowing the bill to stand from day to day because, as I have said, the law is clear. In the event of our failing to take necessary enforcement measures, or in the event of a failure by the trade to heed our directive, my hon. friend would still have his right to raise the matter.
In addition to the action taken by Dr. Morrell, the food and drug director, I myself have spoken to a representative group of the trade. I have examined with them the packages concerned, and I have pointed out that in our judgment it was clear that the act was being violated. I also went further and said there were other features about packaging that greatly disturbed us, and that we expected them to take care of the situation. What I have in mind particularly is that in some of these packages, while a portion of the meat is exposed through the cellophane wrapping, there is a portion at the bottom of the package that is not exposed; and in that unexposed portion it would be possible to have a great deal of fat meat. This, combined with the illusion created by the stripes in the open section, would of course constitute a flagrant deception and most certainly would be contrary to the Food and Drugs Act.
For these reasons I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the bill on the grounds, first, that the law now provides for the very thing he has in mind. Second, I would point out to him that we have taken steps pursuant to the information we were given some time ago by the Canadian Association of Consumers

Wheat-Final Payment for 1953 and by our own departmental inspectors. Third, I would point out that we have sent out a directive to the trade telling them that we have received these complaints, and that consumers consider present packaging methods as applied to bacon to be deceptive. Mention has been made particularly of the red stripes frequently found on the cellophane wrapping used to cover bacon. The government is strongly of the view that this practice must be discontinued, and we have been assured that it will be.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is the pleasure of the house that at this point I should adjourn the debate. However, while the minister has said that the matter appears to be well in hand, I would point out to him that the government has been pretty slow in taking action.
The minister may or may not recall that on September 30, 1949, I raised this matter, and what I said is reported at page 421 of Hansard. My hon. friends who have preceded me in the debate have, with their legal minds, dealt mostly with the law in the matter. I should like to speak of the domestic problem, and the matter as it looks to the eyes of the average person.
The question as to whether bacon should be packaged at all is perhaps not at issue here. I think, myself, that in this country we have adopted somewhat expensive methods in handling meats. However, if the housewife wants it that way and is prepared to pay the extra cost, then there is no doubt she is entitled to that service.
On motion of Mr. Knight the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply.
Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, who has the floor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before we began to deal with private and public bills the hon. member for New Westminster will recall that the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me to call it five o'clock, indicating that he wanted the floor. Therefore it is only fair that I should see him now.
[Mr. Martin.)



FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1953

Hazen Robert Argue: Wheat-Final Payment for 1953
way of knowing what the interim payment will be and when it will be made, or what the final payment will be and when it will be made.
As tar as the time of payments is concerned, I would like to see the government go back to their position of two or three years ago, when it was the practice to announce about February in each year the interim payment for the current crop year. Then early in the fall, perhaps late October or early November, they would announce the final payment for the previous crop and make the payment as soon thereafter as possible. If that were done the western farmer would have some real idea as to when his payments would be made.
In addition I suggest that the government should provide greater support for the price of wheat. I ask that not only because I believe it would be in the interests of the farmers, but because I believe it is in the interests of all Canada. I noticed one very significant thing in the brief submitted to the government by the interprovincial farm unions' council. They stated they had discussed the matter of adequate prices and stable income for the farmers, and in making their proposals they had the support of organized labour.
I believe the minister should tell the house that he is now directing that the final payment for the 1953 crop be made at once, that the inventory in the wheat board account be transferred to next year, and that the farmers be issued their cheques immediately. One can look at the wheat board business, shall we say through the glasses of a businessman, but once in a while I think the minister and the government should endeavour to put themselves in the position of a farmer who has not had a crop or has had a very poor one, who has been able to market only a small quantity of grain and who has accounts owing to merchants in his local town. If the minister would attempt to do that I believe he would realize that it is very necessary that these payments be made to the farmers as soon as possible, and that they be as large as possible.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that the past year has been a very difficult one for agriculture in western Canada. Speaking in relation to Alberta I would say that the situation there was not due in any way to crop failure. It was due to the fact that the farmer was able to make only small deliveries of grain. On the 1953-54 crop he was allowed to deliver only 7 bushels per acre, and only 2 bushels per acre for the new year. Even by the end of the year at many points they had not been able to deliver 2 bushels per acre.


There was a late spring in Alberta, due partly to cold weather and due partly to the fact that there was considerable snow and rain. Consequently, in an effort to get their wheat into the ground in time and have some chance of making a crop the farmers were obliged to employ additional help. Then as the year went on there were excessive rains, and as a result it was necessary to do more in the way of summerfallowing than in the past. This meant the incurring of greater expenses and increased the extent of cultivation of the land. All this added up to extra expense; therefore by the time harvest arrived many farmers had exhausted their credit. I am not talking now of the large farmer who may have been able to build up quite a substantial reserve during the past three years on account of good crops. I am talking of the new farmer, the young farmer who has only been on his farm a short time and who is not in the fortunate position of having built up a reserve. I am thinking especially of the farmers who settled under the Veterans Land Act.
This year these farmers faced an extremely difficult situation. By the time harvest arrived that situation had become critical in many" ways. As I say, credit facilities had largely dried up by harvest time. In many towns the businessmen went on a strictly cash basis. The machine men would ship out machinery or repair parts on a c.o.d. basis only. A farmer could not pick up those parts at the station unless he paid cash. The dealers were forced to protect themselves because they had already extended considerable credit to farmers. I am not criticizing the businessmen, because they could not help themselves; they were forced into this position by the wholesalers and the manufacturers.
The same thing happened in connection with oil. Many farmers could not get oil delivered to their farms unless they paid cash. As a result many farmers found it extremely difficult to get in their harvest. The situation would have been extremely bad had we not had very good weather right up to the end of November. Otherwise much of the crop would have been left under the snow. Even though the crop is light the ground must be covered. A lot of time is taken up in covering your acreage, even though there is only a light yield.
During the early part of the harvest many farmers were able to deliver only 300 bushels or less. Then at some points they were given a 2 bushel quota. The result was that many farmers had to finance the whole of their harvesting operations without being able to

sell any wheat. Because of this situation a large number of protest meetings were held in Alberta. I might point out that these protest meetings were not political meetings in any way. I saw a notice that there was to be a big meeting at Three Hills, which is on the border of my constituency. I was not invited, but as I had seen the notice in the paper I turned up. As a matter of fact no speakers had been invited. The meeting was called jointly by the businessmen and the farmers to discuss the somewhat critical wheat situation. I would point out that Three Hills is probably one of the best wheat districts to be found anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. The farmers were having difficulty and the businessmen were having difficulty. As I say, I attended that meeting.
The first resolution urged that the government immediately increase the quota on the delivery of wheat. When they found out I was there they asked me to speak. I pointed out that I thought it would be useless to pass a resolution of that kind because the government could not increase the delivery quotas for wheat unless there was room in the elevators. Owing to the fact that the elevators were plugged, it seemed a nonsensical motion to move.
They set that motion aside. The next motion they moved was one urging the government to make an advance against grain in farm storage. Again I was asked to speak, and on that occasion I supported the motion because, in the situation that had developed, it seemed to me that was about the only solution. I mentioned the fact that a resolution of that kind had been before the house, but that no action had been taken.
I realize that it is not an easy thing to handle. There are difficulties involved in a policy of that kind; but it is a policy that has been in operation in the United States for a number of years, with their so-called sealed storage. If the farmers had been able to get an advance against grain held on the farm it would have been of tremendous help during the harvesting operations. There need not be any loss, because all the grain has to be handled through the wheat board. The wheat board would therefore be able to call the loan upon delivery of the wheat. It therefore seems to me that the proposition would be quite safe. I think the meeting sent the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the resolution they passed.
A number of other meetings were held throughout the constituency and in other parts of the province. In every case I would say those meetings were non-political, because the members of parliament were not 50433-84
Wheat-Final Payment for 1953
invited to them; they were advertised and called as between the farmers and the businessmen.
The point the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) raised, asking for final payment on the 1953-54 crop would, of course, be of great help. But there again there are many farmers who will get only a small payment out of the 1953-54 wheat crop but who have a certain amount of wheat on hand; and if they were able to obtain loans on that wheat they would be able to carry on quite successfully. I agree with the hon. member that some action should be taken well in advance of seeding in order to make it possible for the farmers to get money to finance their seeding operations.
In this past year I think they had one of the most difficult situations they have ever faced. We have heard a great deal in this house about crop failures; but crop failure had little or nothing to do with the situation with which farmers in Alberta were faced. They had wheat on the farm but they could not sell it, and they still have to meet the expenses incurred in harvesting the wheat. Therefore it is extremely important to them that some means should be forthcoming of obtaining credit against that wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take much time at this moment, except to say that I join with the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member who has just taken his seat in bringing to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the situation to which they have alluded and which they have not overstated.
The other day I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question with regard to a matter that is more or less bound up with the one now being discussed, namely whether something could not be done by him to assure a more equitable distribution of box cars on those branch lines served by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The minister stated that the wheat board was in Ottawa at that time and he would see to it that if there was anything in the nature of discrimination, it would be removed. I want to thank him because I know he acted following the question I asked him. Considerable benefit has since been reaped by reason of the additional numbers of cars that have been available there. After all, that was one of the problems that faced the farmers, particularly in northern Saskatchewan along the lines of railway to which I made reference.
In general I join with these hon. gentlemen in suggesting that something be done in

Wheat-Final Payment for 1953 the nature of completion of the wheat account, with the final payment to be made before the spring work starts; or, if not that, something in the nature of an advance to the western farmers. It is all very well to point out that in recent years the western farmer has had good crops and should therefore be in a position to meet the situation in which he finds himself today. However, the retail merchants' association of the province of Saskatchewan, represented by its manager, Mr. Walker, has made representations to various members of the government with regard to the extremely serious credit situation that prevails generally in the province of Saskatchewan. So serious is that credit situation that in many areas the retailer has gone on a cash basis. This action makes it almost impossible for some farmers to carry on.
Realizing all the difficulties inherent in anything in the nature of a loan advance, I ask the minister to have his officials work out some system whereby, between now and April, there will be available to the western farmer at least a portion of the amount he has coming to him for unless that is done I can see a situation arising that will place the western farmer-and in particular the Saskatchewan farmer-in a difficult position when he comes to make preparations for spring work, especially in view of the credit restriction to which I have made reference.
I believe a system could be evolved through the banks. If the minister and the wheat board find themselves in the position that they cannot wind up the account and make the final payment, then I see no reason why there could not be brought into being a system similar to that which was adopted in 1949. The minister will remember that in April of 1949 a 20 cent per bushel advance, as I recall it, was made throughout western Canada. That money was not on hand at that time to the credit of the wheat board. The wheat board had to borrow money upon which interest was paid to the extent of some $500,000. With the money that was borrowed an advance was made of 20 cents per bushel. Something of that kind should be adopted; it must be adopted, as I see the situation.
In the last few days I have had representations from at least six rural municipalities asking that the minister be approached- and, through the minister, the wheat board- to provide something in the nature of an advance of credit. If, however, the wheat board finds itself in the position that it does not want to repeat what took place in 1949, would it not be possible to bring about a system of guaranteed loans by the banks, similar to the situation that prevailed some years ago to which the minister has made
tMr. Diefenbaker.l

reference on a number of occasions, but which loan scheme was not used to any great extent? However, I think it would be used this year. It sometimes surprises me to see the extent to which farming localities find themselves so utterly hobbled by a lack of credit today. I make this appeal to the minister, that he and the wheat board do something to meet a situation which is emergent, and which may develop into a critical one.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support what has been said by the three previous speakers. The situation which confronts western farmers this year is the most serious they have had for a great many years. I have mentioned previously that three very wet years in succession have created an unprecedented problem in our area. Crop returns have been very low and costs of production have been very high. I believe it is in the interests of the whole Canadian economy that our wheat producing area in the west should be retained in a solvent position, and I think all the taxpayers of Canada will have to recognize that. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was good enough to send me a copy of the January, 1955, issue of "Agriculture Abroad". I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce have a look at the section that tells what France is doing.
In France the farmers are being paid $2.56 per bushel for their wheat which is being sold at $1.81 a bushel, a difference of 75 cents per bushel. That, I submit, is quite a substantial amount to be taken out of the national treasury of France to make it possible for the wheat producers to carry on. They have sold about half of their available exportable surplus. It is estimated they are going to require about $27 million, putting it in Canadian funds, from the treasury to complete the financing in connection with the exporting of that wheat.


An hon. Member:: That is why the government changes so often.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is not why the government has changed.


An hon. Member:: Have you looked at the economy of France?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The French economy is probably not as sound as ours. The French franc is not as firm as the Canadian dollar, but we must not lose sight of the fact that France is competing with us in world markets. A number of European countries are counting on having a third war without the use of thermonuclear weapons, and they do not wish to be dependent on United States cereals to the extent they were in the second world war.

Many of these countries that were formerly our customers are encouraging local production, and they are paying a good price to get cereals produced in their own countries.
That presents a real problem to the Canadian wheat board when it tries to sell Canadian wheat abroad. If the French economy will stand the payment of 75 cents a bushel on all the wheat that is exported, I suggest that if necessary the Canadian wheat board should be supplied with funds from the federal treasury so the suggestion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia can be carried out in the near future, in order that the account may at least be closed and the maximum amount per bushel paid to the western wheat growers on that wheat account.
Mr. Nose worthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to change the subject-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the subject is changed, are we sure that all those who want to address themselves to the question of wheat have spoken? Does the hon. member for New Westminster wish to speak on wheat?


Frederick George Hahn: Relatively, yes, and the wheat market.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let the minister speak.


Mr. Speaker:: It may not be relevant to the subject matter raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say something on this subject before the minister answers. I believe the minister's attitude in respect of western wheat farmers during the last year or two has been utterly indefensible. I do not see how a man who has had practical business experience can persuade himself into the fallacious belief that men can live on nothing and produce wheat. On November 17, 1953, I advocated a system which I believe would have worked well if adopted. Briefly, it was that we should make available to farmers, at interest rates of not more than 2 per cent, money with which to build on their farms bins which would be acceptable to the government and which would therefore be recognized as approved farm storage.
There is no reason why Canada could not have done that; not the slightest. It could have been done through the Bank of Canada at an interest rate of 2 per cent without the slightest bit of difficulty whatsoever. Any man who pretends it could not have been done is misrepresenting the situation. It is just as simple as that.
Once the grain is put in approved farm storage, much as United States farmers have
Wheat-Final Payment for 1953 been permitted to put their grain in approved farm storage, there is no reason at all why at least 80 per cent of the price that would ordinarily be paid for the wheat could not be advanced to the farmers, in the same way the United States has done. Any man who pretends that cannot be done in Canada is just out of contact with the facts. His position is indefensible.


An hon. Member:: Don't get mad.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not want to get mad, but if hon. members were in the position of the farmers who have produced the wheat and who are suffering the way they are now, getting mad would be very mild compared with the way they would feel about it.
I want the minister to know that our farmers mean business, and that when I say this I mean what I say. There is just no excuse for waving idle hands and shrugging indifferent shoulders about a matter as serious as this. There is no reason at all why 80 per cent of the price of the wheat could not be paid out of the Bank of Canada. What is the Bank of Canada for if not to finance projects of value to the nation? And what can possibly be of greater value to the nation than the storage of a great quantity of wheat in approved farm storage, having the farmers paid sufficient to enable them to go on producing? How can we possibly have anything of greater value in the country than a great supply of wheat which, as far as the market is concerned, is sterilized so that it does not affect the going price? That is perfectly possible.
I do not wish to say any more concerning this matter. I merely wish to express complete agreement with those who have already spoken. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia has presented the case admirably, as have other hon. members who have joined him. They have given the details. I simply associate myself with them, and I only hope we shall have action and not just a lot of talk.
The minister will get up and give excuses. A good sound motto for a man to live by when he is expecting results is: I do not want excuses, I want results. That is what we want on behalf of our farmers in Canada.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the problem of grain freight rates, the action of the wheat board in the control of prices, and its effect upon the poultry industry in British Columbia. 1 should like a ruling from you whether or not I am permitted to go ahead at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like the expert advice of those who have taken part in the debate since the beginning of this sitting. How

Wheat-Final Payment for 1953
germane are the questions the hon. member has just raised to the matter the hon. member for Assinitaoia has put forward I am somewhat at a loss to know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have been talking about wheat for export and wheat for human consumption, and I suggest that wheat for the hens might be classed as a different subject.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may speak later.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I rise with some reluctance to defend conduct that has been described as indefensible. However, the charge at the end of the hon. member's remarks that I created a great many excuses, talked a great deal about the problem and did nothing is hardly warranted, because I cannot remember having said anything on this subject during the present session of parliament. Therefore I think perhaps I can be excused on that charge.
I realize that it is a difficult year in the west. Several factors have combined to make it difficult. We have had carryovers in the west. This year we started the crop year with the elevators full of wheat and of course a great quantity of grain on the farms that was held over from preceding crops. That situation has become progressively worse as pur carryovers have increased, and that accounts for the fact that deliveries in the country are about 100 million bushels less at this time than they were in the corresponding period a year ago, and deliveries a year ago were less than for the same period the year before. This results from the growing effects of increasing carryovers.
However, as I say our sales are very good. I can assure hon. members, I think with certainty, that before the crop year ends on July 31 any producer who has grain of any kind that he wishes to market will have had an opportunity of marketing it. The suggestion of storage on the farm, I feel, is one that will not help very much, considering the short period that should ensue between now and the day the wheat grower will be able to market all the grain he has to market.
The question of a final payment is one to which we have been giving some thought. Recently we discussed the situation and went deeply into the figures with the Canadian wheat board when they came here for that purpose. Hon. members will appreciate that the method of making the final payment is set out in the wheat board act, which provides that the board must recommend the jihyment and the government must
tMr Soeaker.)

approve, before the payment is made. I believe the board is just as anxious to meet the needs of the farmers as is the government, and I believe that co-operation will be indicated in the form of a generous method. The best plan we could develop, which is now being further explored, is to start with an interim payment on oats, followed by an interim payment on barley, followed by a final payment on wheat delivered to the wheat board in the crop year 1953-54.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister say approximately when?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what I was going to say. We feel we could get all three of those payments into the hands of the farmers before seeding, or at least close to that period. It would take about six weeks to make the three payments, but we feel they could be made by the time the money is required for seeding. I would not like to make the statement as a promise, but that was the conclusion as to the best that could be accomplished when the matter was discussed between myself and the wheat board.
We appreciate, as I say, that the western farmers are having a tough year. They had an expensive crop to get off last year, and it was fortunate indeed that they had part of the preceding crop on their own farms, free of debt. There are two sides to the advancement of money on farm-stored grain. It is like putting a mortgage on the payroll. In other words it is like buying on credit. The credit is a lien on the income that can be expected over a period, and fortunately that particular lien did not exist.
I believe the western people realize that theirs is not the only section of the country that has difficulty. For instance, we think of Toronto as a very prosperous part of Canada. I have a delegation, consisting of the mayor and board of control, coming here from Toronto next week to tell me the troubles of the people of that city. Almost every week we have delegations from some part of Canada telling us their troubles.
I imagine the situation in the west is just like the situation in Toronto. After the three best years in the history of grain growing in the west, a large proportion of the population is able to take care of the present situation. I imagine there is another section of the western producers, particularly young men starting out in farming or people who have been less fortunate over a period of years, who are having a difficult time. It is the same in every part of Canada. We have a large proportion of citizens who are all right, and we have a smaller proportion who have a difficult time whenever any setback

occurs. It is difficult to say that the resources of the country should be used particularly for any one section of the population. All governments have a sympathetic outlook toward the position of the western wheat growers, and I believe that has been demonstrated over the years and at not very great intervals.
I hardly think the present situation, in the light of circumstances in all parts of Canada, would justify payments other than those due from the crop that is to be marketed. After all, to say that the farmer does not know what the initial price is going to be-well, it has been the same for several years. We had some doubt at the time the last initial payment was announced about the justification of that price on a strictly business basis. Nevertheless the usual initial payment was announced, and since then there has been an interim payment of 10 cents a bushel. Today, therefore, the farmer receives an initial payment of $1.40 per bushel, less freight to terminal, for all the grain he delivers.
There is another factor to be considered. In the old days grain was delivered in the autumn. The farmer received his payment in the autumn, and he received nothing more until the next autumn when he marketed his next crop. Today the producer markets grain every month of the year. He has not an income that comes in once a year, but by and large an income that comes in every month. I feel that has had a stabilizing effect on western agriculture. The situation, which arises in part as a result of congestion, is working in favour of the producer population of the country.
I feel we have one favourable factor to which to look forward. I always like to look on the optimistic side. We have always thought that in western Canada wheat was produced in proportion to the moisture in the soil. I am happy to say that never in the history of western Canada has there been so much moisture in the soil as there is now. I am hopeful that we shall have some dry weather in the spring so the farmers can get on the land to seed the crop. If they are able to do that, and if rust does not break out-


Victor Quelch: Or hail.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, hail is serious but spotty; it does not wipe out a crop. Rust is usually the product of dampness.


Victor Quelch: Too many "if's".


Clarence Decatur Howe: The prospects look very good for a crop next year.
Another thing about which I am happy is that we will have the carryover, I believe,
Wheat-Final Payment for 1953 down to manageable proportions. I am not going to suggest we are not going to have a very substantial carryover of wheat. We will sell our barley and oats within the crop year, as we did last year. They will not be a problem. We will have a substantial carryover of wheat, but that wheat will all be in public storage. Storage on the farm will no longer be a problem to western Canada.
I feel, therefore, that no serious apologies are called for from the government for the way we have attempted to handle the western grain situation. It is all very well to say we should bonus exports as they do in France, but under the international wheat agreement France is listed as an exporter of 7 million bushels per year. If our exports were only 7 million bushels of wheat a year I think perhaps we could afford to bonus it pretty substantially, if necessary. But our exports are around 300 million.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They were 73 million, according to the Minister of Agriculture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But their average export, which they have put down as a supporter of the wheat agreement, is only 7 million bushels. France is almost in balance and always has been in balance as between consumption and production. In a good crop year they have a substantial amount of wheat for export, while in poor crop years they are importers of wheat. So the pattern of France, and the way it trades in export wheat, can hardly be a pattern for Canada.
I do not know that I can add anything further. However, if I have omitted to cover any of the statements made I would be glad to correct the omission now.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister any idea as to the amount of the payments he expects to make on oats and barley, or is this too far in advance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is too far in
advance. We have discussed the amount, and the wheat board want to study the situation further. But the interim payment on oats and barley will be fairly substantial. The final payment on wheat will be all the money there is in the till. The hon. member spoke about borrowing money to make the final payment, as though that were the exception, but we always have to do that. With the cost of carrying grain in the elevator system, it is very exceptional for the board to be on the credit side and have money in the bank. So the borrowing will not be unusual at all.


Mr. Zaplilny:: Has the government any plans for the extension of terminal storage space this year?
1314	HOUSE OF
Poultry-Freight Assistance on Feed Grains


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have been offering inducements for the expansion of both terminal space and country elevator space. New terminal space is to be built at Vancouver, to the extent of another 2 million bushels; the government itself is building space for 2 million bushels at Churchill, and the government has just finished space for 2 million bushels at Halifax. I do not know of any further storage space at the lakehead, but there is some small extension of terminal storage in the Georgian bay area. However, there is a very substantial increase in country elevator storage.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I take it from the minister's remarks that at least it is hoped that the present initial prices can be continued for the next crop year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, I did not
say that. The hon. member is asking if I said it, and I did not say it. But I have no reason to believe that the initial prices cannot be continued next year. There is nothing at the moment to indicate any other outlook.



POULTRY


Frederick George Hahn: I
imagine the Minister of Trade and Commerce will agree that he is not the only optimist in the house. I feel that I was somewhat of an optimist when I attempted to speak a moment ago.
We find that the poultry industry of British Columbia is in a most distressed condition.
I would say that, to a major degree, the responsibility is that of the government because of certain actions taken by it in the past several years. This has not always been so, because we know that two or three years ago the government put forth considerable effort to save that industry when it voted several thousand dollars to stamp out Newcastle disease, which was prevalent at that time. The government realized that this action was necessary, that the poultry industry was very important in British Columbia, and that it was most essential that it be assisted in every possible way.
Earlier than that the government was not too adamant in its attitude toward the problem, because on November 6, 1941, Mr. G. A. Cruickshank, former member of parliament for the constituency of Fraser Valley, put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). The question and the answer are set out at page 4125 of Hansard, as follows:
I would like to direct two questions to the Minister of Agriculture. First, is the department aware of the great loss suffered in British Columbia


in feed grains, and, second, will British Columbia be given the same treatment as eastern Canada in freight rates on feed grains?
To this question the Minister of Agriculture replied:
The answer to both questions is yes.
That is one of the earlier indications by the government that it was willing to look into the problem, and a recognition of the fact that the problem must be met and the industry saved.
Trying to analyse the situation I find several reasons for the depressed condition of this industry, the first of these coming as a direct result of the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture on January 28 that, effective that date, the price of feeds would increase by $5 per ton by reason of the fact that he had reduced the subsidy on freight charges to British Columbia by that amount.
The second reason is that the floor price on poultry products is out of line with the prices of other produce. I shall have more to say about this later. The third factor is unfair competition, and the fourth is that the price spread differential on feeds is too great as between the grower and the poultry producer. The fifth factor is that the premium on the Canadian dollar penalizes the Canadian producer by from 2i to 6 per cent, as the case may be. In other words, for every dollar the merchant invests in United States birds he gets bird value to the extent of $1.03; and that does not do our poultry business any good.
Returning to the first reason, let me point out that the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture has had a direct effect on our primary poultry industry. In this connection the Searle Grain Company Limited on Wednesday, February 9, 1955, had this to say at page 6 of one of its publications, under the heading "Adjustments in Free Freight Assistance":
So accustomed have we become to thinking in terms of freight assistance on western feed grains shipped to eastern Canada, the maritimes and British Columbia, that it comes as somewhat of a shock to be reminded that this subsidy plan was launched as a war measure, as recently as 1941, to encourage greater livestock production. In his statement of January 28, announcing a reduction in the scale of freight assistance to take effect February 1, Hon. J. G. Gardiner pointed out that certain changes had been made to "modify certain anomalies".
The reductions suggested are approximately 50 per cent in the case of shipments to B.C. and a reduction from a maximum of $6.00 a ton to $4.50 a ton in the case of those destined to Ontario and the Montreal area of Quebec.
It will be noted that the reduction in the case of British Columbia was 50 per cent. The freight rate from Calgary to New Westminster, the area I happen to represent, is $10.80. A reduction in freight allowance of

$5 has been made, which will bring the freight assistance down to $5.80. On the other hand, in the case of Ontario and Que-oec there is a drop from $6 to $4.50, or a reduction of 25 per cent in the allowance. Then it continues:
If we interpret the move correctly, it is designed to re-establish the situation, whereby western feed grains are shipped by the most economical water route and furtherance. There is apparently no suggestion that this subsidy to eastern feeders will eventually be discontinued but, because of the reductions made in the freight assistance rates, it is not difficult to foresee a slight decline in the livestock feeding program in eastern Canada, and sventually perhaps some shift in livestock production to the west.
I take it that the reference to the west refers to the prairie provinces. Then it says:
What happens will, of course, depend upon the course of both grain and livestock prices.
The problem today is of major importance to these people on the lower mainland of British Columbia. This change by way of a $5 reduction from the full freight allowance will mean approximately $1 million per year less to the British Columbia poultry producers. This means in effect that if they are going to sell their product at a profit they are going to have to add that million dollars to the cost of their poultry products. The price of poultry products on the lower mainland of British Columbia in comparison with prices at which they can be shipped in from the United States is such that it is impossible to compete with the United States products on a retail basis.
After the minister made his announcement he said he had received certain representations and telegrams indicating that there was much opposition to the immediate change in the freight rate assistance. Certain members of parliament felt that the situation should be clarified, and that assistance should be continued. On February 1 I asked the minister whether he would not reconsider the matter, and he said no. The following day the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) asked similar questions, and the answer was still no. Then the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) drew to the attention of the house and the minister the fact that we understood the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was making certain representations to the government, and the Minister of Agriculture still said the answer was no. At that time he did say that if changes were made in the rate he would announce them to the house in due course.
Later we found that the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) raised the question of alleged dumping of turkeys, which can be found at page 1018 of Hansard of
Poultry-Freight Assistance on Feed Grains
February 10. The minister at that time used words to this effect, that he was certain that poultry products were being sent to the United States from Canada, but he was not aware of the fact that any were being shipped back from the United States into Canada. He did not at that time indicate how many birds were being sent into the United States. I would imagine that the birds in this instance were being sent in for the purpose of evisceration, but it is certain that large numbers of those birds were being returned. The reason I say that is this problem has cropped up before. Last year the question was raised on more than one occasion.
The second alternative to a return of the freight assistance to the farmer to where it was on January 28 is to give poultry producers a floor price which is more realistic and in keeping with other floor prices which other industries are enjoying in this country today.
I am satisfied that the minister and every other member of the government must realize that the price which is received for eggs in British Columbia today is out of all reason when compared with the price of wheat and other staples under floor prices. Comparatively speaking, the price of eggs should be 68 cents a dozen. If we are to have floor prices I would suggest that we have them for all these primary industries on an equitable basis, so we shall not have this frustration as between one industry and another trying to make ends meet.
Then there is the matter of unfair competition that I mentioned earlier. I suggested a reason for it. I find that in so far as unfair competition is concerned, the producers in the United States do not produce their birds for the purpose of obtaining a profit on them. The large feed houses in the United States own large poultry-producing farms. All they are interested in is getting a profitable price for their feeds out of those birds. The birds themselves may be sold at a loss. They are quite happy to get the price of the feed out of the birds.
To overcome that would mean an upward revision of the tariff. I, for one, would not be happy to see the tariff revised upward unless it is absolutely necessary. I do not think it is necessary in this instance. Just so long as the farmers, the poultry producers or the livestock producers on the lower mainland of British Columbia can get a fair deal in respect to some of these feed and floor price factors, I am satisfied that they will be able to compete with arty United States birds, or any other products, that happen to come into that particular zone.
The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McBain) raised the question of the equalization of

1316	HOUSE OF
Poultry-Freight Assistance on Feed Grains tariffs. His question may be found at page 1237 of Hansard for yesterday. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was asked whether or not any representations had been received by the government from the turkey growers. He said that he knew of no representations but he would investigate the matter. Today another hon. member asked a similar question. I believe he was more specific in his question. The Minister of Finance answered him and said that three delegations saw him during the fall and early winter months, and that every consideration was being given to what they said.
I hope the request will receive more consideration than the one I made last year. If the minister checks the debates of last year he will find that on May 19 I raised a similar question with respect to the turkey growers of the lower British Columbia mainland and of Canada as a whole. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) also took part in that debate. At that time the then minister of finance told us that he had received representations from certain individuals. Apparently the government forgot all about it in the meantime, with the result that nothing was done.
The most important factor in all this is the price differential on feeds coming from the western provinces. This is a matter I hope will be dealt with by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. At the present time we have a ridiculous situation. The farmers in British Columbia have to buy their grain from or through brokers through the wheat board and have it delivered on the British Columbia lower mainland. The result is that the grower of feed in Alberta, let us say, realizes $28 a ton. According to the last figure I received, the resale price of that feed is $69 a ton on the lower mainland. There is a spread of $41 a ton. That is not all freight. The sum of $5 is freight assistance that the minister saw fit to take from us when he reduced the subsidy on feed grain. That means there is a spread of $36 a ton in the handling of that grain through brokers and through the wheat board. The actual price the prairie farmer gets is $28 a ton.
If it were possible for the farmers in British Columbia to buy that feed direct from the farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba I contend that it would not make 5 cents difference to the feed producers even if the poultry producers in British Columbia had to pay $10 per ton more than the present feed price. The result would be that the farmer in British Columbia would pay less for his feed than he does at the present time. This would bring the price of feed down to a point where he could compete 
with the United States poultry producer or with the poultry producer on the prairies or in other regions that might affect his poultry production.
There is the essence of the whole question. It is not a case of $5 or $10.80 subsidy on freight; it is because the cost of handling is entirely too much from the point of production on the prairies to the point of final consumption in British Columbia. My plea would be that the government drop this idea that all grains must go through the wheat board. I would agree that all grain for export should go through the wheat board, but where you have a primary producer in one part of Canada wanting grain that a primary producer in another part of Canada produces, he should not be obliged to buy it through the wheat board. I am satisfied that the result would be that he would be put in the happy position of being able to compete with his neighbours to the south.
I know the farmers themselves are partly to blame because they wanted grain handled in a different way. I know something about this. Many hon. members think that because I come from the lower British Columbia mainland I do not know too much about this, but I did handle feed grain in my store at one time. I found that the farmers expected to get their grain in 50 pound or 100 pound paper bags. Those bags probably cost 10 cents each. They were allowed 3 cents on the return, and you could probably use them twice at the most. That added to the cost per ton of handling that grain.
We might compare that way of packaging the grain with the jute sacks which were used during the pre-war years and which cost 15 cents or even 25 cents. However, they were usable for possibly a full year, which cut down the cost. I know the farmers are to blame for expecting fancy packaged goods, just as in the case of bacon which was mentioned this afternoon. But, as I say, the jute bag has a life of a year or more. All this is written into the cost, but it is not sufficient to make up that difference of which I spoke earlier.
The suggestion I should like to leave with the government at this time is that they seriously consider the feasibility or possibility of changing our method of handling grain to be used by primary producers. The government should look into every aspect of this matter, and do that at once. It should not wait until most of our poultry producers and primary producers are forced out of business on the lower mainland. I know from time to time in the past the minister has indicated some concern over this problem. This industry was developed during the war

Poultry-Freight Assistance on Feed Grains
because it was felt to be necessary. If it and outline their difficulties to the govern-was necessary then I think it is absolutely ment, and the government may put a tariff necessary today, and I trust the minister will against the importation of similar articles give this matter serious consideration.	from other countries.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this subject tonight I want to refer particularly to the poultry raisers on Vancouver island. The Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to the fact that it was quite easy for businessmen to come down here from Toronto to plead their cases before him. Unfortunately my constituency is 3,000 miles away from Ottawa and the poultry farmers of Vancouver island are not in position to come here. Therefore they must rely upon my very inadequate ability to present their case.
The poultry farmers of Vancouver island were dealt a very severe blow during the last few weeks when the freight assistance on feed grain from the prairies was reduced. The result has been that the cost of feed to the poultrymen of Vancouver island has increased by over $5 per ton. The flocks on Vancouver island are in a slightly different position from the flocks in the rest of Canada. The poultrymen there specialize in the raising of early chicks and eggs for hatching. Because of climatic conditions on Vancouver island they are able to send day-old chicks, poults, turkeys and hatching eggs to other parts of Canada very much earlier than they can be raised outdoors on the prairies.
As a result of this it is necessary for the poultrymen on Vancouver island to retain their flocks during the whole year, though in the main their market lasts for only a short time in the spring. The result is that they produce eggs and poultry products during the rest of the year strictly for the local markets. As I say, their main export market from Vancouver island is restricted to a few months at the beginning of the year.
We are faced with an additional problem in the fact that there is not a great deal of arable land on Vancouver island. The result is that all grain must be imported from the prairies to feed our flocks and dairy herds. Most of the farms aie comparatively small, on which a man and his wife are able to live from a highly productive and specialized form of agriculture.
This freight assistance has been in effect for a number of years. I believe it was introduced to encourage the farmers on Vancouver island to go into the poultry business in order to meet war needs. Now this assistance has been suddenly reduced. I have referred to the ease with which people from Toronto can come here to plead their cases. Businessmen or manufacturers can come here
I wonder if the extent to which poultry products are imported into Canada is realized by the general public. I asked for a return on this matter which was made yesterday. I was amazed to find that 30,914 dozen eggs in the shell were imported from Hong Kong. Over 441,250 dozen of eggs in the shell were imported from the United States. Those were hen's eggs. When you come to the question of turkeys, I should like at this time to tell the minister how greatly the turkey breeders of Vancouver island have appreciated his help in developing and marketing doublebreasted turkeys on Vancouver island, which he knows so well. But still 1,418,000 turkey eggs were imported into Canada last year, of which 367,806 were imported into British Columbia.
If encouragement could be given the turkey breeders on Vancouver island so they could hatch or have hatched 10 more eggs from each turkey hen, enough turkey eggs and poults would be available to supply the whole Canadian market. But this reduction in freight assistance which has now been introduced is going to have the effect of putting out of action a large number of small poultrymen and turkey breeders on Vancouver island. It is going to put them completely out of action, because they cannot carry on against the competition coming from China and the United States when there is an additional $5 a ton placed on their feed.
It is not fair to suggest that this $5 a ton reduction is going to be absorbed by the feed merchants of the island. That is not the case. The feed merchants have been running on a narrow margin, and the poultry-men themselves will have to take the loss. It is going to put a good many of those people out of action.
Not only has it been a question of importing eggs into Canada from the United States and other places. I am not going to bore the house with a great many statistics, but last year, as far as chicken products were concerned-that is the flesh of chickens-2,600,250 pounds of chicken meat were imported into Canada. As far as turkeys were concerned, 3,719,749 pounds of turkey meat were imported. Surely we have surplus grain in Canada. We have men who have the knowhow to raise these birds. It only needs some kind of government assistance to move the feed to where the birds can be raised most easily, and where the birds can be raised early in the year so they can be turned out
1318	HOUSE OF
Poultry-Freight Assistance on Feed Grains
on the prairies later on in order to feed where the grain is readily available.
I therefore join with the hon. member for New Westminster in pleading with the government to reconsider this extremely harsh decision to reduce the freight assistance which enabled the poultrymen on Vancouver island to get on their feet. Now when their times are not too good the government suddenly, at a moment's notice, withdraws this assistance which the poultrymen have enjoyed in the past.
I am sure it is possible to review that situation. If it is possible to carry out the further suggestion which was made by the hon. member for New Westminster, namely that farmers might deal with farmers-that is, a farmer on Vancouver island might deal directly with a farmer on the prairies and get the grain sent out to his farm on Vancouver island without having to go through a large number of intermediate parties-I am sure that would be of assistance also. This is a complaint that I have received in the last two weeks. I have had a large number of letters and telegrams. I appeal to the government to see whether they cannot do something to keep alive a business upon which so many small farmers on Vancouver island depend.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the question raised by the two previous speakers.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? I just came in when my hon. friend was completing his remarks. I want to remind the house that it is not in order to discuss an item in the estimates at this point.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am going to be quite brief, Mr. Speaker, because I realize there are several other members who have grievances to raise. I am going to take only a few minutes because I want to give them a chance.


Walter Edward Harris: I am not objecting to the time my hon. friend may take. I am merely pointing out that this is not the time to discuss the estimates, and that the rules do not permit it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I suggest that the minister has raised the question rather late in the day.


Walter Edward Harris: Only when I heard my hon. friend was out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But there had been previous speakers on this subject.


Walter Edward Harris: I apologize. I was not here when that happened.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will be the least guilty of all, as usual. Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister on January 28 with respect to the reduction of freight assistance, particularly to British Columbia poultry and dairy producers, is of extremely serious concern to those producers I represent. These people are all hard-working. They work 12 hours a day, 12 months a year. They are more acquainted with the grub hoe and the walking plow than they are with the rubber-tired combine and the radio-equipped cabin machine. I know these men personally. They spent many years of their lives building up small holdings in the forest. They spent many long years at hard toil, and many years in saving. In fact in one district they were so short of capital when I was a boy that they actually had a travelling rooster.
Owing to the labour required in poultry and dairy production and, in the district I represent, the excessive cost of transportation at times-I have many small producers who have to transport their eggs or butter or fresh cream or milk by launch, by truck or by car before it finally reaches a train or something of that sort-they are operating on a narrow margin now. The loss of this 50 per cent of freight assistance is a serious thing to these people on whose behalf I am speaking this evening. It is so serious that quite recently the Kootenay poultry co-operative association-and that organization represents all the producers in Kootenay West and some outside Kootenay West-held a meeting to discuss this whole question.
I am just going to read one or two sentences from a letter I received, and the resolution that was passed. I sent a copy of the resolution to the minister. I am not going to delay the house by reading the whole letter but just to indicate the seriousness of the problem I will read this:
At a recent meeting of the Kootenay poultry co-op association the members discussed our government's latest outrage, namely, the removal of part of the freight assistance on feed grain to British Columbia.
Then they express their opinion in the resolution and say:
[DOT] . . we strongly condemn the government for interfering with free enterprise, favouring one section of farmers at the expense of another. We did not ask for the freight assistance in the first place but since it has been in effect for over ten years and as we had our government's assurance that it would not be discontinued, we have depended on it to build up our poultry flocks to supply the local market and find the loss a great hardship.
Then they go on to say they find that being prevented by the wheat board from buying feed grain from individual farmers is a great hardship. They therefore petition the government to consider the whole question of

restoring the freight assistance, or at least removing it on a graduated basis over a period of time so they will have an opportunity to adjust themselves to the changed circumstances. That is serious enough.
On behalf of these men who find this a very serious blow I do urge the minister to give consideration to the restoration of this freight assistance so necessary to these small, hard-working producers, and to give consideration to affording them the opportunity to buy directly from the wheat board and avoid some of these middlemen costs. At the present time they are paying $2 a bushel, before considering freight, for No. 6 wheat, for which I am told by the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Mackenzie the prairie farmers at the present time are receiving less than $1 a bushel. I think they should have the opportunity to buy wheat directly from the wheat board in order to save these middlemen's expenses.
Again, they are very anxious to see a satisfactory floor price maintained on eggs. I am not going to detain the house longer, but I do urge the minister, in association with the other members who have spoken, to reconsider this decision and think of these people to whom it means so much.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to detain the house beyond associating myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the hon. member for Kootenay West, particularly on behalf of the cattle producers in the interior of my province on whose behalf I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) just the other day.
Having said that, I do not think there is much necessity to say more as to their hardship, except that this reduction comes at the very worst possible time from the point of view of those who are faced now with a shortage of local feed and are therefore made that much more dependent on feed grain from the prairies. Suddenly in the midst of their feeding season they find themselves faced with this drastic increase in cost.
My main purpose in rising now is not to discuss any subject which may be discussed on the estimates, but to point out that to leave this until the estimates will be too late, because the feeding season will be over. Therefore I support the request for reconsideration, and ask the minister for a statement on the matter at this time.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the particular problem that has been raised as a grievance tonight by the hon. member for New Westminster is shared by all farmers of British Columbia who find
Poultry-Freight Assistance on Feed Grains
themselves in the market for feed grain. I had occasion to speak on this subject in a previous debate, and also to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture on February 4, when I received one of his characteristic replies.
Tonight again I should like to place myself on record as supporting the suggestions and recommendations made by the hon. member for New Westminster. On that occasion I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he was giving any consideration to changes in the announced regulation, and he informed me that if and when that time came an announcement would be made in the house. I have been waiting hopefully for that announcement, but up to the present I have been sadly disappointed.
This matter has been brought to my attention again through letters from my own riding, and also editorials in the local papers. Without question it is, and has been, imposing a great hardship upon the farmers of that area. We were informed, of course, that $5 was being added to the cost of feed grain, and I wrote and asked for the prices at the present time. I was informed that as of February 6 the price of feed wheat was $69, oats $71 and barley $65. It has been called to the attention of the house that the price of feed grain on the prairies is $28. Therefore I again call attention to the wide spread between the price received by the prairie farmer and the price paid by farmers in British Columbia.
Having referred to that, I should also like to call attention to the price the farmers in that area are receiving for their eggs. On February 6 the price was 32 cents, but I understand that there has been a further drop and the price is now 31 cents for grade A large. I do not know just how much pressure would have to be put on the Minister of Agriculture to get him to change his mind. I have not been here long enough to discover that, but I am told it would take a great deal of pressure to make him change his mind on any particular subject upon which he had made a pronouncement.
I have here a copy of the Abbotsford, Sumas and Matsqui News of February 9, and I should like to call attention to an editorial in that issue entitled, "Poor Time to Slice Subsidy". The editorial reads in part as follows:
British Columbia farmers, particularly poultrymen and dairymen of the Fraser valley, are agitated over the $5 per ton cut in federal freight subsidy on the movement of coarse grains to the Pacific coast and mill feeds to eastern Canada. Protests have been forwarded through Hon. James Sinclair, Minister of Fisheries, to Bight Hon. James G. Gardiner concerning the severity of the sudden
1320	HOUSE OF
Poultry-Freight Assistance on Feed Grains
cut. For farmers, it means a feed cost increase of up to $5 a ton at a time when returns in both poultry and dairying are down.
Two former members of parliament, William Mott of New Westminster and George Cruickshank of Fraser Valley, joined with Senator Tom Reid in delivering the farmers' appeal to Hon. Mr. Sinclair.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that is a very-powerful array of personalities, and certainly they should have been able to bring some pressure to bear upon the Minister of Agriculture. But here is what the editorial says:
Reports are they got exactly nowhere.


An hon. Member:: As far as we got.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The editorial goes on to say:
As late as April, 1954, Right Hon. Mr. Gardiner told the advisory board of farmers' institutes: "It has not been stated at any time that there is any intention on the part of the dominion government to remove the freight assistance on feed grain. The legislation is as permanent as legislation can be made. There is, of course, always the possibility that parliament may change the law."
That was in April, 1954. Note that the last words are, "There is, of course, always the possibility that parliament may change the law." The law has been changed, Mr. Speaker, but parliament certainly did not do it. It has been done arbitrarily, and this regulation is meeting with real opposition because of the hardship it is imposing on those who are engaged in farming operations in the province of British Columbia.
Therefore, because of the existing situation, because of the representations that have been made, and because of the continuing hardship the farmers are suffering in that area, I would ask the minister and the government to reconsider their decision and give consideration to the recommendations and suggestions presented by the hon. member for New Westminster, thus giving a boost to the farmers in British Columbia.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister not going to answer?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am waiting until all hon. members have concluded their remarks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the hon. member is going to raise another matter.


Harold Edward Winch: I was going to take advantage of this motion to take up another grievance. It is a different subject from that which has been discussed. Does the minister want to answer this matter now?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I hold my right to rise afterward, Mr. Speaker?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster, Mr. Speaker, has been discussed at some length. First of all, I believe that in introducing the subject the hon. member answered at least some of the suggestions that have been made since. He called attention to the fact that this subject was discussed back in 1941, and in one of the letters read a few moments ago by the hon. member for Kootenay West it was stated that British Columbia had never requested this assistance. The statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster is correct.
Freight assistance on feed grain was introduced in 1941, and as first announced in this house applied to the maritime and central provinces. Immediately the members from British Columbia, the two members mentioned and others, rose in the house to ask that it be applied to British Columbia as well. It was understood, of course, at the time that that was only fair, and it was done. I am simply calling attention to the fact that those in British Columbia who think it was not asked for by British Columbia at that time, and therefore object to it being taken off at a time when they are experiencing some difficulty, should know that the facts are as stated by the hon. member for New Westminster.
The suggestion has been made, both in the letter that was read and by the hon. member for New Westminster, that we should not discriminate as between farmers in British Columbia and farmers elsewhere. I am not too sure whether the figures which are given in connection with feed grain are for grain that is shipped into the province in the usual form, or whether they are for grain delivered in some of these bushel sacks mentioned by the hon. member for New Westminster. There is a great deal of difference between selling grain by the carload on the prairies at so much a ton, or by the truckload at so much a ton, and buying it in nicely painted bags in some other part of Canada with other ingredients added. In other words it is most difficult to determine, in discussing a question of this kind on the floor of the house, whether we are all talking about the same things. But I do know that grain can be purchased in British Columbia from farmers on the prairies by a certain method.
It may be that some people find the method too complicated or too difficult to follow through. On two or three occasions I have arranged shipments of grain from the prairies to individuals in British Columbia. The method by which that is done is as follows. The grain must be delivered to an elevator

on the prairies. The wheat board insists upon that so the farmer can get his initial payment. Then the grain can be taken back, even if the same farmer takes it back. In one of the cases I mentioned, a farmer had lived on the prairie and moved to British Columbia. He still had his farm on the prairie, and he wanted to ship grain from his farm on the prairie to his farm in British Columbia. He was able to do that by following the method I have outlined. He must deliver the grain to the wheat board through the elevator at the delivery point, and take delivery of it again from the wheat board out in British Columbia. That is a possibility, and it can be done by a co-operative organization, or a group of farmers can get together. It could be done in many ways.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would they have to buy a farm on the prairies?


Frederick George Hahn: Is it a common practice for them to do that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a practice that could be common, though I do not think it is very common.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would they all have to own a farm on the prairies?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they would not have to have a farm. The one man I mentioned did own a farm, hut I have made arrangements for others who did not. The method is the same whether it is from their own farm or from another farm. The wheat board insists on the grain being delivered on a farmer's permit to the elevator. By that method the farmer on the prairies gets his initial payment. The wheat is shipped out and delivered in British Columbia. It could be shipped by the carload, and it would have to be to some particular group. Then they pay the price which is required by the wheat board in order to get the wheat. That can be done. It is one of those things a great many people do not like to take the trouble to do; nevertheless it is a possibility. It could be done quite regularly if the organizations in British Columbia that are feeding poultry were to organize themselves to have it done. If they leave it to the grain dealer to do the job, of course he is going to charge them something for doing it. The general practice is that most people who are conducting that kind of business take a certain amount of profit out of it, so the cost is greater if it is done that way.
One of the members said something about what is done by the people who feed pigs, cattle and chickens. Well, I have done all
Poultry-Freight Assistance on Feed Grains
those things, and I have done some of them within the last 12 months. I know what the work is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister, does each of these deals he has described have to be put through the minister?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they could be put through my hon. friend. If he had sufficient business acumen to talk as definitely for the farmers out in his constituency as he does when he comes down here, he could set up an organization in Kamloops to get the grain shipped there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The farmers there have an organization.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, advise them how it ought to be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You advise them; that is what we want.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am doing it right now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will send them Hansard, and they will be very interested.


James Garfield Gardiner: No doubt it will be interesting after the discussion is over.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is why I wanted the minister to make his statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am only pointing out to my friend that if he were nearly as active in looking after his constituents as he tries to make out when he is down here, he would not have to talk so much about it when he was down here. The thing would have been done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They will read the minister's statement with a great deal of interest.


James Garfield Gardiner: I remember the first day the hon. member for New Westminster came into the house. He comes from a very good part of the prairie section of Canada, and I recall him referring to the time I had the privilege of visiting him when he was much younger than he is now. I know that he knows what he is talking about when he talks about farmers on the prairies and what they do. I know that he knows what he is talking about when he speaks of the farmers out in British Columbia with whom he has been doing business. He knows the organization on the prairies was built up over a long period of years, and it is a co-operative organization. All the wheat in western Canada is handled through the farmers' cooperative organization. It is known as the wheat board.
Now my hon. friend comes here and tries to tell those of us who live on the prairies that the methods of the wheat board are not
1322	HOUSE OF
Poultry-Freight Assistance on Feed Grains
satisfactory to the people of British Columbia. Well, I am afraid we cannot agree with him. The wheat board will go on doing business on the prairies; and there are methods by which grain can be secured from the organization that is there doing business so it will not be as costly as it would if that organization was not there. So the fact that the organization is there will not increase the cost to the farmers of British Columbia.
But there is another fact that is just as important. It has been said that we should not discriminate against the farmers in that area. Well, even after the changes have been made in freight assistance the feed price in British Columbia is from $2 to $5 a ton lower than it is in Ontario. The price of eggs is from 3 to 5 cents a dozen higher in British Columbia than it is in Ontario-and when I refer to Ontario I mean the central section.
I do not mean that the price is higher than in the city of Toronto, for instance. But when we compare the price at London, which is in the centre of the farming area, we see that the price of eggs is higher in British Columbia than it is in London.
I have a statement here showing the prices Df eggs for the whole of Canada on February '.5, just a few days ago. It shows that the price in Victoria and Vancouver was 36 cents and the price at London was 33 cents on this particular day; and back only one sheet I see that it was 30 cents. It goes on to say that when you get down to the maritime provinces the price again is about the same as it is in British Columbia, 36 cents a dozen.


Frederick George Hahn: Is that the price to the farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: The price of 36 cents in British Columbia is the price at the farm.


Frederick George Hahn: What day was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: And the person in British Columbia who buys the eggs goes out to the farm and gathers them at that price. Further, the feed is delivered in British Columbia; but in Ontario it is not delivered; the farmer has to go and get it. The eggs are not gathered up in the same way in Ontario. The systems are quite different, but the results are better in British Columbia than in Ontario.
This freight assistance reduction which, it is said, has made very great changes, is simply in order to make the conditions under which feed is supplied to the poultry producers in the maritime provinces exactly the same as they are in British Columbia. It is true that prior to the change British Columbia was getting twice as much assistance as were the producers in the maritime provinces. So those who say they do not want


discrimination as between the two are getting just exactly what they are asking for. In other words the British Columbia producers of eggs, poultry, hogs and cattle are being treated in the same way as are the producers down in the maritime provinces.
But they are perfectly right when they say the producers of farm products in the two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec are not getting as much assistance; and because they are not getting as much assistance their feed costs are higher. At the same time, quoting the figures for the last two weeks, or the last month or so, egg prices are higher at the two ends of the country than they are in the centre.
May I again call attention to the fact that those are not very equitable facts upon which to base an argument. The price of eggs just a few months ago was 56 cents a dozen. The price of eggs a few weeks ago got down to 24 cents a dozen, up to 26 cents, for a week or ten days. Then, by enforcing the floor price, it was put up to 30 cents inside of a week. The price of eggs a few days ago here in Ottawa, under the 38 cent support price, was in the 30's. Look at your prices today and you will find they are in the 40's. Eggs have been going up constantly ever since the first week of December, when we insisted that the floor price was in existence, and they are still going up. All one needs to do is follow the prices in the two newspapers here, and follow them in the newspapers right across the country, and he will find they are going up.
I would just like to recall to the hon. member what happened. The British stopped buying our eggs. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, when discussing figures a few moments ago, said something about 441,000 dozen eggs. Does he know that we were exporting 86 million dozen eggs at the end of the war? He talks about our importing a few thousand dozen. The normal condition before the war was that we were exporting a million dozen to Great Britain, and during the war we raised that to 86 million.
When the British stopped buying, that was perhaps the most serious setback the egg producers in Canada ever had. The British stopped buying, and we had a discussion just like that taking place tonight. The whole industry was to be wiped out because the British had stopped buying eggs, and eggs went down to 16 cents a dozen. In January of that year we brought into existence the system which is still operating. That system has gone on ever since, and the industry has been doing very well.
Tonight we are told that because we have changed the assistance on freight, people are

going to have to go out of the poultry business, and out of egg production. I am going to say that the people who stay in will probably do just as well as the farmers who stayed in hog production two years ago, when the same kind of discussion was going on in the House of Commons. Those who go out will probably come in again later on.
The industry has not been ruined by what has happened, particularly in that section of Canada which has been discussed tonight. I say the industry has not been ruined; and so I think it is necessary for us to conclude that the freight rates will not injure other people in the sense that has been suggested tonight.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise on this motion to present a grievance. It is now almost ten o'clock, and I would ask for the right to adjourn the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is not going to continue the discussion of this subject, then others who wish to discuss it will come ahead of him, although he is asking to adjourn the debate.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a grievance to raise, and it has nothing to do with the amendment upon which a vote was taken. Neither has it anything to do with the grievance just discussed. It being ten o'clock I would ask the right to adjourn the debate.
Business o/ the House


Mr. Speaker:: But I must point out to the hon. member that if he wishes to raise an entirely new grievance, and if when we resume the debate on this motion there are members who wish to pursue the subject matter introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster, they will have to be heard before the hon. member introduces a new subject.


Harold Edward Winch: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am rising to discuss a new grievance.^


Mr. Speaker:: In that case the hon. member does not have to adjourn the debate. The debate is interrupted by the rules at ten o'clock. Does the minister wish to make an announcement before the adjournment?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: I was sincerely hoping that hon. members would find it possible to adopt this motion tonight. Before the minister spoke I noticed that the hon. member for Vancouver East was the only member to rise, and I assumed under those conditions that we would probably complete this discussion before adjourning at ten o'clock. Now I see that the hon. member for York South wants to speak. I have no idea how long he may take.


Mr. Noseworlhy:: Forty minutes.


Harold Edward Winch: I, sir, shall also take 40 minutes.
It being three minutes after ten the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



Monday, February 21, 1955