1956-05-03

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hunter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has received assurance from Mr. Frank McMahon that he has $50 minion of equity capital now available to proceed with the pipe line to Montreal and that he is prepared to deposit an adequate bond to guarantee the completion of the pipe line as far as Montreal by 1958?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I have no knowledge of any such communication. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce might give a further reply.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no communication of the type indicated but I have been in touch with Mr. McMahon within the last few minutes, and he has agreed to allow me to remove the "private and confidential" from his letters. As soon as the necessary copies can be made I propose to table the correspondence I have had with him during this year.
ILater:1



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN COST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he will inform the house whether the government has approached Premier Manning of Alberta, Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan and Premier Campbell of Manitoba in regard to the possibility of their sharing in part of the additional financing that the government is considering in extending the pipe line through western Canada?



FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1954-55 WHEAT-INITIAL PAYMENT ON GRAIN FOR 1956-57

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I have given him previous notice, hoping he could, if possible, answer it today.
Is the minister in a position to announce the final payment on wheat through the wheat board for the 1954-55 crop year? Can he also inform us what the initial payment on grain will be during the new 1956-57 crop year?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, having received notice of the question I have been able to get certain information and can make a statement to the house concerning three aspects of the western grain marketing situation: one, the final payment on the 1954-55 wheat pool account; two, the policy of the wheat board with respect to delivery quotas during the remainder of the present crop year; three, initial prices for wheat, oats and barley during the crop year which begins August 1 next.
Dealing first with the final payment covering the 1954-55 pool account wheat, I am pleased to be able to advise the house that the Canadian wheat board propose making a cut-off as at May 4, tomorrow, and are recommending to the government a transfer of the unsold stocks, approximately 50 million bushels in amount, to the 1955-56 pool account as at that date. This action will enable the board to close out the 1954-55 pool account.
Total receipts of wheat from producers in this pool amounted to 318,439,061 bushels plus 615,839 bushels purchased from other than producers and 164,055,511 bushels transferred from 1953-54 pool account, a total of 483,110,411 bushels.
As soon as the board's accounts have been completed, I shall be in a position to announce to the house the exact amount of the final payment and the rate per bushel for each grade of grain delivered to the pool. I expect to be in a position to make this announcement about the middle of this month. According

Inquiries of the Ministry to present plans, the wheat board will begin issuing cheques to producers on or about May 22 or 23 and will have completed this final payment about the end of this month of May.
I turn now to policy with respect to delivery quotas at country points. A very heavy movement of wheat and other grain into and out of country elevators is now under way. Deliveries by farmers will increase as road conditions improve and will continue at a high level during the balance of the current crop year. The movement of grain to seaboard is also very heavy. Our export clearances are now reflecting heavy sales commitments entered into in recent months, about which I have previously informed the house. I am not yet in a position to put a firm estimate on export clearances for the whole of the crop year but I can assure hon. members that wheat and flour export clearances will substantially exceed last year's figure of about 252 million bushels.
As a result of this heavy outward movement, the wheat board has been able to increase its grain delivery quotas very substantially in recent weeks. As at May 1 only 14 stations remained on a quota of 1 bushel per specified acre. A 2-bushel quota is in effect at 478 stations. Some 572 stations have a 3-bushel quota, 602 stations a 4-bushel quota and 400 stations a 5-bushel quota. In addition to these basic quotas, supplementary quotas are in effect covering delivery of malting barley, high grade oats, rye and various classes of seed grain. Since the beginning of the season an open quota has been in effect covering the delivery of Durum wheat and flaxseed.
Total grain deliveries since August 1 are now about 300 million bushels and the Canadian wheat board expects that space will be provided at country elevators to enable total farm deliveries * of about 500 million bushels during the crop year. It is expected that wheat deliveries for the whole of the present crop year will exceed 1954-55 but that deliveries of oats and barley will fall somewhat short of last year's figure.
I have, been advised by the board that although they expect that they will be in a position to accept delivery from producers of as much grain as in 1954-55, it may not be possible for them to arrange to equalize deliveries by individual farmers to the extent that this was arranged for during the past two crop years. Hon. members may remember that during last crop year the board endeavoured to provide delivery opportunities to enable all producers to deliver a minimum quota of eight bushels per specified acre. This looked like a feasible target.


However, estimates of potential deliveries at many delivery stations proved to be wide of the mark, and it was not possible for the board to accept all the eight-bushel deliveries prior to July 31. It therefore became necessary for the board to issue special 1955-56 quota delivery permits to enable producers who had not delivered their eight-bushel quota prior to July 31 to complete these deliveries along with new quota deliveries during the current season.
It is always the aim of the board to equalize delivery opportunities in so far as this is possible. The board has advised me, however, that last year the attempt to reach a uniform target did have an adverse effect upon the marketing of Canadian grain in export markets. Much of the grain delivered last fall against the previous year's quota and moved to terminal positions was made up of varieties and grades not needed for immediate marketing requirements. This grain added to the congestion in storage facilities and utilized scarce transportation, thus creating difficulties for the board in moving to seaboard position for immediate clearance those varieties and grades of new crop grain for which there was an immediate and urgent demand.
In the light of this experience the Canadian wheat board have advised me that, if they are to meet market requirements and their forward sales commitments, it may not be possible to attain a uniform quota at all delivery stations during the present crop year.
The primary objective of the board will be to bring forward grain to cover sales commitments or for which there appears to be a ready demand. The board will, however, working with the transport controller, the elevator companies and the railways, continue to endeavour to achieve as high a degree of equality of delivery opportunity as is possible without interfering with the sales objective. The board will increase delivery quotas at individual stations as space is created, but will restrict shipments of grain from higher quota stations to the movement of grain required to meet commitments. In order to avoid the serious situation that arose last year, the wheat board has decided that all quotas in effect as at July 31, 1956, will expire as at that date and deliveries after August 1 will apply against the 1956-57 crop year quotas which will be made effective on August 1.
Although this wheat quota policy may result in some producers in western Canada, at the end of the current crop year, having delivered more grain per specified acre than others, there should be general agreement

that, at a time of intense international competition, the Canadian wheat board must have freedom to give preference to deliveries of the varieties and grades of grain for which there is an immediate demand and that the board cannot afford to pass up market opportunities in an endeavour to equalize farm deliveries between producers.
At this time, I also wish to announce to the house that the government has approved initial prices to be paid by the Canadian wheat board on the basic grades of wheat, oats and barley for the crop year beginning August 1, 1956, at the same level as during the present crop year. These initial prices are as follows:
Wheat-$1.40 per bushel basis No. 1 Manitoba Northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
Oats-65 cents per bushel No. 2 Canada Western in store Fort William/Port Arthur.
Barley-96 cents per bushel basis No. 3 Canada Western six-row in store Fort William/Port Arthur.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I wonder if I might ask the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is in position to say whether the storage payments the government is now making will result in total payments for wheat for 1954 being as high as in the previous year. In other words, will the final payments be as high as last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be able to announce that to the house in about two weeks.
[Later: 1
On the orders of the day:


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce another question. Could the minister say how high the minimum delivery quotas will be made by the end of July and whether the government will consider declaring delivery points open so that the grave discrimination that will flow from unequal delivery quotas may be kept to a minimum?


An hon. Member:: You are never satisfied.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I ventured to predict deliveries under quota last year and, because we could not attain my forecast within the crop period, I have heard about it at least eight times from my hon. friend. So I shall make no further predictions.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the press report by Gerald Waring that
Inquiries of the Ministry loans by the chartered banks for new housing are down by about 30 per cent this year compared to what they were at this time last year, is the government considering expanding its activities in the field of direct loans for housing construction?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I have not seen the report by Mr. Waring but, as the hon. member knows, these are matters of policy, and decisions are communicated to the house only after they are taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Is he aware of the report that the decline in lending by chartered banks for housing construction arises from the advice of the central bank to the chartered banks to reduce their lending?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: I should like to answer another question raised by the hon. member yesterday in regard to the rates of pay for women cleaners in Winnipeg. The rates for women cleaners are established by the treasury board on the basis of local surveys conducted by the Department of Labour in various localities.
The Department of Public Works requested a review of the rate for women cleaners in Winnipeg in September, 1955, and the report in November following completion of an extensive survey indicated that no change was warranted at that time. The rates are under constant study and would normally be reviewed again in June.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minisier of Transport):: Yesterday the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) asked whether I could give the house any information as to what steps had been taken to alleviate the storage situation for private plane operators in the Ottawa area. I would reply by saying that the matter has been discussed with aircraft owners and operators in the Ottawa area, including the Ottawa flying club, but no decision in the matter has been reached.

Supply-Agriculture SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1. Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services), $670,015.


Mr. Stanton:: In taking part in the debate on the agriculture estimates, it is not my intention to take up too much time, and I do not believe I shall take my full allotted time of 30 minutes. Nor shall I give what might be termed a statistical address, offering a multitude of figures that I know few people care to listen to and even fewer people care to read. I shall leave that to the Minister of Agriculture, who is a past master in the art of conglomerating and twisting figures and statistics to suit the immediate occasion. Nobody knows what they are all about; perhaps not even the minister. It all simmers down to a little bit of addition here and a little bit of subtraction there with even some multiplication and division thrown in, and I am sure that in order to make the farmers appear better off than they ever have been he must have used much more addition than subtraction. We have been told of meetings held across western Canada in protest against the government's wheat policy. On reviewing the proceedings and statements made by different members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at their meeting in Hamilton one sees that the same thing could very easily happen in eastern Canada. I should like to quote a few extracts from what was said at that meeting. In the Rural Co-operator of January 31, 1956 I find the following:
The federal minister of agriculture is trying to "make fools out of the farmers of this country'', D. E. Stauffer, a past president of United Cooperatives of Ontario, told the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Hamilton on January 25. Mr. Stauffer urged the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to protest strongly the misleading impressions of farm prosperity given by published reports of a January 23 speech of the Canadian Minister of Agriculture.
Again I quote:
The C.F.A. annual meeting on January 26 approved a statement noting "with regret" that the minister's comparison of cash and net farm income for the most recent five year periods "while technically correct tends to leave an erroneous impression with the public."
I quote further:
"How long is Mr. Gardiner going to be allowed to get away with this kind of thing", Mr. Stauffer asked. "A whole year's work is thrown away when the minister gives statements like that to the press. He does it every year before the C.F.A. meeting, and it's got to stop."

Eastern members have listened very attentively and, I may say, with a great deal of interest and sympathy to the debate with relation to the difficulties of the prairie farmers which has taken up much of the time of the house since January 10. After listening to the debate yesterday on the distribution of box cars I am beginning to wonder whether there has not been a word spoken in the house for every grain of surplus wheat there is in the western provinces.


Mr. Charlton:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could have a little order.


The Chairman:: Order. It is very difficult to hear the hon. member. At the same time, if he did not refer so extensively to his notes perhaps he might himself command a little better order in the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That is a fine bunch to be applauding.


Hayden Stanton: I am referring to notes and I have noticed that many hon. members on the other side of the house, especially the cabinet ministers on the front bench, refer to notes all the time.


An hon. Member:: They read their entire speeches.


Hayden Stanton: We fully appreciate the fact that many hundreds of farmers in the three prairie provinces are experiencing very difficult times. It is no secret, it is a known fact to everyone that the whole economy of the west depends on the prosperity of those living in the rural districts and their ability to dispose of their wheat or at least to deliver a sizeable quantity of their crop to the elevator.
From listening to different members and looking over reports concerning the prairies we know that there are many millions of bushels of wheat still on the farm and that many hundreds of farmers have received very little and in some cases no cash for their crop for a year or more. Is it any wonder that the farmers are not only asking for but demanding, although in vain, cash advances on farm stored grain? I admit that guaranteed bank loans will be of some help. That is why we the official opposition supported the resolution; but it will not solve the financial difficulty and stress that many producers find themselves in at the present time. The wheat they have in storage on their farms is in fact equivalent to their hard-earned dollars of the past year, and in some instances for a longer period. No wonder they object to paying interest on

their own money. I have been in communication with many western wheat growers and they seem to be all of the same opinion, regardless of their political affiliations, namely that the wheat board should advance them cash on the grain stored on their farms.
While western agriculturists at the present time are subjected to all this difficulty, that is not saying that everything in eastern Canada is rosy; not by any means. The farmer in eastern Canada-and I have in mind now the dairy farmer-has his many problems owing to reduced revenue and rising cost. The dairy farmers in eastern Canada would and could feed many millions of bushels of western grain if they could get for their milk products a remuneration comparable to the cost of grain they buy. Every farmer is well aware of the fact that if he purchases feed grain at $3 per hundred, which is the price in the east at present, and has been for quite some time, he must receive the same price per hundred for his milk in order to make it profitable for him to purchase. Today the farmer who is producing milk for butter, evaporated or powdered milk or cheese receives from $2 to $2.40 per hundred net. Hence it is utterly impossible for him to buy grain at $3 per hundred and receive an average of approximately $2.25 for his products.
At this time I should like to give some statistics with regard to the price paid in one of the three concentrated milk plants in my own county in order to show the committee the difference in price of milk at the present time as compared with that in 1951. In 1951 the top price in this one particular milk plant was $3.25 per hundred with a low price of $3.15. I am taking the lowest price paid that year. In 1952 the price dropped to $2.75 or a drop of 40 cents per hundred. In 1953 the price dropped again to $2.33 per hundred or a net drop of 82 cents from 1951. In 1954 the price dropped to $2.34 per hundred or a net drop of 81 cents from 1951. In 1955 the price was $2.43 or a drop of 72 cents from 1951.
Taking into consideration the total number of pounds of milk shipped to this milk plant in those four years, the net loss to the shippers to that plant was $1,322,653 or a net loss per year of an average of $330,000.
In my county we have three milk plants of practically comparable size. Therefore the loss to the dairy farmer in Leeds county, or its borders, in the three milk plants is $1 million per year. Cheese also is an important product in my county, as well as in other parts of eastern Canada-as you know, eastern Ontario has the banner cheese-producing county in Canada, Things are not altogether 67509-224
Supply-Agriculture
rosy for the cheese producer either. In 1951 the average price for cheese milk was $2.74 per hundred. In 1952 it was $2.16; in 1953, $2.14; and in 1954, $2.20. When you take into consideration the amount of milk that is purchased in Ontario to make cheese you will see that the loss in those four years was $3,625,200 annually. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that proves conclusively to me that there has been a reduction in the purchasing power of the dairy farmers of Ontario, particularly of eastern Ontario.
I say to my western friends, if we in the east were to receive a fair and comparable price for our produce we could take care of many, many millions of your western grain surplus. In fact, we would have to increase the grain rations to our herds of cattle by an average of only three or four bushels a day for each farm to take care of a least 50 million bushels of your surplus. I have heard many farmers make the statement that they would like to feed their cattle, especially the dairy cows, more grain but they could not afford to purchase it.
Few people who have not had the experience can visualize the overhead cost of a dairy farmer. He must provide storage for his hay, grain and silage and stables for his cattle. The cost is terrific and now that farm labour is so scarce he must have his farm well-equipped with machinery, not only seeding and harvesting equipment but very expensive machinery for his forage crops such as hay and corn. This runs into many thousands of dollars.
If a young professional man, or a man working in industry at a fair salary or wage, wants to build or purchase himself a house he can get a loan from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation up to 90 per cent of the value, but if a young man wants to purchase a farm he can get a loan of only 60 per cent of the value from the farm loan board. Why is this? Why the discrimination? It must be that the government thinks the earning power of the man in business, or the man who works in industrial plants, is greater and more secure than that of the man on the farm. If this is so, it is about time they gave some consideration to the needs of agriculture so that the earning power of the farmer will be equal to that of people in other walks of life.
A young man may buy a farm now with the ordinary down payment, and by the time he gets it stocked with cattle and equipped with the necessary implements and before the mortgage is discharged, he has paid the equivalent of the amount of the mortgage two or three times in interest and, in many instances, at his death he is compelled to leave a portion of the mortgage for his son

Supply-Agriculture
to finish paying. That has happened quite often. Is it any wonder that the farmers' sons are not staying at home to carry on where their fathers leave off? I hope the time will not come when it will be the survival of the largest. Surely there is a place in our rural districts for small-sized family farms; but I am afraid they are fast disappearing. Why? Because the farmer and his son or help, whichever it may be, on the ordinary farm cannot make his revenue meet his expenses.
Farmers to the number of 205,000 filed income tax returns for 1953 showing an average net income of $2,125. Of this number, 135,000 with an average income of only $1,244 were not taxable. Those who do file income tax returns are the largest and most successful farmers, and yet they earn only an average income of $2,125. But that is not all. We must realize that it is not the farmer or the head of the house, who earns this income; it is the earnings of the whole family, his wife and family combined. I think it is high time that the farmer's wife, who works long hours on the farm and helps her husband and looks after the family, should be allowed $250 as an exemption in income tax as are other wives who work in offices, shops or factories.
Then, there is the smaller farmer, his wife and family, who are earning an average of only $1,244 or less. A man who is slightly handy can go down town and buy himself a hammer, a saw and an old rusty square and earn far more as a carpenter's helper, working only eight hours a day, five days a week, than he can on the farm at the present time.
Whenever the Minister of Agriculture speaks he always averages the years 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955. He is very careful not to present the economic picture of the last three years when the net farm income declined around 60 per cent. I have a machine price list in my hand. In 1941 a binder could be purchased for $253.50. At the present time anybody who has had anything to do with farming and with farm machinery knows that the price has more than doubled. At the present time we pay $550 for a binder. There has been an increase from $253.50 in 1941 to $550 at the present time. That goes for all. kinds of machinery that the farmer must buy to carry on his farming activities. It is not so much the number of dollars a farmer owns, it is the purchasing power of those dollars that count.
In 1901 the farm population was 45 per cent of the total population. In 1951 it was only 19 per cent. But the lamentable part
[Mr. Stanton.1
of the story is that 19 per cent of our population today is receiving only 6-8 per cent of our gross national income, which is out of all proportion. In fact, from 1951 to 1954 the farmer's share of the gross national income has dropped from 13-6 per cent to 6-8 per cent, and still the minister has the audacity to tell the house and every public meeting that he addresses that there is nothing wrong with agriculture.
There were more unpaid taxes in the rural municipalities of eastern Ontario in 1955 than there had been for many years, and I presume that is true of all farming districts of Canada. Also, many grocery and hardware stores in the rural villages are going on a cash basis, which is a very good criterion of the diminishing purchasing power of the farmers.
It has been so long since eastern Canada has had a minister of agriculture that we in the east are beginning to wonder whether the minister is of the opinion that there are no farmers in the east at all. I believe we have not had a minister of agriculture in eastern Canada since 1911. If the Conservative party does not appoint one from eastern Canada after the next election-surely we are entitled to one in every 50 years-they will certainly hear from me.
The heads of the different agricultural associations have been doing a wonderful job in creating better public relations between the urban and rural districts. They have gone a long way in dispelling the suspicion that the farmer was getting too much for his products. Now the minister runs around telling how well off the farmers are, how much better off they are now than they were years ago. He does more harm in one of his speeches that is broadcast on the radio and printed in the press than the public relations association can rectify in a whole year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And he does it just about once a week.


Hayden Stanton: Mr. Chairman, in my constituency we have a very large turkey industry at the present time although I would not say it is thriving because we do not have ample protection for poultry, especially turkeys. If the duty were sufficient to protect the turkey growers in Canada, it would expand into one of the great industries of this country, consuming much of the surplus grain that the prairies have at the present time.
In 1954, Canada imported over 5 million pounds of turkey from the United States; in 1955 she imported double that, or 10 million pounds. Now, what do we have in 1956? Up until February 11, the market report shows imports of 422,000 pounds, and for the same period in 1955 it was 96,000 pounds.

The official prediction from the United States department of agriculture is for an increase of 6 per cent in turkeys raised this year. With the Canadian tariff as it is, at 124 per cent ad valorem, if there were a break in the United States market owing to the tremendous amount of turkeys being raised this year the duty might well drop to three or four cents per pound.
I think that the turkey growers, of whom there are now a considerable number in Leeds county-and there will be more if they are adequately protected-are not asking for too much when they suggest that the tariff should be 12i per cent ad valorem, but not less than five cents per pound.
Under the present tariff, turkeys may come into Canada at a very low tariff when the price is lowest in the United States, and this may have a very damaging effect on our market here. The farmers are reasonable when they ask for protection only comparable to other industries in Canada. This they must have, if they are going to survive and play their part in expanding this country in the next fifty years, making it the great nation that we all visualize.
It is time the government woke up to the fact and admitted that all is not well with our basic industry. It is time it realized that there should be more equality in the distribution of our gross national income. Surely the government must realize that much of our present industrial prosperity can be attributed to credit buying. Without a very strong agricultural economy, I hesitate to imagine where this whole Canadian economy may drift.


Mr. Hosking:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make on item No. 1 of the agriculture estimates and though I think my remarks will primarily be of interest to hon. members from the province of Ontario some of the topics which I discuss will no doubt be of interest to all the farmers in Canada.
The first suggestion I would like to make to the Minister of Agriculture would be that he broaden the broadcasts which occur at the luncheon and dinner hours regarding the marketing of livestock on the Toronto stock exchange. The reason for this is that the beef producers of Wellington county have sent a resolution to me asking not only that the price be given but that the number of beasts which are sold at that price be recorded. This would give the farmers some idea of the quantity of stock that is being handled and at what price that stock is being sold.
I feel there is great merit in this recommendation. I realize that these broadcasts are not paid for by our government but are handled as a news item, but I believe that the
67509-224J
Supply-Agriculture
department does furnish the various radio stations with this information.
The second point I have been asked to bring to the attention of the minister is that truckers are presently required to have their trucks disinfected after delivering stock to the stockyards. This requires that the trucks be washed. Many of the truckers buy cattle at the stockyards and on the return trip transport them back to the various farmers who require feeders. After they have been washed, the bottoms of the trucks are very slippery. Although I realize it is not the responsibility of the dominion government to look after the stockyards it might recommend to the provincial government that some sand be made available to the farmers which they could throw into the bottom of the trucks in order that they would not be slippery after the disinfecting process. Again this seems like a reasonable request to me, and I submit both problems to the minister.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, on a question
of privilege, I wonder if Your Honour will consider the effect of a situation in which there is no minister of the crown in a position to speak on behalf of the government. I understand that our system calls for a minister of the crown to be present in the house and to be able to speak on behalf of the government at any time during a debate in this house, and there is no minister present at this time.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Chairman, I am quite
sure that a minister will be here in a minute or two and if I may I shall carry on.


Mr. Nicholson:: I think it would be a
courtesy if Your Honour would give a ruling on the question that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


William Alfred Robinson: I am unaware of any rule or citation which requires the presence of any particular members in the house at any particular time so long as there is a quorum in the house. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will be kind enough to direct my attention to the rule or citation which he had in mind when he raised this alleged question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that it is part of the tradition of parliament that there shall be someone in a position to speak on behalf of the government at any time in the house. Under our system of collective government responsibility any minister of the crown can speak on behalf of the government and does so on behalf of the whole government.	* <[DOT]
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that no rule or reference is necessary to emphasize the fact
3522	HOUSE OF
* Supply-Agriculture
that our parliamentary system cannot function effectively and properly unless there is a minister of the crown present.
Since I raised the point one minister of the crown has entered the house; therefore the point does not need to be dealt with of necessity. But I would ask Your Honour to consider the point I have raised and express your opinion at an appropriate time as to whether it is proper under our system of responsible government, in which the government is responsible through some minister for what may arise at any time, to be conducting a debate when no minister of the crown is present.


William Alfred Robinson: I shall be very glad to consider the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I might immediately point out to him, however, that in the appointment of parliamentary assistants I understand that the assistant to a minister is so appointed to assist the minister of the crown in such manner and to such extent as the minister may determine, and to represent his department in the House of Commons in the absence of the minister. I make that comment immediately, but I shall be glad to take the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition under advisement.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, since you are taking it under advisement and have raised a question with regard to parliamentary assistants, I would point out that the presence of a parliamentary assistant has nothing to do with the point raised. Our system of the responsibility of the government implies the joint responsibility of all ministers and the capacity of a minister of the crown who is under a special oath in relation to that office to be able to speak on behalf of the whole government. That is where our system of government is clearly distinguished from that of the United States or from similar systems. Our system calls for the possibility of an answer by some minister capable of speaking on behalf of the government collectively.
The parliamentary assistant has certain duties and can speak in connection with certain limited matters on behalf of the minister to whom he has been appointed as assistant, but he is not sworn to the privy council and certainly is not in a position under any circumstances where he can speak with responsibility and authority on behalf of the government.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Chairman, I was in my office for a little while getting some information in case someone would ask some questions that had to do with what is before the committee at the present time. When I went out

the hon. member who was speaking was not dealing with my estimates at all and under the rules of this house he really should not have been allowed to continue.
There is nothing before the house at the moment as the house is in committee. I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that when the house is sitting there should always be a minister present, and there should be a minister here while the house is in committee but not for the reason mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition.
There is only one thing under consideration, the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. The only questions which can be asked properly while the house is in committee on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are questions related to those estimates. My assistant who is sitting beside me is quite capable of answering any question which any member of the opposition may be asking in the same manner as I would answer it, or perhaps in many respects much more effectively than I could do it.


George Alexander Drew: I think there would be agreement on that.


James Garfield Gardiner: There would be agreement that probably my hon. friend has more difficulty in putting up with the answers he gets from me than he would with the answers from most people, but that is the answer which the opposition is called upon to put up with. When the members of the opposition ask questions, they get answers which sometimes suit them and which sometimes do not. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that if he or any member of the official opposition has any question to ask about anything my assistant is quite capable of answering it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, since the matter is under consideration and under advisement I would point out that the remarks of the right hon. minister have no bearing whatever on the point raised. I am quite sure that there would be many who would agree that there are a number of hon. members who are not sworn to the privy council who would be infinitely better in the position of Minister of Agriculture. But that is not the point. The point is that our system provides for the possibility of a question being asked at any time which may call for an answer from the government. Whoever the minister may be,
I submit that while the house is sitting with the Speaker in the chair, or in committee, a minister should be present and be in a position to speak on behalf of the government. I merely raised the point that no minister was present. We welcome the return of the Minister of Agriculture but that does not in any way change the point that I have raised.
fMr. Drew.l


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, just in reply to what the Leader of the Opposition has just said, I can assure my hon. friend that there are other members in this house, particularly on this side, who would do just as well in the position I am occupying, and I can assure my hon. friend that there are many members of his own group, although that group is not very large, who could fill his position much better than he fills it.


George Alexander Drew: That is the type of cheap and tawdry remark we might expect from you.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just as cheap as yours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since you are going to study the point may I ask you to give consideration to a couple of citations which may have a bearing on the matter. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly right when he said that by custom at any rate there should always be a minister of the crown in the house. I think it is always accepted, as well as being laid down by the rules, that a committee of the house is an extension of the house and is governed by the same rules. The Minister of Agriculture cannot evade this question by saying that we are in committee rather than in the house.
It seems to me that the point made by the Leader of the Opposition is particularly true and carries particular force at the present time because we are dealing with the estimates. We have before us a resolution dealing with the expenditure of money. I would ask you to pay attention to section 54 of the British North America Act which has to do with the voting of money and which makes it clear that that can be done only at the instance of someone who can indicate to the house the recommendation of the Governor General. I would also draw your attention to citation 479 which reads:
Supply resolutions are submitted in the following terms: "Resolved that a sum not exceeding . be granted to His Majesty for . . . for the year ending 31st March, 194 ." Each resolution is moved by the minister for whose department the amount is to be voted.
Obviously under that citation we can only be discussing the estimate now before us if it is moved by a minister. It seems to me that it would follow that that minister should be here for the discussion on that estimate.


William Alfred Robinson: The Leader of the Opposition interrupted the hon. member for Wellington South on a question of privilege. When I asked him to give me the rule or citation covering his question of privilege he was unable to do so, but he referred to what he called the tradition. I said previously that I would take his remarks under advisement,
Supply-Agriculture
but I think hon. members will agree that there is no compulsion to interrupt the proceedings of the committee except for the lack of a quorum. I do not think we need labour the point at greater length and I will see the hon. member for Wellington South.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member or Winnipeg North Centre has raised a question, and in order to keep the record straight may I say that I was in the house when the resolution was moved on February 10 last, when I spoke to it, and I was in the house when it was moved today. There certainly is not any rule, regulation or anything else which prevents a minister who is before the committee leaving the chamber and allowing his assistant to take charge for the time being. It may be essential or advisable that some other minister should be here, as was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, but it certainly is customary in this house for the assistant to a minister to take charge of estimates while the minister is out of the chamber on other business.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, may I express the hope, notwithstanding the fact the right hon. gentleman has just laid down the rule to be followed, that you will pursue your inquiry and let us know the results.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition, who has a home in my riding and whom I rather fancy I represent in the house, for causing a delay so the right hon. Minister of Agriculture could go to his office and be able to return to hear my remarks. However, I cannot allow the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that there is anyone in this house on either side who can do more for the farmers or who has done more for the farmers than the present Minister of Agriculture. The people of the whole of Canada know what a good fighter Jimmy Gardiner is. They admire him for it. They do not always agree with him, but no one can say that he has not fought for the farmer down through the years, in a way which has been a credit to those that he represents in agriculture.
If I might return to my discussion of a few points that I think are interesting to the farmers in our country, I should like to speak for just a moment about some observations that I made while I was in Europe. I took a trip abroad last summer during the recess to see and to learn about some of the conditions that exist in other countries, and I should like to pass on a comment or two on these, comparing them with the conditions in our own country.

Supply-Agriculture
The first I should like to mention has something to do with the fall fairs that our Department of Agriculture does a great deal to promote. There are larger fairs like the Royal Winter fair, and I was pleased to hear the address made by the Minister of Finance at the last Royal Winter fair, where he was prepared to listen to the requests of the governing body of that fair that they need a new addition to their coliseum. People who attend that fair know very well that the coliseum is inadequate, and it was very gratifying to listen to him take the lead in letting the people know that our Department of Agriculture appreciated this need and that it might, if conditions were right, be prepared to assist in seeing that an enlargement was carried out.
Turning to the use of this fair, I should like to discuss for a moment or two what I have seen abroad and how it compares with what we do here. I spent a week in Denmark and, thanks to our minister there, I was permitted to visit some of the hog feeding stations and to discuss how they have managed to raise those beautiful Landrace hogs.
I was informed that the farmers themselves felt that, if they were going to market their product, they had to produce a hog they could sell. One advantage that Denmark has over us is that it has a good market for sow belly, the type of meat that we find difficult to handle and get rid of in this country. The German market is close to Denmark, and is a very good market for what is more or less a waste part of the pig in Canada.
They had to do two things. They had to capture the British market, and therefore they had to produce good bacon. There came a time when they had to get United States dollars, and the only source of United States dollars that they had in that country was for hams, and so they had to produce a pig that had good hams as well as good bacon in order to get United States dollars. The farmers of that country decided that they would set up stations that would feed test hogs so that they would produce the best type of hog for bacon and ham. Three or four years ago, before they needed the United States dollars, they produced a hog with a Wiltshire side of some 36 inches in length. For the benefit of hon. members I might say that we produce in Canada a grade A hog, one that has a side of 29 inches. A good hog in Canada has a side 32 inches long.
They have been encouraged to breed this type of hog because fairs and shows in that country will give prizes to hogs only on their performance. They do not give prizes to hogs on appearance. Let me ask the minister to speak to the judges, if he thinks it is wise, in regard to changing the method of

judging hogs in Canada. In Denmark a hog to get first prize, has to be the type of beast that will cut up and make good Wiltshire sides with good hams.
Let me quote a few figures. At the Toronto show we had some hogs exhibited by Prince Edward Island, in the Todd trophy class. Prince Edward Island had 16 exhibits and won 13 prizes. This class is judged on the carcasses, so that the judges can view the ham and the bacon side. With regard to the Brethour trophy we had a similar situation where the hogs from Prince Edward Island entered in some 15 classes won, I believe, 12 prizes. Yet in the live classes similar pigs from the island did not get one first-class award. So I would ask the minister, considering the donations we make to these fairs, whether it would not be wise to ask the judges whether it would not be better to give prizes to live hogs for the type of hog that when killed will give us good bacon and good ham.
I also learned some other things when I was in Denmark. The Danish farmers told me that they had to buy our feed grain, ship it from Canada to Denmark, feed it and then send the dead carcasses back to England in competition with our pork. I asked them how they managed to do this. They said, "Well, there are two or three things that we do a little differently from you people. One is that we must feed carefully. We cannot feed our hogs in a wasteful manner. We have learned that it takes two pounds of feed to put a pound of pork on a pig that weighs 50 pounds. It takes five pounds of feed to put a pound of pork on a pig that weighs 200 pounds." So, if we are going to be efficient, we must ship out lighter weight grade A hogs.
At this point I should like to commend the minister for the stand that he has always taken in supporting our farmers when they produce grade A hogs. It is very important that we continue this bonus even when other governments have seen fit to withdraw their donations for grade A hogs. I should like to recommend that we double our payment to $4 on grade A hogs-that would give an extra $2-in order to encourage the farmers to proceed along the route on which they have now started in Canada. They realize, and with good sense, that we have to produce a type of bacon which the Americans like. We are able to sell our hogs now in the United States market and get 4 to 5 cents more than the Americans can get for their fat-fed hogs. Our farmers have done a good job at working to produce grade A hogs, and this would be a tremendous encouragement for them to continue to do that. I would not want to take credit for suggesting this for the first time,

because four years ago Mr. Arnold Darroch, the member at that time for Wellington North, recommended this program.
Since I have been abroad and have seen what can be done with careful feeding, and with fairs that are judged on producing a product which when killed is what is desired rather than for it's good looks when it is alive, and by seeing the type of Danish pig that has taken away from Canada our market in Great Britain, I think it is well that we make moves to assist our farmers to produce a similar pig here. I believe that next year the method of buying by the British government will end and that the private buyers of Great Britain will be coming to Canada and looking for their own goods. Farm products will not be bought by the government any more. If we have the type of pork the British want, and I am now referring to side bacon, we will have a chance to recapture the market that has been lost to us for the past three years. At least we will be competitive, and we will be able to be proud of what we have done.
When I was in the United States a year ago I discovered that the Americans were selling a Canadian type of bacon there, a product which they were advertising very strongly. This suggests the Americans envy the program of producing leaner bacon which your department has encouraged and to which the farmers have co-operated so well. If we encourage our farmers to be a little more efficient in feeding their pigs and to sell them before they get too heavy so that they do not eat too much and put on that last few pounds, we will not have hogs with 30 to 40 pounds of fat. A grade A hog generally turns out to have about 20 pounds of fat on the carcass which cannot be sold as pork. A grade B hog has about 30 pounds of fat and a grade C hog about 45 pounds of fat. It is generally in the last stage of feeding pigs, in what might be termed the inefficient stage, that the fat is put on. All of these suggestions that I make hinge on the production of more grade A hogs in the hogs that are raised.
Coming back again to the question of the fairs or shows that we have, in Scotland and northern England a wonderful market has been created for show cattle. I think most people agree that the British Isles have brought about a wonderful market for show cattle. They have gone to great pains to create that market, but I do not think many people in Canada feel that this type of show beasts we buy from these markets are good cattle to put in our barns and pens and feed to be killed for beef. There are not many people who want to buy the beef that comes from these show beasts and use it in their homes. There is a perfectly good reason for that. It is much too fat.
Supply-Agriculture
However, Great Britain is a small country and they have produced this type of beast because it catches the fancy of the wealthy American and Canadian show buyer, and we have followed suit in judging our show beasts. I do not think there is anything that has been more harmful with respect to the type of cattle we wish to market than the type of show beast that we have raised in this country. Exactly the same thing is true of hogs. We have not paid enough attention to the carcasses of these show beasts and what we get out of them when they are killed.
There is one more thing we do that I should like the minister to look into. When we kill a grade A pig we measure three fingers from the H bone at the hip, cut it off there, and that is considered the ham. We go to the third rib from the front shoulder, we cut it off at the centre of the third rib, we then have a side and a shoulder. If we follow that plan in cutting the shoulders with regard to the long Danish hogs that are 36 inches in length we have a front shoulder weighing somewhere about 44 pounds. The reason for that is that the Danish pig has been bred in such a way that each vertebra takes up more room and by cutting at the third rib on a long pig you have added a lot of extra shoulder.
The Danes have got away from that. They measure three fingers from the first rib and cut it off there in the same way as is done in the case of the rear quarter. On a long-vertebrae pig, that may mean cutting it at the second rib. So they get about four pounds extra of good side bacon. We should look into that situation. I think a committee could well be set up to look into the matter of supplying information to the farmers with regard to producing the best beasts and the actual amount of profitable meat they get out of them.
I would hope that these matters would receive some consideration during the next year. I should like to mention one other thing that is troublesome to our farmers, the price of butter, the price of cheese and the price of powdered milk. I would ask the minister to look very carefully at the situation with respect to cheese and powdered milk: I believe that in the opinion of most people the minister has done an excellent job with his butter program, but I would not want anyone to think I was recommending the same treatment for cheese and powdered milk. There might be some other way that this problem could be handled.


An hon. Member:: Tariff.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I would ask the minister to look at that matter carefully and see what he can do.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the minister's estimates I propose to deal with one specific problem which is related to agriculture in all Canada. My colleagues have dealt and will deal with other aspects of agriculture in our Canadian economy outlining the decline in our share of the national income and making suggestions which we would like to see adopted to improve the welfare of agriculture. I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Wellington South has been listening to some of the speeches made by members of this group and that he too advocates an increase in the premium on grade A hogs. That is a view that has been voiced by members of this group.
The hon. member said that he had had the opportunity of visiting Denmark but I wish that he had travelled a little more throughout the countryside of Ontario so that he would have a better appreciation of agriculture. I noticed that, particularly when he used terms such as "dead carcass". Personally I have never seen a live carcass. I was wondering where he got his terminology.
He also took the opportunity to express his congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture and I noticed that the hon. member for Leeds was quite envious of the fact that the minister represents western Canada. If a poll were to be conducted among the farmers of western Canada I think you would find they would be only too pleased to give the hon. member the present Minister of Agriculture so that the people of Ontario could have him.
The problem I wish to deal with specifically is a very important one and it can only be brought up at this stage because it concerns several items of the minister's estimates. It is related to the present congested condition we have on western farms and perhaps that is one reason why the government has not been too active in trying to solve the problem. I wish to deal more specifically with the tremendous inroads that weeds have made on the agricultural economy. This is particularly important now because of the decline of agriculture's share of the country's income. The farmers do not have the finances with which to carry out proper cultural practices to eradicate the weeds that are making such inroads. The matter is of direct concern to farmers in all parts of Canada because many of the cultivating operations that they perform are directly aimed at eradicating weeds so that the crops they plant will be able to benefit from the available moisture. The municipalities in all parts of Canada-including

your counties in Ontario-are familiar with the problem of weeds along country roads and in the fields. I think we should make a brief survey of the magnitude of this problem in relation to the Canadian economy. Mr. H. E. Wood, chairman of the Manitoba weeds commission in 1953 pointed out this, and I will quote from the Manitoba Cooperator of June 30, 1955:
Mr. Wood said he had undertaken an estimate of the toll weeds extracted from prairie agriculture. On the basis of the 1953 crop, the cost of weeds amounted to $255 million, or for the 248,000 farms, an average of $1,028 per farm.
That is one of the factors which is certainly drawing down the agriculturalist's share of the national income. It has been estimated that wild oats are a direct cost of over $500 per farm. I think the minister is aware of conditions which exist in his own area and which are prevalent in my area where farmers are forced to go out and cut out acres of badly infested sloughs in order to prevent the reseeding of the wild oats. There are areas which have been virtually taken out of cultivation because of infestation by this weed.
Mr. A. H. Martin, director of the crops, seeds and weeds branch in Ontario, has estimated that weed losses in that province are $4.65 an acre or approximately 14 per cent of the field crop value.
It has been estimated that the over-all cost of weeds far exceeds the combined losses due to insects and disease. I think we can appreciate the magnitude of that problem when statements such as that are made by people in responsible positions. The individual farmer, of course, is very much aware of the impact of weeds on his agricultural production. When chemical weed controls were first introduced we found the farmers receptive to their use. In the early years of chemical weed control we were advised not to use 2,4-D on flax. The farmers were so far ahead of scientific research that they found that, by reducing the application, 2,4-D was extremely effective for use on flax.
The municipalities are closely associated with this problem. I have a letter from Tramping Lake, Saskatchewan, written by Mr. Ralph Fluney, councillor for division 2 of rural municipality No. 380. He writes as follows:
This municipality 380 spends about $2,000 each year trying to kill this weed. Other R.M.'s adjoining ours spend more and in and around Marsden they have gone broke trying to kill this weed. I have some patches on my own land and know what I am talking about.
The debate which we had in the early part of this week ties in closely with this problem that the councillor for the rural municipality of Tramping Lake points out,

namely that the Anal responsibility is apparently resting on the shoulders of the municipal authorities. They have the responsibility for appointing weed inspectors and for acquiring and utilizing chemical weed controls through high-pressure sprayers so that these weeds which are showing up in the municipality and which are a threat to the welfare of the individual farmers in that municipality can be controlled. It also is the responsibility of rural municipalities-and they are accepting it-to build municipal seed cleaning plants, something which of course puts another direct cost on the farmers, and hence on the municipal authorities.
I think we should make a study into the infestation of noxious weeds in the various parts of Canada so that we would be in a position to suggest to the science service and to the experimental farm service what action they can take to deal with these problems. The worst weeds that we have in Saskatchewan at the moment are toadflax, Russian knapweed, hoary cress and leafy spurge. Toadflax is one that is very prevalent in certain areas of the province. Toadflax called linaria vulgaris was found in North America as early as 1758. The first specimen was collected in the University of Saskatchewan herbarium in 1918. The weed survey in 1955 states:
This species was found to infest 134,602 acres in 4,583 quarter-sections in 78 municipalities within the surveyed area.
It has established itself since 1918 to cover nearly 150,000 acres. A resurvey was made in 1955 and the results of that resurvey are frightening:
In R.M. No. 372 the number of acres infested increased from 114 to 311 from 1952 to 1954, while the number of infested quarters increased from 83 to 108 .. .
In R.M. No. 440 the number of patches increased from 2,650 to 9,869 from 1949 to 1953, while the number of infested quarter-sections increased from 607 to 729.
That gives us some idea of the inroads that this weed is making in the agricultural economy, because once your land becomes infested with toadflax, virtually nothing can be done about it with the present knowledge we have. The agricultural representative service in the province of Saskatchewan is providing an invaluable service in organizing a front-line attack against these weeds. They are working closely with the agricultural committees of the rural municipalities to discover and to control patches. In fact, the agricultural committee of my own municipality, R.M. No. 290, informed me that Macedonian toadflax was being advertised for sale in an eastern seed house. I recall asking a question of the Minister of Agriculture on February 22, 1955.
Supply-Agriculture
I asked the minister whether he had taken action to control the sale of Macedonian toadflax by this seed house. The minister replied in part:
In reply I wish to state that the control of weeds is a provincial and municipal responsibility.
Farther on he stated:
There is no legislation that forbids a seed house selling a plant such as Macedonian toadflax. It is an ornamental flower.
That answer, Mr. Chairman, showed that the Minister of Agriculture was still farming with horses, that he was miles behind the times because the regulations concerning seeds were changed to allow better control of linaria vulgaris, linaria dalmatica and linaria macedonica. In fact, the Canada Gazette of November 10, 1954, lists all the species of toadflax as being a primary noxious weed. The minister knows that if it is a primary noxious weed, no seeds are allowed in registered certified or No. 1 seed. I think we must broaden our thinking on this whole approach to weeds. The horse-farming technique is not good enough when you are dealing with a problem that is moving so rapidly. The weed survey in 1955 had this to say on broad-leaved toadflax. It is interesting enough to quote:
Within the past decade a broad-leaved species of toadflax, linaria dalmatica, has become troublesome as a persistent perennial weed in parts of Washington and Idaho. This species is the same as one which is spreading in Saskatchewan. Seventy-nine small infestations of this species have been found within the surveyed area. Many of these occur in gardens and cemeteries. Undoubtedly many more infestations occur, since the field men were not asked to note these infestations until the 1953 survey.
The minister may argue that linaria dalmatica and linaria macedonica are two different varieties when in fact they are, according to the authorities whom I have consulted in the University of Saskatchewan, a strain of the same species. I was most disappointed with the attitude that the minister took on this problem. Nevertheless, even though the minister did make that mistake at that time, he might be prepared to admit it and to follow some of the suggestions I am going to make now so that the matter of weeds can be more effectively controlled in the future.
On many occasions the Liberal party has hidden under the skirts of the British North America Act. In this case they cannot evade their responsibility because agricultural research is explicitly outlined as a federal responsibility. What is being done in connection with research on this whole matter of weed control? Last year I put a question on the order paper and received as an order for return sessional paper No. 213 which gave

Supply-Agriculture
information as to what was spent on weed control as opposed to another important aspect of agriculture, namely, entomology. I found that in 1954 there were eight full-time weed control specialists in the whole dominion of Canada. Six of them were located at headquarters at Ottawa, one in Ontario and one in Alberta. The total amount of money spent in salaries of these individuals was $37,055. When you compare that with entomology you find that there were 256 employed as full-time entomologists at an expense of $1,176,977. I am not saying that we should reduce the amount of money that is spent on entomological research but I am saying we should certainly pay more attention to the agricultural research that should be done in connection with weeds.
Dr. R. O. Ripley, chairman of the national weed committee, has estimated that in 1953 the total cost of weed investigation at the dominion and university level was $110,658. We find that outside of the Ottawa headquarters science service and experimental farm services there are no botanists working on this problem of weed control. We should take immediate steps to establish a chain of laboratories to investigate the problem. We should establish a D.E.W. line against weeds. This same suggestion might involve another change that I feel should be made in departmental administration. For some time now I have felt that there is a duplication of services in the science service and in the experimental farm service. I feel that in many instances the headquarters are located in identical stations. For example, there is a science service and an experimental station at Lethbridge. The same thing is true at Kentville, Nova Scotia. There would certainly be increased efficiency if the experimental farm service and the science service were amalgamated so that the professional men working in entomology and the field men working in experimental farm service could correlate their activities.
In connection with this same weed problem, we find that an investigation was carried on at the Belleville parasite laboratories where, incidentally, they employ 40 entomologists who are trying to find parasites which control weeds. One of them found a parasite on the toadflax samples which were sent down from Saskatchewan which seemed to do considerable damage to the reproductive mechanism of the toadflax. They found two insects on toadflax samples in Ontario where toadflax is not a serious weed. I would suppose that with the seriousness of this weed in western Canada the authorities in the science service would have immediately established a regional laboratory in the Marsden area fMr. Johnson (Kindersley).]
where this insect could be controlled to see if it would effectively control toadflax, but nothing was done. In fact, one part-time man at the Scott experimental station has been moved to Lethbridge so that there is no one there except those who are on loan from the field husbandry department.
I do not think it is a matter of pleading with the minister to take action on this particular problem; I do not think he ever thought of it before. But if we are to be serious in our approach to weeds which are, as I mentioned, so expensive to farmers in all parts of Canada, something must be done immediately to stem the tide because it is far better to do it now than even five years from now when there might be from 500,000 to 1 million acres seriously infected. The onus of responsibility is on the federal government. The farmers in all parts of Canada feel that it is the responsibility of the federal government to perform this useful function, and although it might be contrary to Liberal policy, they might increase the surplus of wheat which we have for future generations to benefit thereby.


Mr. Thatcher:: I would like to take six or seven minutes this afternoon to discuss one specific subject, namely, the lack of adequate long-term credit in agriculture throughout the country. As a matter of fact, I think hon. members on both sides of the house would agree that many of the difficulties which farmers have today can be traced to the lack of such facilities. At the present time, almost every branch of agriculture is suffering because they are starved for working capital.
The reason for this undesirable situation is not difficult to find. Apparently, private capital is failing to meet the problem posed by the lack of farm credit. Today private lenders, whether they are banks, investment houses or mortgage companies, can find more lucrative fields in which to invest their money, and fields which are less risky. As a result, in latter years these companies have been placing an ever smaller amount of their investment funds in farm mortgages.
I think the Bank of Canada regulations curtailing credit, which we have recently seen, will make this situation worse. The squeeze on farmers is bound to become even more serious. I can understand the lack of enthusiasm, which lending companies have; yet, I would like to tell them that their neglect of the long-term farm credit field could have serious consequences, not only to the nation but also to themselves. If the private lending companies do not devise methods whereby farmers can get adequate long-term credit, the government will have to come into the field in an ever more extensive way.

I am going to suggest today that these lending companies, if they are to take the advantages of the free enterprise system, should also assume some of the responsibilities. One of the responsibilities should be the granting of better long-term credit to farmers.
The lack of adequate credit today is having serious effects on our farming communities. In the first place, many young farmers who would like to go into farming are moving into the towns and cities, because they cannot get sufficient money to go into farming. After all, the price of land has skyrocketed and the price of machinery is very high. Moreover it is difficult for young farmers to find sufficient money to purchase a basic herd. Thus many young farmers who cannot obtain adequate credit are leaving the rural areas.
In the second place I suggest that a lack of adequate farm credit today is causing a concentration of farms in the hands of fewer and fewer farmers, because such credit as is available invariably goes to the wealthier farmers. This means inevitably that the number of marginal farmers tends to decrease while the number of tenant farmers tends to increase. I suggest that adequate farm credit could reverse such a trend.
I would like to point out in the third place that adequate farm credit today is lowering the productivity of many Canadian farmers. Farming is like most other businesses, in that the old adage that "it takes money to make money" is just as true as elsewhere. If our farmers could get better credit today, I think they would go into extensive irrigation projects, reclamation works, regrassing, etc. They would purchase better livestock and so on.
The farm credit problem is resulting in a lower productivity on farms than is necessary. Thus I suggest that parliament should give the problem attention without delay.
The government has recognized the problem this session with two amendments, one to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the other to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. Both of these amendments are welcome; yet I think most hon. members would agree that all they can do is nibble at an over-all solution. As in the past, I am still convinced that farmers who go to make loans under the provisions of those acts will find that the down payments required are too high, the security requirements are too severe, or the actual amount which can be borrowed is too small.
I point these facts out because under those acts only about 15 per cent of all farm loans are made. We have to take additional action if the situation is to be solved.
Supply-Agriculture
It seems to me that the real answer to this long-term farm credit problem is not to oe found in direct government loans. I think a method must be found to encourage private Canadian lending institutions to re-enter and greatly expand their activities in the farm mortgage business. I have a suggestion as to how this could be accomplished.
As I said a moment ago, many of our lending institutions feel-and I must admit perhaps with some justification-that marginal farmers are too great a risk because of climatic conditions, because of the uncertainties of markets and prices, et cetera to be given 20 year loans. As a result the farmers who really need money today very frequently cannot get it.
I remind hon. members of this house that the banks and lending institutions took the same attitude a few years ago toward urban dwellers who wanted to borrow money for a 20 or 30-year period to build a house. Parliament rectified that situation very successfully about three years ago, when it introduced legislation which guaranteed the banks against losses on 20 or 30 year loans made to urban dwellers to build homes.
I suggest that it would be feasible today to give the banks a similar guarantee on losses which they might incur by making 20 or 25 year loans to farmers to buy new farms or to buy equipment. In other words, I think parliament should consider having a national farm credit act along the lines of the National Housing Act.
As I see it, the principle would be precisely the same in both cases. Under that legislation the farmers would be able to get long-term farm credit without an unbearable burden being put on the taxpayers. Since the banks are making long-term loans under the National Housing Act, I think they might also be prepared to give the farmers longterm credit if suitable guarantees against losses were given by parliament.
I repeat that the time has come for the house to come to grips with this problem. Canadian agriculture must have better longterm credit facilities. In a booming economy we cannot permit agriculture to lag so far behind other industries.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Chairman, the house will recall that on July 22 last year I spoke on the estimates for agriculture and made a request for a dominion experimental station in Norfolk. I do not intend to make the same speech all over again but there are a few points I would like to re-emphasize.
First of all, farm income has not risen with other lines of endeavour and in some cases it has declined. This would be bad

Supply-Agriculture
in any event, but to make matters worse our operating costs have risen sharply and farmers are now in a squeeze that could be disastrous if nothing is done about it.
One way for government assistance to work to the advantage of our farmers would be for us to have this experimental farm located in Norfolk so that farmers could, under direction, work out some of our problems. I think perhaps our needs are greater now than they were in 1955 and I am renewing the request for this station.
Our temperature in Norfolk is about five degrees lower than at Harrow and Vineland, the other two government stations, and varieties that do well there would not give us the same production under our different growing conditions and temperatures.
My request of last year has won universal support in Norfolk and it has particularly won the support of the county council which sent four of its members here on April 24 to support the request for a station.
Bruce Wallace, who is a large apple and cherry grower and manager of Norfolk Fruit Growers and Norfolk Berry Growers, met the minister with us. We were favourably received by the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance and the deputy minister of agriculture.
The press in Norfolk has also supported the request both editorially and in news items. The London Free Press and the Brantford Expositor have also given the request much support.
I think perhaps the committee will bear with me if I quote some of the production figures I gave last year. I regret that these figures are for the year 1954 and perhaps are not quite relevant to the year which has passed.
First of all, we had 2,000 acres of apples in Norfolk and 400,000 bushels were produced in 1954. Last year we had relatively the same acreage but we produced many more apples and experienced some difficulty in selling them. There were 30 acres of sweet cherries and we produced 640 bushels. There were 142 acres of sour cherries and we produced 16,730 bushels. That was in 1954, Mr. Chairman. In 1955 sour cherries were about double and again we experienced some trouble in disposing of them.
There were 500 acres of peaches which produced over 60,000 bushels. There were 66 acres of Bartlett pears which produced 20,000 bushels. There were 103 acres of Keifer pears which produced 16,000 bushels. Now I would like to deal with strawberries.


Mr. Blackmore:: Would the hon. member speak up a little more.


Raymond Elmer Anderson: We had 1,100 acres of strawberries in 1954 which produced 3,300,000 quarts and in 1955 this production was well over 4 millions quarts. Our production has increased a little in the two years. We expect we will have a very heavy crop in 1956 because they weathered the winter well.
I wish now to deal with fresh market vegetables. We had a production of 15,000 bushels of tomatoes and 175,000 bushels of potatoes in 1954 and last year it was about the same.


John Horne Blackmore: Would my hon. friend tell us what section he is speaking about when he says "we"? I am sorry but I did not hear his introductory remarks.


Raymond Elmer Anderson: I am speaking mainly for
the people of the county of Norfolk and the counties surrounding Norfolk.
In the area between Simcoe and Port Dover there was produced in 1954 a total of 450,000 crates of sweet corn. Some of that was exported after being precooled. More of this crop could be grown.
Something else that is new in Norfolk is irrigation. The tobacco men have miles and miles of irrigation pipe. They use the creeks as a water supply and also any low-lying areas which fill up in the winter with water which can be used when needed. This provides a problem because we are not too sure yet as to what we are doing. Sometimes too much irrigation will ruin a crop and it must be applied at the right time. There is an old saying that every farmer has a stiff neck because he is always watching the sun and the clouds. Weather determines what we are going to do from day to day.
We need new varieties, especially in strawberries. Twenty years ago we had a variety called the Parson Beauty that produced quite well for years. Lately the Premier variety has predominated but we are always looking for a new variety which will produce well and remain firm in shipping.
There is an experimental tobacco station at Delhi, but the soil there is not representative of the county. It will grow tobacco but not all kinds of fruits and vegetables. Perhaps the minister could see his way clear to allowing the office there to be used so that any directions could go out from that point. I would respectfully request that the minister give careful consideration to this matter in the light of the support that has been forthcoming from every part of the farm population of Norfolk and in view of our increasing need.
I should like also to support the hon. member for Wellington South in his request that the premium on grade A hogs be increased

and that the premium on grade B hogs remain the same. This would tend to add quality to our bacon and assist in our exports.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate, particularly when we are discussing the estimates of the one department which is of great concern to a large majority of my constituents.
During my trip home at the Easter recess it was my privilege to attend the graduation exercises at the Vermilion school of agriculture. I know that the Department of Agriculture does not make any grants toward the operation of schools of agriculture in Alberta, but another department does make grants to the three schools we have. The total grants from the federal treasury to the province of Alberta in this connection I believe is in the neighbourhood of $47,700. There are three such schools in the province, one at Olds, another at Fairview and another at Vermilion in my constituency.
These schools give a very practical type of education to the young farmers and homemakers of the province. However, there is one disturbing factor about the operation of these schools, in that attendance is gradually decreasing. Does that mean that the young people of western Canada have lost faith in the future of the agricultural industry? It may just happen that that is the case. If it is the case, then I feel that all governments should view the situation with alarm.
It has been pointed out time and time again during this session that net farm income has been steadily decreasing during the last number of years. For example, in 1952 it was down 3 [DOT] 13 per cent of what it was the previous year; in 1953 it was down 21-6 per cent; and in 1954 it was down 66-64 per cent. This disastrous trend must be halted if we are going to maintain any semblance of development in Canada's major industry. I submit that Canadian citizens are justified in looking to the senior government for some direction and action in this regard.
During the graduation exercises which I attended at the Vermilion school they held what is known as the Little Royal, which is fashioned after the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto. I was interested in following their program. They put on a splendid stock show where the young students were able to demonstrate their training in such things as the judging of stock and showmanship. As I went through the plant I saw displayed the work of the carpentry shop, the welding shop and the meat-cutting department. I was quite interested in a remark made this afternoon by an hon. member who was telling how it was
Supply-Agriculture
possible to get a larger sized side of bacon from a dead carcass. I have yet to see a living carcass.
Continuing through the school we saw the dairying plant and then we went into the portion of the school used by the homemakers where cooking, dressmaking and so on were taught. This is good practical training as far as the young people of our province are concerned. We should be encouraging young people to take greater advantage of this type of training. Agriculture in our province as in other parts of Canada indicates that the average age of farmers actively engaged is rapidly going up.
I feel that in order to be successful a farmer must be trained, that the proper training is more important than perhaps even a healthy body. The day of the strong back and the farmer going together in order to make a success is long past.
I should like to congratulate the federal government upon the grants being made for this type of education. I would ask the federal government to take immediate steps to do something toward stabilizing the agricultural industry. If that were done I do not think any other incentive would be needed to get our young people to stay on the farm.
During the present session we have discussed at some length resolutions extending the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Canadian Farm Loan Act. These acts are good as far as they go and the machinery which is to be provided is better than before. However, I would point out that the machinery will be no good unless the policy of the government expressed through these boards is changed and the conservative elements found on the boards during the past few years removed so that these two acts may serve the purpose which we as members of parliament trust they will.
There is another matter I should like to bring briefly to the attention of the minister, and that is the ever-increasing cost of commercial fertilizers to the farmers of the west. This morning I was reading a report issued by the Department of Agriculture which stated that the cost of commercial fertilizers had not gone up last year, and that it was hoped the upward trend had been halted. However, I should like to submit that the rise in the cost of fertilizers over the past years has been far too great. I hold in my hand some delivery slips given to farmers at the time they purchased fertilizers throughout the years. All these will deal with the cost of ammonium phosphate 11-48-0.
On June 21, 1946, you could buy a ton of this fertilizer for $58.50. By April 2, 1949, the same type of fertilizer had gone up to

Supply-Agriculture
$74.40 per ton. By November 8, 1950, the farmer was forced to pay $85.35 per ton. By April 15, 1952, it was $97.70 per ton. On May 29, 1952, the farmer was charged $100.15 per ton. In the fall of that year it was $105.60. Last summer, on May 10, 1955, the price was up to $107.
I have tried to get some information as to why these prices have risen so sharply over the years. I am given to understand there are only two large plants producing commercial fertilizers in Canada, and I am wondering whether those two plants are not exercising some sort of monopolistic control over prices. If that is the case, I submit the Minister of Agriculture would be well advised to take a very close look at the situation and try to do something about it.
I just want to point out that in the course of a few years fertilizers which we wish the farmers of western Canada to use, and which they must use if they are to retain the fertility of their soil, have more than doubled in price.
Now I should like to spend a few moments discussing the hog industry as it affects the province of Alberta, and particularly as it affects the producers of hogs in my area. During the first half of 1954 hogs were sold at $33.33 per hundredweight. During the second half of that year they were sold at $24.92 per hundredweight. During the first half of 1955 they were $23.52 per hundredweight, and in the second half of 1955 $23.17 per hundredweight. I have taken these statistics from the Livestock Marketing Review. They point out that hog prices have dropped 33J per cent in the last two years. This is serious, because in our province we produce nearly one and a half million hogs a year.
I should like to point out that the livestock report in the Edmonton Journal of April 14, 1956, has this to say concerning hogs:
Hog prices dropped 50 cents at Winnipeg to 20-23 and Montreal was unchanged at 23-23-50. Toronto hog prices declined 50 cents to 23 and most Saskatchewan markets were down the same at 19. Prices remained steady at Vancouver at 22-15 for top grade hogs.
, In my constituency I have several large hog producers, and one of these producers has had extensive correspondence with the Minister of Agriculture in the past few months. This gentleman is a young man who is interested in the hog industry, has been in it for years and is hoping to make it his lifework, but if the present trend continues he will likely have to do what it has been suggested that he do,' quit raising hogs. However, he wrote the Minister of Agriculture in December,- 1955. I shall just take one
rMr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose) .1
paragraph of his letter. The minister has the letter and knows it is true:
I can't make enough money out of hogs after paying expenses and raising my family to pay my debts. The only reason I continue on is to live in hopes that your government will do something; that will give we farmers parity prices. Our prices have dropped but the prices we pay haven't come down.
I think he has summarized the situation fairly well as far as the hog producers are concerned. Perhaps it may be argued that, after all, hogs are only a sideline as far as the majority of the farmers in the west are concerned, though I do not accept that argument. I say that the hog industry in Alberta is one of the major branches of agriculture in our province. Last year, for example, we produced 1,691,193 hogs in the province of Alberta. That is not a small-time-business.
For that reason I should like to put on the record this afternoon a few figures I have been fortunate enough to secure. These figures are based on an actual 42-sow unit operated for the purpose of producing weaner pigs, and follow the project right from the time the pigs are born to the time they are marketed. It is pointed out that the following figures represent the cost to produce a hog:
Assuming that feed mixture consists of one-third oats and two-thirds barley, with 200 pounds, of concentrate in one ton of feed, the cost per cwt. is . . . $2.15.
That is the cost of feed for pigs. I do not wish to burden the committee with a lot of figures. Perhaps I shall put the others on record another time, but I want to point out that the cost of a 30-pound weaner pig has been estimated at $9.17. They give the cost of raising this 30-pound pig to 200 pounds. The cost of feed is $16.45. The cost of straw for bedding is 78 cents. The cost of incidentals and overhead, etc., is $1. Labour costs and weaning to market cost $3.50 per head. Marketing cost is $1. The total cost per pig, according to this survey, is $31.90 for this group of hogs. That is what it actually costs the producers to raise these hogs.
Assuming that 40 per cent of these hogs are graded A, 54 per cent B-l and 6 per cent C, and also assuming that the prices received for grade A hogs on the markets of the west are $20 per.hundredweight-and that is very generous now, by the way-grade B-l $19 per hundredweight and grade C $16.50 per hundredweight, what happens? There would be sold 254 grade A hogs from this 42-sow unit; there would be 343 hogs grade B-l and 38 hogs grade C. The average sale price of this group of fiogs which started out iri the weaner stage would be $30.60. To the producer the net loss per hog Would be $1.30.

Surely the minister will agree with me that a hog raiser who is going into it in a scientific manner cannot continue too long when he is losing $1.30 per hog. The minister will perhaps be able to advance other figures as to how much it costs to raise a hog. If he has them I would certainly appreciate it if he would put them on the record so we can look at them.
I have already pointed out that according to the figures of the federal government, during the course of 1955 there were 1,691,193 hogs raised in Alberta exclusive of domestic slaughterings and so on. What happened to those hogs? One-third were consumed right in the province of Alberta, and I am given to understand that 90 per cent of the remainder were shipped live weight or dressed to the Vancouver market. That being the case, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture how he can justify a support price for hogs of $18.50 on the Edmonton market and $23 on the Toronto and Montreal markets. When we consider the fact that the actual selling price of hogs on the Edmonton market is not much above the support price of $18.50 and that it costs $1 per hundredweight to ship those that are sent to the Vancouver markets, making $19.50, surely the farmers of Alberta are being given a bad time by a deal like this.
Somebody is making a huge profit out of the hogs that are raised in the province of Alberta, and I have already pointed out that it is not the producer. Somewhere along the line somebody is making money which rightfully belongs to the farmers of the province of Alberta. I submit to the minister that he should give very serious consideration to the establishment of a uniform floor price on hogs across Canada. I can see no reason that would justify the minister in establishing a floor price of $23 in Toronto and Montreal and $18.50 in Edmonton. It is nothing but straight discrimination against the hog producers of the province of Alberta. I will undoubtedly have the privilege of receiving a reply from the minister in this regard, and I am sure there will be many interesting discussions with respect to the hog industry.
I should like to say one thing more. I got into a little trouble the other day when I congratulated a civil servant. I do not wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, but I should like to say to him that I have enjoyed the courtesy which members of his department have extended to me during my time here.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Agriculture opened the discussion on his estimates a couple of months ago now I listened with a great deal of interest and
Supply-Agriculture
since then I have read what he had to say in Hansard. I must say that much of his speech was very interesting but that parts of it reminded me of a story that is told about a clergyman who on one occasion lost the notes for his sermon. They were picked up by a very curious member of his flock, who looked at the notes and was amazed to see a notation on the side which said, "Argument weak here; shout." I do not suggest that the minister-shouts but on reading his speech I came to the conclusion that it would be very apt if one were to put the notation beside certain portions of his speech, "Argument weak here; use some statistics."
Of course I am not criticizing the minister for doing that because it is quite a legitimate practice; nevertheless those who are on the receiving end of speeches that quote statistics at considerable length should be on their guard. In that connection I came across an interesting passage regarding statistics in a very famous book, "Mathematics for the-Millions". This book was written by a Mr. Hogben and he has this to say:
Today the lives and happiness of people depend more than most of us realize upon the correct interpretation of public statistics which are kept by government offices. When a committee of experts announce that the average man can live on his unemployment allowance, or the average child is getting sufficient milk, the mere mention of an average or the citation of a list of figures is enough to paralyse intelligent criticism. In reality half or more than half the population may not be getting enough to live on when the average man or child has enough. The majority of people living today in civilized countries cannot read and write freely in statistics. The modern man has got to learn the language of statistics in selfdefence, because no society is safe in the hands of its clever people.
In that regard I should like to make a few brief observations on some of the statistics the minister gave. He put tables on the record indicating farm cash income over a period of years and also farm net income for a number of years. These are very interesting figures. They show that, although generally speaking gross farm income is rising, over the last few years there has been a fairly rapid decline in net income. I refer only to the maritime provinces. In 1951 net farm income for the maritimes was, in round figures, $81 million, in 1952, $77 million, in.
1953,	$62 million and $62 million again in
1954.
Then there is another element in these income figures which should be realized, namely that they are not measured in constant dollars. Therefore although the farmer's net income may remain stationary or even increase, his purchasing power may be going down. That has been the case over the last few years. For example, in 1954 the percentage of the

Supply-Agriculture
gross national product which was credited to farm net income was 6-8, whereas the average for 1946 to 1950 inclusive was 12-7 per cent. The percentage of 6-8 for 1954 is the lowest percentage since 1931.
I think the minister is perfectly sincere. After all, it is his job to try to examine objectively, if possible, the true situation as far as the agricultural industry of our country is concerned. But I am rather disappointed by the fact that due to misinterpretation of statistics certain people, especially in the cities, who have not an accurate picture of the situation, have got the idea that the farmers are not too badly off after all and that their situation compares favourably with the rest of the economy. Many of these people pose as agricultural experts. I contend that they are doing the agricultural industry and farmers generally a disservice if they try to picture the industry as being prosperous or as sharing in anything like an equitable manner in the gross national product.
It was probably that sort of agriculturalist that inspired an American called Eugene Ware to say that the farmer works the soil and the agriculturist works the farmer. I should also like to point out briefly the situation as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture sees it. I shall quote a short extract from their brief entitled "Farmers meet the Cabinet". They start out by saying that generally the economy is in a healthy condition, but then they say:
On the other hand, we find that, apparently, the notable exception in this picture of record prosperity is that of the farmer and his family. We do not claim that Canadian agriculture is in a depression such as we have known in the past. We do say that the farming industry is not sharing in Canada's new high level of prosperity.
Then they go on to say this:
Farmers from coast to coast feel keenly that on the average their returns have become badly out of balance with those of other major groups in the nation. It is important to emphasize purchasing power in this connection because the farmer's difficulties are to be found as much in high prices of the things he buys as in a decline in the number of dollars he receives.
They are pointing out what I was saying just a few moments ago about the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. That matter is extremely important. Out of the farmer's net income he must provide for his family and he must provide for a great many charges which are practically standard if he is to support on an adequate basis the community in which he lives. In that connection I should like to point out that owing to economic pressures, farm units are becoming larger. This means that in a rural community there are fewer people to carry

the load of community charges which are fixed or nearly fixed for an area. There are still churches, schools, medical assistance and many other things that must be provided for the rural area whether there are many people to pay for them or just a few.
The purchasing power of the dollar which the farmer receives is away down. City people may wonder at this statement because they have not noticed any great decline in the cost of food. As a matter of fact the cost of food to the consumer is still going up. City people generally speaking perhaps have the idea-and one should not blame them if they have-that surely the amount the farmer is receiving for what they buy is increasing also. But that is not the case, owing to the fact that the cost of distribution has risen sharply in the last few years.
For this rise in cost there are two reasons. The first is that the actual cost of distribution has gone up, and the second is the fact that consumers are demanding food in a more advanced stage of preparation as time goes by. The consumer cannot expect the farmer to be as well off when he pays for a quick-frozen T.V. meal-which one sees advertised, with a bit of chicken, some potatoes and so on, on a platter-as he would be if the same price were being paid for the ingredients of that meal. The cost of distribution and preparation is taking a larger and larger percentage of the consumer's dollar.
In that connection I note this:
Based on 15 food items, which account for about 75 per cent of consumers' expenditure on Canadian farm foods. 1955 retail prices were almost 11 per cent above 1949; for the farm equivalents of the same 15 commodities, farm prices were about 3 per cent below 1949. Marketing costs increased almost 25 per cent between these two periods while the farm share was lower by almost 9 per cent.
Farmers everywhere recognize the fact that agriculture is in an extremely trying time in its history. There have recently been great changes in production methods, and it is anticipated by many that there will be even more spectacular changes in the future in connection with methods of production and so on if agriculture is to survive. One fact, of course, is that as time goes by there are fewer and fewer farmers producing the food of the nation. This situation is brought about to a great extent by greater efficiency, larger units, mechanization and food produced in various forms from feeds that were formerly fed to horses in order to provide farm power. There are many other factors. Agriculture finds itself in an extremely difficult position.
In this economic climate there are fewer and fewer young men taking up agriculture as a career. Certainly in the agricultural

districts with which I am familiar the average age of farmers engaged in agriculture is becoming greater and greater; and as these farmers retire or die off, fewer and fewer of them are being replaced. The result is that you have large numbers of farms completely abandoned, used as pasture or cultivated to a minor extent by some farmer who lives in the vicinity. This situation puts a great load on the community because there are fewer people to support the normal community enterprises.
Of course there are some cynical people who say "So what? What difference does it make?" They say that perhaps this is a necessary thing; that it is just following the inevitable economic laws; that if that is what is happening, it is just too bad but it is an inevitable thing to which those engaged in agriculture and those who live in the country generally must face up; that they must face up to the fact that by far the greatest number of them will be exterminated in the next few years if this trend continues. I should like to warn people who have that point of view that we cannot abandon, sabotage or neglect our agricultural industry, because before too many years are past we shall need it badly and we shall need it on an efficient, high level of production. Otherwise there will be food and clothing shortages even here in North America.
The United States department of agriculture put out an extremely interesting illustrated booklet, a copy of which I have in my hand, entitled "The 5th Plate". In it they point out that, in the United States, for every four plates that were set for dinner in 1950, there will be five in 1975. Therefore there must be 25 per cent more food available for consumption in 1975 as compared with 1950. To meet this need they point out it would require all the arable land now existing in the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.
They also point out that there is another way of partially meeting this need and that is to make farms, the present arable land, more productive. That can only be done, of course, if we have an economic climate in which the farmer is not forced to mine his soil to eke out a livelihood. We must have an economic climate in which he can safeguard his soil which, to the farmer, is his working capital and which is very difficult to replace.
This same booklet points out that in the United States in 1920 there were 3-62 acres of crop land for every individual in the country. By 1950 this per capita acreage had fallen to 2-25. I know these are just statistics and the city person probably does not worry too much about them because they
Supply-Agriculture
are not realities to him; they do not convey anything very real. But if you put them in terms of farming it makes the farmer realize that he has to grow food and a lot of clothing for one individual on a little over two acres of land.
That is a very difficult thing to do if you think of it in terms of sheep, cattle and horses; but when you think of it in terms of human beings it is quite a problem. We have to get away from the idea that we have an endless amount of fertile land and that there will never come a day when we cannot exploit new, fresh, virgin areas and provide an abundance of food and clothing for our inhabitants. We are getting to the point where we can no longer mine our soil in one area and then move on to fresh, fertile, virgin land when we have eroded and exploited beyond recovery the agricultural soil in a given area.
Of course, some people adopt the attitude that the answer is bigger units. That view has been put forward by at least one of our chief financial publications in this country in recent weeks. It is also the kind of thinking that induced the men in the Kremlin to set out on their program of collective farms. They took the attitude that if they had bigness, the factory type of thing, mass production, they could solve the problem. I doubt that very much. Even if it would solve the problem from a purely economic point of view, I doubt whether it is the solution we want.
I hold in my hand a full-page story that appeared in the Financial Post of April 21 this year. It contains a streamer headline which says:
Factory Farming Can Cure Our Barnyard Blues
The article reads in part:
In southwestern Saskatchewan, a dusty village squats amid rumpled hills at a point where a yellow gravel highway bumps across a single line of railroad track.
Three grain elevators-two red, one silver-tower over a rail siding. The burnt-out shell of another, never rebuilt, points blackened timbers at the sky.
A church which lost its roof to a windstorm has been abandoned. So have at least 20 houses, paint gone and yards weed-grown. Twenty years ago 306 people lived here. Now:	Only 177.
Slowly but certainly a farming community is dying.
In its own way this is a picture of agricultural progress.
This is an amazing conclusion for the writer to come to, Mr. Chairman. This is not my idea of agricultural progress.
I have another editorial which I will not bother to read, but it points out that politicians are foolish to worry about the farm bloc any more. They say that farmers are being exterminated and too much attention is

Supply-Agriculture
being given to them; that they are a dying race and that we shall soon have huge factory-like farms with only a few people operating them. They say this will be a good thing and the sooner it comes the sooner we shall have relief from this recurrent annoyance of the farm bloc demanding this or that from parliament.
I have a strong feeling that even if this is sound from the purely economic point of view, it is not sound from the sociological point of view, and that there are other things that should be taken into consideration. I ieel strongly that if our nation is to remain strong and healthy and if we are to have a large group of independent people who believe in free enterprise, and who believe in themselves, and that the world does not owe them a living but that they must earn it, we must retain the family farm.
A fine editorial on this point appeared in the Charlottetown Guardian of April 7. I do not intend to read it, but it points out, and rightly so, that this is a great problem and if our nation is to remain strong and stable the family farm must be retained, and an economic environment must be created which will permit it to remain. This is especially important in the maritimes. They also point out that in the United States something is being done about it. They say:
The same problem exists in the United States where, according to a congressional committee, more than 600,000 family farms have disappeared since 1950. There, however, steps are being taken to do something about it before it is too late. The committee which made an on the spot investigation in several farm belt states calls the family farm "the backbone of agriculture and of free enterprise in general" and warns that if it should disappear completely from the scene the strength of the nation's economy would be very seriously undermined.
I agree with that point of view most heartily. Some people take the attitude that the reason income per farm is not high is that farmers are inefficient, and they say, "You must be efficient". I point out, Mr. Chairman, there has been a great increase in the efficiency of agriculture over the years. The productiveness of the individual farmer is probably as high as that of any other member of the labouring force.
In pioneer days 90 per cent of the labour force was in agriculture. It took nine men in agriculture to provide enough to support one man in industry. At the present time the figures are reversed. Today only about one-tenth of our labour force is in agriculture, yet they still provide good food and considerable clothing for the population.
If the impression is created that agriculture is well off there is a danger that nothing will be done about it. In that connection I would
IMr. MacLean.]
like to point out that the great civilizations of the past collapsed not because of an economic collapse in the cities but because the fertility of the soil degenerated and finally disappeared. That has inevitably been the case in the past.
I think it is extremely important, Mr. Chairman, that the family farm be preserved for the reasons I have already given. In order to ensure this there are some things which I think the government should consider doing. For instance, there is the question of the customs tariff. In Canada we import a tremendous amount of fruit and vegetables from south of the border, and our balance of trade in that connection is not improving. I would like to quote briefly from a recent issue of The Grower, a trade journal, which says:
In the first nine months ol 1955 Canada imported fresh fruits and vegetables to a value of $86,973,273, a gain of $5,518,023 over the same period in 1954. In the same nine months Canada exported fresh fruits and vegetables to a value of $10,621,457, a decline of $1,739,099 over the same period in 1954. The gain in the adverse balance was therefore $7,257,122.
Further examination of the records show that imports of fresh fruits declined $740,360 whilst the imports of vegetables increased $6,258,383 for a net increase, as given, of-
That is $5 million in round figures.
There are other things, too, which I believe the government should consider doing. One is to put on the free list some additional things which are used exclusively in agriculture as recommended by the farm organizations, such as steel posts and numerous other articles which I will not detail here. In certain areas of the country encouragement should be given to the processing of food in those areas so it will be consumed there. I was shocked to read recently that of the food consumed in the four Atlantic provinces less than 30 per cent is produced there. Of course there are some exports to partly balance that, but the exports do not begin to completely balance it.
I think my time is just about up, Mr. Chairman, but I have just one more thing to say. We in the maritimes do not expect a very high rate of income, and we would go along with seeing some other sections of the country enjoying a higher income, because I think the average farmer in the maritimes realizes that farming is a way of life and is interested in preserving the family farm. If he had a choice between prairie income and scenery and maritime income and the maritime way of life he would take the latter, because he realizes that as a work of art there are few things more pleasing to the eye, or more capable of affording scope and gratification

to a taste for the beautiful, than a well-situated, well-cultivated farm.


Mr. Huffman:: Mr. Chairman, I was
[DOT]extremely interested in the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Queens, especially when he referred to the federation of agriculture brief in which they stated that the agricultural economy is not sharing in the high level of prosperity of the country.
Although the debate on the speech from the throne has concluded I would call to the hon. member's attention that this fact was recognized by the government when it said that some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in the country's increased wellbeing. Our government has recognized the position of agriculture, and it has done many things over the years which have been helpful to the producers. One has only to recall at the time of the foot-and-mouth disease how readily and quickly the government came to the support of the people concerned. In addition to that we have floor prices on many commodities which are produced.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Huron the other day when he asked the Minister of Labour about the possibility of getting more immigrants in this country because there is a need at this time to assist in the production on our farms.
I was rather surprised when the hon. member for Leeds got up to make his speech this afternoon and immediately started to criticize the Minister of Agriculture, indicating that he had not fully recognized the problems of agriculture in this country. He also expressed the hope that at some time they would have the opportunity of naming a minister of agriculture from eastern Ontario. May I say to him, as the Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon, we are very pleased in Ontario and throughout eastern Canada because we have the assistant to the minister who is fully conversant with all the farm problems in Ontario, in eastern Canada and in every part of Canada.
I feel a little out of character in saying what I am about to say at this time. When the Leader of the Opposition raised the point this afternoon about the Minister of Agriculture and the other ministers being absent, the Minister of Agriculture upon his return made the statement that he was out to get some facts and figures so he would be able to answer certain questions which might arise. I feel that the only reason the question of privilege was raised this afternoon was because when the Minister of Finance was replying to the amendment moved by the leader of the official opposition, and seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, at
Supply-Agriculture
eight o'clock on Tuesday night, there was not a single member of the official opposition in the house-


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: At
eight o'clock?


Edward Blake Huffman: At eight o'clock nobody was here of the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Blake Huffman: The minister was speaking at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It must have been unauthorized and illegal.


Edward Blake Huffman: The house had been called to order, Mr. Speaker was in the chair, and if you want to press it further I might point out that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the hon. member who seconded his amendment was here to cast his vote when the vote was taken.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, on a
question of privilege, if we are going to get into this sort of thing-


An hon. Member:: It is the other way around now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, if we are going to become involved in this sort of question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -I think it is only fair to point out to the committee that the Leader of the Opposition was in Toronto fulfilling a speaking engagement.


An hon. Member:: He should have been here.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think it is only fair to point out to the committee at this time that it is not my responsibility to determine who started this argument and who was or was not present. It is my responsibility to try to keep the committee discussing item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I think the honours are about even in so far as the introducing of extraneous matter is concerned, and I ask the committee to please consider the incident closed.


Mr. Pallell:: May I ask the hon. member a question. Was he referring to the federal government's refusal to make any grants to the municipalities?
The Depuiy Chairman:	I thought I had
tried to make it clear to the committee that we are not discussing that incident or any other incident which may have taken place. We are discussing item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.

Supply-Agriculture


Edward Blake Huffman: Mr. Chairman, speaking
more directly to the problem of agriculture I should like first to refer to an article which appeared in the Windsor Star of June 25, 1955. Speaking about the vast investment in agriculture it had this to say:
Due to the rapid industrial development of Canada there is occasional talk about the decline in importance of agriculture. This should be taken with a few grains of salt. Increases in other activities do not diminish the importance of agriculture.
It is wise to know the exact position, so there may be no misunderstanding about this. Agriculture still is far and away the principal industry in Canada. Indeed, there is more money invested in agriculture than in all manufacturing industries combined.
Most recent figures show the vast sum of $9,593,000,000 in capital investments in farm land, buildings, equipment and livestock in Canada. This compares with $8,470,000,000 in all manufacturing industries.
Even in the highly industrialized United States an authority avers there is a greater capital investment in agriculture than in all other industries combined. And it is estimated the incomes of 50 per cent of the people in the United States are derived directly or indirectly from agriculture.
These include not only farmers. Also involved are all in the canning, packing and other food processing plants. Also all in the farm implement business-manufacturing and distribution. And many in the chemical industry (suppliers of fertilizers and insecticides): in the railway and trucking industries; in the automobile and rubber factories, and in all the retail and wholesale trades handling foods.
The same would be true in Canada, possibly even more so in proportion. We produce large quantities of food for export.
It is well to put these facts in proper perspective, so that other industries-each of importance in the Canadian economy-will realize their positions.
In my opinion the problems facing agriculture in Canada are similar to the problems faced by agriculture in other countries. An article which appeared in the New York Times was headed "Has any country licked the agricultural problem?" The article goes on to deal with the $7 billion surplus which has been created by the policies followed in the United States. They mention that this was at the time the Russian agriculturists were visiting the United States-they later came to Canada-and continued:
I don't know whether the Russian agricultural experts who saw the farmers' homes had it made clear to them that some of the great farms of this country are mortgaged to the government for as high as a million dollars that the government hasn t the slightest idea of ever collecting on "loans" covered by unsalable crops. And that 43 per cent of American farmers still have net incomes of less than a thousand dollars per year-and are, in fact, paying the rich and subsidized farmers in enhanced feed prices.
It is understandable that there is a problem in the United States. An article in the Financial Times had this to say:
Moreover, under that system, the American farmer has lost all control over his major operations. Like the Russian, the American farmer is
[The Deputy Chairman.)
told exactly what, when and how much he is to grow. There is no incentive to develop new markets nor to reduce costs.
Referring to Europe the New York Times had this to say under an article headed "Farm surpluses face west Europe nations", and reading:
Efforts to get freer trade in food products within Europe have been unsuccessful.
All of us realize that the severe weather on the continent during the past winter changed that picture almost overnight and from a surplus position they soon got into a position of need. We all recall the great increase in the prices of practically every item of foodstuff which occurred. I recall the Indian delegate to the United Nations telling us last fall how they had been able to increase the production of foodstuffs in that country by the use of new cultural practices over what it had been a short time ago.
Returning to our own province, I should like to pay a compliment to the farm organizations which met in Toronto not so long ago and advocated that self-help was the best solution for any farm problem. I am proud to be associated with such people who are ready to work out a solution to a problem that may face them and try the best possible plan to bring the best possible result. They are not asking the government to pile up surpluses worth millions of dollars as has been done in the United States, to the point where they do not know how they are going to dispose of them. These surpluses have created a block to the distribution of foodstuffs in a free society such as the one in which we like to operate.
I realize that as individuals we cannot always maintain the position we would like to maintain, but our position is ever so much stronger when we act collectively. I should like to pay a compliment to the farm organizations in my own county of Kent (Ont.). We grow many specialized products in that county, and the production of many of them is organized. The production of other products is in the process of being organized. Where there is an organization you will find there is little or no problem as far as the return from that crop is concerned, but where the production is unorganized or, if you like, disorganized there is a problem because we are not always able to get the best price consistent with the cost of production.
I should like to pay a compliment to the government for the action that has been taken in connection with resolutions which have been passed from time to time by organizations in my county. These resolutions were forwarded to the ministers concerned, and while they were not always accepted, at times

the government saw fit to accept particular resolutions which had been passed. Those turned out to be favourable and to the benefit of the industry in my district or in whatever area they applied.
I would recommend to the farm organizations that they make an effort to use the established agencies for handling their products. This can be done, as has been ably demonstrated. I feel that there is a place for those people who know the selling business, because that is the important part. There is no doubt that we are able to produce to meet the needs, but we must have further organization to dispose of the products we grow.
I was very much interested this afternoon when I heard the hon. member for Queens speak about the fruits and vegetables that are imported into this country and the vegetables that we export to the United States. Certain it is that we cannot balance one type of commodity with a similar type of commodity, but if we did we would be denying the Canadian people the right to make the choice they would like to make as far as fruits and vegetables are concerned. But we do attempt as best we can to meet the problems that face us.
I should like now to offer a suggestion to the government that I feel will be helpful to an industry in my district. I refer to the corn industry. In looking over the figures I note that at one time the production of corn in this country was very minor in extent. I have figures only for the province of Ontario, but I believe the greater proportion of the corn grown in Canada for commercial purposes is grown within this province.
In 1940 we had a production of nearly 7 million bushels of shelled corn. In 1955 that production had increased to the point where we were growing nearly 32 million bushels.
I take a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that the county from which I come and which I have the honour to represent has extended its production from 2 million bushels in 1940 to nearly 11 million bushels in 1955. We have increased our average yield on a provincial basis from 37-4 to 62-6 bushels per acre. That is an increase of 70 per cent for the province. The figures for the county of Kent (Ont.) show an increase in the same period of over 80 per cent.
I heard the hon. member for Queens read an article stating the concern of some people about the arable land being used up, and expressing some concern as to whether we shall be able to meet the needs of our people in the foreseeable future. I for one do not believe that situation will ever occur, because at this moment our provincial average production of corn is 62-6 bushels per acre.
Supply-Agriculture
During 1955 a 4-H club member produced 304-38 bushels per acre. I feel that in the future we shall continue to improve as we have done in the past.
One of the ways in which I think we might be able to help this industry in my district is this. Corn coming in from the United States bears an 8 cents tariff. If we were to ship com into the United States it would have a tariff of 25 cents a bushel. The tariff was established at a time when we were not selfsufficient in the production of corn. Today Canadians produce the amount of corn needed by our people, and we are exporting some corn as well. Some time ago I made representations, along with the hybrid seed corn producers of our district. On that occasion, on a presidential prerogative, the tariff against seed corn going into the United States was reduced by one-half, and there are further representations being made that the executive exercise its right of reducing it at the rate of 5 per cent for three consecutive years if it so chooses. That would be helpful.
I should like to recite a specific case. At a given point in my district, 76 miles from London, where the great Kellogg plant is located, corn going over the railroad bears a tariff of 25J cents. But corn can come from Chicago, a distance of 376 miles, and cost only 5 cents more to haul, and it is being hauled under arrangements that were made quite some years ago. I would suggest to the minister, and also to the Minister of Transport that they give consideration to looking into the rates that apply on this commodity. We have the Crowsnest pass and the maritime rates and we have the bridge over northern Ontario. If our railroads are to be used in the national interest, I suggest that it would be in the national interest if something were done for this industry, which plays a very important part in the Canadian economy.
There is another item to which I should like to refer, and that is the item of soybeans. We are not self-sufficient in that commodity. We started to grow them only in 1942. In my own county we produced 308,000 bushels in 1942, and in 1955 we produced 2,034,300 bushels. Our total production in Canada for 1955 was 5-65 million bushels. Along with that, Canada has the highest yield of any country. The average United States yield is 20-2 bushels per acre. In Ontario it is 26 bushels per acre, and the county I have the privilege of representing has an average of 29-7 bushels per acre.
Soybeans come into this country free, but if we want to export them to the United States they cost $1.20 a bushel. When that tariff was established that was perfectly all right, because we needed the soybeans from

Supply-Agriculture
the United States if our crushing plants in this country were to be established. Today we have them established and, though we are net yet self-sufficient, I am sure the time is rapidly approaching when we can produce all that is necessary. Again we have the rail problem, and it is almost identical with that connected with corn except that it has one more feature. It has a different classification. It is classified under oil seeds and bears a higher freight tariff than corn. So, in addition to possibly reclassification which is necessary, this product should be put on a basis that would enable us to meet the competition from abroad.
The reason I bring up the question of rail rates is this. In Toledo, which is just across the lake from our crushing plants, the soybeans can be loaded into lake boats or barges and taken across the lake. They go across at a rate of 6 to 7 cents a bushel. In our case, to ship soybeans from Chatham, from where I come, costs 25 cents a bushel. Therefore our people are at a disadvantage of 18 to 19 cents a bushel. If we can overcome this disadvantage we will be in a very favourable position to increase our production and meet our competitors, the producers in the United States. For that reason I trust that the government will pay some attention to this aspect of the problem.
There is one other matter, and this one really brings tears to my eyes because I wish to speak about onions. Last year we had an exceptionally good crop of onions in my district but the farmers of New York state lost their onions because of severe floods. The growers of my district generously offered eight carloads of onions to the producers in New York state. The only requirement was that they would sell the onions and distribute the funds among the people of New York state. However, the government of the United States would not waive the regulations that applied, and consequently the gift could not be accepted. I hope that in the representations made to Washington from time to time these problems will be taken care of so that we can meet any competition there may be.
There is another problem with regard to onions. There is a duty of 37J cents on onions coming into Canada from the United States, and during certain periods of the year they come in free. On Canadian onions going into the United States the duty is 75 cents. Our people feel they can produce equally as well as any other country, and all they are asking is that the United States put their tariff in line with our tariff and allow us an equal opportunity to compete wherever the market may be. Our people will be satisfied if that is done. I think that is a compliment

to the ability of our people to produce, and that is what they would like to see the government do.
I should like to refer to an article that appeared in the London Free Press reporting an address by Frank E. Wolff, chairman of the agriculture committee of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in the course of which he said that food was the greatest weapon. I agree that is the case. I should like to pay a particular compliment to our plant breeders and cerealists who over the years have introduced types of plants and grains that have increased production and have given people in many parts of the world the opportunity to eat better than they ever did before. I would say that our plant breeders, cerealists, agronomists and others connected with such work have rendered a greater service to mankind than the physicists and other scientists.
We all know what happens when an atom or hydrogen bomb is exploded over an atoll. A chain reaction starts in Moscow. They say they have a bigger and better bomb, and that they exploded it first. I should like to tell you what has been done in my district by our plant breeders and cerealists. They have produced a hybrid seed corn which has increased production from the figure of around 40 bushels an acre that I mentioned a while ago to a maximum of 304 bushels an acre. When the Russian delegation were here they purchased hybrid seed corn from my district. It is going to their country and possibly it will have an effect so far as the Russian people are concerned. There is one thing of which I am sure. I am confident that a Canadian kernel is much better than a Russian kernel.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Robertson:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on this occasion to support a resolution passed unanimously at the twelfth annual convention of the Ontario canning crop growers at Hamilton, Ontario, on December 1, 1955. The purpose of the resolution was to recommend to the government that a pilot processing plant be established at the Smithfield horticultural substation. As Smithfield is in the riding of Northumberland which I have the pleasure to represent I think I can point' out many reasons why Smithfield is the logical place for the establishment of such a pilot processing plant. The association represents some 10,000 growers of vegetable canning crops in the province of Ontario. The resolution is worded as follows:
Be it resolved that this convention request the Canada Department of Agriculture to establish a pilot processing plant at the Smithfield horticultural

substation of the Canada Department of Agriculture for the purpose of further studying the relationship of raw product grades to those in the finished product grades of processing crops and that sufficient commercial acreage be grown at the above station to supply the pilot plant with the raw product of the crops being studied.
The resolution was supported by a brief which was presented to the deputy minister of agriculture on February 15 of this year. I should like to express the appreciation of all members of this organization for the courtesy of the deputy minister of agriculture and the sympathetic hearing he gave to the delegation. In supporting the brief I feel I can do no better than to quote very briefly from the brief itself in order to demonstrate the requirement for and purpose and need of such a pilot processing plant. The brief as presented to the deputy minister reads in part as follows under the heading "The Need":
By reason of its location, weather conditions at the central experimental farm at Ottawa are not ideal for the growing of many of the major canning crops. In recognition of this fact, the Canada Department of Agriculture some years ago established a horticultural substation at Smith-field, Ontario, to permit the study of problems encountered by growers of fruits and vegetables under actual conditions existing in one of Canada's important areas of production of these crops, particularly for the food processing industry. . . .
To be of practical value to agriculture and the food processing industry, fruit and vegetable varieties must possess qualities that enable both producers and processors to market food products that meet with consumer acceptance. The grower has to produce a crop of high quality and yield which he can produce and market at a reasonable profit. The objective of the food processor in respect to the finished product is identical. At the same time, consumers demand, in this era of keen competition both in price and variety of food products, processed food products of good flavour, colour, texture, odour and generally attractive appearance.
I go on further in the brief, and under the heading, "The Purpose" there is the following:
A food products laboratory should be established at Smithfield, Ontario, in order to help the plant breeder, the grower, the processor and the consumer. . . . Such a laboratory would provide the facilities for objective testing and evaluation of various varieties of fruits and vegetables produced on the substation acreage.
Later, results could be discussed with plant breeders and ultimately, when a variety is considered ready for commercial introduction, results and performance could be discussed with producers and processors in order to assure industry acceptance of the results of research in a minimum of time.
. . . For optimum quality of the finished product, a promising variety must be harvested at a definite maturity and processed by a definite procedure that can be carefully controlled. A food processing laboratory at Smithfield would provide the means of determining the desirable maturity and establishing a definite processing procedure for a given variety.
Supply-Agriculture
In addition, the laboratory could conduct research to determine the reasons for: flavour loss in processing, loss of colour intensity, undesirable odour development and texture characteristics of processed food products. As a further practical contribution to the industry and the economy,, such a laboratory would enable research authorities to develop new types of processed foods that would channel commodities which might at any time in the future be in surplus supply into the consumer market.
Finally, under the heading of "Requirements" of such a plan the following has been suggested:
In order to provide the facilities for such research, it is respectfully suggested that the-laboratory at Smithfield consist of:
(1)	a pilot plant.
(2)	a laboratory for evaluation.
(3)	cold storage and freezer facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to support this brief wholeheartedly because I am sure that in Smithfield we have all the requirements for the establishment of a successful pilot processing plant. I also know that the Ontario food processors' association feel the need for such a pilot plant so they may carry on extensive research on food products in this industry. They also feel that Smithfield is an ideal location for such a plant because technical personnel from Ottawa could avail themselves of the opportunity of conducting on the spot research in a major canning area in Canada, thus eliminating the necessity for recruiting additional technical staff which would be necessary if such a pilot processing plant were established in another area in Canada.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, among both growers and processors there is a feeling that since Ontario is the major centre of canning crop production, the province of Ontario is the logical place for the establishment of such a pilot processing plant. If the Department of Agriculture can give sympathetic consideration to this suggestion I am sure we shall be providing an extremely valuable service which will be of benefit not only to the growers of fruits and vegetables in Canada but also to the processing industry and ultimately to the consuming public itself.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is something of a notable day in the House of Commons, in that members of all political parties have risen in their places and said to the government that all was not well with the agricultural industry. I am most happy to see members on the government side of the house-Liberal members, in this case Liberal members from Ontario-rising and pointing out to the government that substantial improvements are necessary in its agricultural policy.
As everyone knows, in this nation today we are witnessing an increase in our wealth

Supply-Agriculture
production. In recent years we have had an almost uninterrupted increase in the general production of this country. But anyone viewing the important segment of the Canadian economy cannot help but come to the conclusion that agriculture is the one important segment that is not sharing in any way in this general rise in prosperity. As a matter of fact instead of improving its position agriculture is going down, and it has been going down for some years. Moreover, the position of agriculture is not falling at a small, imperceptible rate; it is falling at a most alarming rate.
I have here figures obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics. They show that the gross cash income for agriculture was $2,811 million in 1951 and that it has been falling steadily until in 1955 it is estimated that gross cash incomes for agriculture will be some $2,323 million. The net income position is much worse. There is a drop from $2,150 million in 1951 to $1,125 million in 1954. That is a drop of some 48 per cent within that three-year period.
I do not believe our so-called prosperous economy can be secure as long as we have this important segment with inadequate purchasing power and with falling standards of living. During this period to which I have referred the gross national product has increased from $21-4 billion in 1951 to $26-4 billion in 1955. Some may think that, as consumers, they stand to gain if prices of food products fall. In its brief to the Gordon commission the Canadian Federation of Agriculture points out that in many years when agricultural prices are falling the cost of food products to the consumer is increasing. It does not follow at all that because farm prices are falling to the producer, the consumer is gaining in any way. I am afraid the consumer will stand to lose by any further deterioration in the position of agriculture.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was pointing out that while most sections of our economy were relatively prosperous, agriculture was in no way sharing in that prosperity. Not only have farm cash income and farm net income been going down, but probably of greater significance is the fact that the prices of agricultural products in relation to the farmer's costs of production have been continually getting worse.

Shortly after the Minister of Agriculture took office back in 1935 there was established an index for the farm costs of production and for farm prices. The base of that index was taken as 1935-39. That period was taken as 100 for the farmer's cost of production and for the prices of agricultural products. The latest index based on that period as set out in the Economic Annalist for April, 1956, shows that the prices of farm products have increased to 218. But the cost of production index has gone up until it has not only reached 218 but has gone even higher until it stands at 235. According to the Economic Annalist, the prices of agricultural products today in relation to the farmer's cost of production are even lower than they were in the depressed years from 1935 to 1939. That is why we in this group say it is time the government adopted a price support policy based on parity, that is prices for agricultural products that bear a fair relationship to the farmer's cost of production.
An important announcement was made today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that will affect agriculture on the prairies and indirectly all parts of Canada. We welcome that part of the announcement concerning the 1956-57 initial prices for grain. We also welcome the statement that within about two weeks' time an announcement will be made as to the final payment on the 1954 wheat crop. But there was a third announcement that was highly disturbing to me, namely the announcement that at the end of the current crop year delivery quotas for grain to various points would not be equalized, that no steps would be taken by the Canadian wheat board or by the government to bring about an equalization of quotas.
That statement will not sit very well on the western prairies. I am afraid there will be a tremendous amount of criticism. I am afraid that in the natural course of events people who support the Winnipeg grain exchange will use this new policy as a weapon against the Canadian wheat board. I express the hope that between now and the end of the crop year the government will give serious reconsideration to the statement that was made this afternoon and change it so that quotas are equalized among producers at various marketing points. If it is impossible to equalize them on July 31, whatever quotas some farmers may be short of at that time should be extended into the new crop year.
I am for parity prices; I am for a price level that would give agriculture a fair share of the national income. But within a system of parity prices for agricultural prices I also

believe that steps should be taken to bring about the greatest practicable equalization of income amongst the farmers themselves. That is why I am so disturbed over the announcement this afternoon that even on an acreage basis there will be unequal quotas during the crop year and nothing will be done at the snd of the crop year to see that those quotas are equalized. I repeat, I hope the government will reconsider its policy and will bring about an equalization of grain delivery quotas.
A few years ago when one stood up in the house and advocated a system of parity prices one perhaps did not get too much vocal support from farm organizations; but every single farm organization of any importance, and every farm organization in Canada with which I am acquainted, is advocating some system of guaranteed support prices or some system of parity prices. The great Canadian Federation of Agriculture has brought before the government a policy advocating fair relationship prices, advocating that the government implement a system of support prices that will guarantee to the farmer not less than from 65 per cent to 85 per cent of a parity price. The interprovincial farm union council, in making their submission to the government every year and in making their submission to the agriculture committee of the house, has emphasized its position that the farmers should have parity prices. The government has done very little or nothing about those submissions.
We have a reasonably good support price for butter, but after you have said that there is little more to say. We have something of a support price on hogs and eggs; but as I have seen those support prices operate, or fail to operate, in the past I am afraid they have been pretty much window dressing.
Little has been done by the government to provide support prices for agricultural products. I would think that the Prime Minister, who comes from a province in Canada where agriculture and rural life are considered to be a very important aspect of the life of that province, would implement policies that would prevent the deterioration of the agricultural industry and the position of farmers in his province and in other provinces of Canada. The position is becoming very serious. It is not a matter of a member rising in his place and talking blue ruin and depressed agricultural prices. He does not have to do that himself; he merely has to quote the record of what other authorities have said. I hold in my hand the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, April 26. On the front page it has a heading:
Farmers Broke in Boom Times 67509-225
Supply-Agriculture
The report has this to say in part:
The federal and provincial governments have been accused of "complete lack of long-range planning" to solve the problems of the Canadian farmer, particularly those in eastern Ontario, some of whom "are going broke while the over-all economy is booming".
And that is true in every agricultural area of Canada. The report goes on to say:
In a report presented to the Ottawa diocese synod meeting by Rev. H. Clayton Vaughan of Navan, chairman of the rural community committee, the plight of the farmer is vigorously presented.
"It is difficult to realize the feeling of discouragement and uncertainty that is sweeping our rural communities".
What an indictment of the agricultural policy of this government, when such an important meeting of a church organization makes a public statement saying that because of the policies of the government agriculture is being allowed to go broke in times of boom.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is highly respected in this nation. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture each year presents a carefully prepared, well thought out, agricultural policy to the government. One of the chief persons connected with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, their economist, Dr. E. C. Hope, appeared before the banking and commerce committee the other day in connection with amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. When Dr. E. C. Hope was discussing agricultural policies generally and what his organization wished the government to do, I asked him this question, as recorded at page 114 of the proceedings of the committee:
In your study of agricultural policy in other nations of the world, do you know of any advanced nations which do less in the way of support prices and other policies for agriculture than is done by our country?
To that question Dr. Hope, the witness, replied:
No, I do not know of any country that does less.
According to Dr. Hope, chief economist of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, this government does less for the farmers than is done by the government of any other advanced country in the world. It is small wonder, then, that farmers from one end of this nation to the other are highly dissatisfied with the policy of the government and the deal they are receiving.
What are the farmers going to do about it? They are going to have to obtain a new policy; this one is not good enough. They are endeavouring to bring pressure to bear on members of the government. They are also bringing their case to the attention of members of the opposition. They are coming to

Supply-Agriculture
Ottawa time and time again to present to the government the things which they think should be done. They have obtained some results, but very few.
While they may get something from the government from time to time their general position is almost continually worsening. When the government brings in policies that are of some help, such as the payment of storage on certain quantities of grain or perhaps by way of extending the provision of agricultural credit, what do we see? We see some of the most important newspapers in this country making editorial comments to this effect:	Why should the government
bother about agriculture at all? After all, it is an industry of dwindling importance; after all, it is losing its political power and effect in the nation. When it comes to a policy the government may bring in which will help the farmers they go one step further and say that the farmers are losing representation in parliament, so why should the government or the country bother about giving agriculture and the farmer a square deal?
Some of the things they say are true. The farmer is losing some of his political weight in this country, and if he is to get a square deal he is going to need strong and powerful allies. He is going to have to enlist other groups to support his position when he asks the government to do certain things. I believe there is a growing hope that the farmers are going to get adequate support from other organizations. I have in my hand the resolutions presented to the recent merger convention founding the new Canadian Labour Congress, and I am pleased to note that those resolutions deal not just with labour problems but also with agricultural problems. While all these resolutions could not be considered individually, there were composite resolutions passed by the convention embodying the principles to which I am going to refer. Here is one resolution which reads:
Be it further resolved that our new congress strives, through the recently-created Canadian farm-labour economic council, to unite the forces of farmers and labour in Canada, for the welfare of both sections of the population and the country as a whole.
Another resolution reads:
Whereas this convention views with alarm the ruinous drop in agricultural income . . . and
Whereas we believe that all producers, whether they work in the office, in the factory, in the mines, or on the farm, are entitled to a fair and adequate return for their work; and
Whereas we join with organized farmers in their farm unions, co-operatives, and with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their fight to obtain parity for the agricultural producer:

Be it resolved that, to this end, efforts be made to regain the overseas markets that have been lost to Canadian farmers since the end of world war II; an immediate campaign to eliminate malnutrition in Canada be launched; a generous program of economic assistance be undertaken to help fight world poverty and hunger, and a generous program of support prices be established, so that both producers and consumers will be protected from violent fluctuations in price and supply.
We have frequently heard it said that the interests of labour and agriculture are separate, apart and quite opposed one to the other. We have been told that the government finds it difficult to bring in adequate support prices for farm products because the consumer will rebel but here we have the largest labour organization in Canada advocating that farmers be given parity prices for their products.
Mr. J. L. Phelps, president of the farm-labour economic council, addressed that huge convention and when he concluded his remarks he was given a standing ovation. In Canada the privilege of receiving a standing ovation seldom occurs, and the standing ovation Mr. Phelps received at the labour convention is indicative of growing farm-labour co-operation which will inevitably result in better legislation for labour and a program of parity prices for farm products in the future. We are told-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I wonder if I might interject at this moment. In some instances the hon. member has mentioned parity prices and in other parts of his remarks he has mentioned support prices. I have listened to the hon. member now at some length and it seems to me that in the main his argument is with regard to parity prices. Now, if that is the case, may I point out to the hon. member that we had a resolution with regard to parity prices negatived in the house on March 12. I must point out to the hon. member that a discussion purely of parity prices at this time on that account would not be in order. For those reasons I must ask the hon. member to refrain from a discussion of parity prices.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was about to say, Mr. Chairman, that we read from time to time of a farm bloc in the United States, and that farmers have so much power in the United States congress that at times they are able to push through a program for high support prices that is detrimental to the economy of that country. We are told that but it is not true. There is no farm bloc in the United States congress which is able to command a majority, but there is in the United States congress a working farm-labour bloc that can command a majority when it comes to legislation they jointly support. The reason the

United States congress adopted a program of so-called high support prices for agricultural products, which even then did not mean a measure of full justice or parity for the agricultural industry in that country, was because of that farm-labour co-operation. When we get that kind of co-operation in Canada the farmer with the help of labour will obtain from the government in power the legislative program to which he is entitled.
I think there are a number of things the government should do to provide a better deal for agriculture at this time. The first thing I have referred to is the system of support or parity prices. The second thing I would like to impress on the government is the need for a continuation of the Crowsnest pass rates on grain. I am afraid there is growing evidence of an attack by the railway companies on the Crowsnest pass rates. Just last year the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in his annual speech to the shareholders dealing with railway policy-


William Alfred Robinson: Would not these remarks, perhaps, be better made on the first item of the Department of Transport?


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought of that one, too.
Naturally I shall bow to any ruling you make, but I want to point out that if the change in the Crowsnest pass rates which the C.P.R. are endeavouring to obtain should be brought about it will reduce the price of wheat to the producer by not less than 12 cents a bushel. I point out further that any such substantial reduction in the price of wheat is bound to see an increase in the production of livestock on the prairie provinces, which would have an adverse effect upon the whole agricultural economy.
The third point I have listed is the need to establish national marketing boards to provide, at the request of producers, stability in the assembly, processing and marketing of main agricultural products. Fourth, to establish a board of livestock commissioners to provide scientific grading standards. Fifth, to expand the sale of agricultural products through international commodity agreements and through bilateral contract sales. We have seen evidence recently that such a program is feasible, that bilateral contract sales offer a method by which the sale of farm products can effectively be made on the international markets. I suggest that if this policy is to be used to its fullest extent the government should be prepared to sign contract agreements for the purchase of products produced in countries which buy our grain. We cannot continue to hope to sell to these countries unless we are also prepared to buy the goods they produce.
67509-225|
Supply-Agriculture
Sixth, support for an international food pool to dispose of surplus agricultural products. Seventh, double the payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and extend the act to provide income protection in time of crop failure for farmers in all parts of Canada. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act was first brought into existence in 1939 and provided a maximum of $2.50 per acre on half the cultivated acreage. That payment has not been increased, even though the cost of production has more than doubled since that time. I suggest that the payment should be doubled and the provisions of the act should be extended to agricultural producers in all parts of Canada in the case of crop failure.
Eighth, extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to all parts of Canada, making it into a comprehensive program of soil and water conservation. Ninth, immediate construction of the South Saskatchewan dam. It used to be that the Prime Minister would discuss in this house the benefits or otherwise, depending upon his point of view, which would flow from the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam, but now when he is asked a question he just says no. There is no argument, there is no consideration; the government says no. It might cost a little over $60 million from the federal treasury to build this dam, but apparently there is no hesitation in providing $80 million to pull a pipe-line company out of a very bad situation into which it is getting and in which it apparently wants to involve the country as well. There is lots of money to help a pipe-line company, but the government cannot find any money to build the South Saskatchewan dam, the cost of which would be spread over a period of ten years.
My tenth and final point is the extension of the Canada Grain Act to all parts of Canada so that feeders may obtain the benefits of the excellent grading system for grain which prevails on the prairies.
If the government does not want to consider all these, I suggest that there are three main items the government should consider. First of all they should provide a system of adequate support prices for farm products. Second, they should provide a system of crop failure protection or crop insurance for the farmer when he loses his crop through no fault of his own. Third, the government should provide adequate markets for the full quantity of food products which agriculture is able to produce.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that there are many tens of thousands of Canadians who have a most inadequate diet tonight, who are close to suffering from malnutrition. I need mention no others than the old age pensioners

Supply-Agriculture
in this country, who in many instances have to live on a mere $40 a month, a large part of which must be paid for rent when they reside in our cities. I suggest that the type of agricultural program that I have proposed is necessary, not only for the welfare of our agricultural industry but for the welfare of Canadians generally.
(Translation):


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words tonight on a matter which is particularly dear to me. However, I should not like to dwell on it at too great length.
In May of last year, I rose in this house to urge the government to continue its subsidy to maple sugar producers, so that they may continue, and to complete if possible, the change-over from tin sap pails they have been using to aluminum pails. Here is what I said then, as taken from page 3343 of Hansard of May 2:
There is a provision embodied in the- i was thus stating the main reason for this change-over.
There is a provision embodied in the Food and Drugs Act of Canada to ban lead in any kind of food. To obtain that regulations have been adopted to do away with welded tins as containers of all kinds of canned food; hooked tins are now being used. For the same reason, tea, chocolate and cigarettes are wrapped in waxed or aluminum foil; no more lead paper is used to wrap them.
And I added:
The history of this subsidy to maple sugar producers is that lead was found in maple sugar products and all shipments were stopped at once, not only shipments to the United States, but all exports outside the province of Quebec. The maple sap itself does not contain lead but the oxide of lead found in maple sugar came from the buckets made with tin plate.
I think that was reason enough to bring this matter to the attention not only of the government but of all members of this house, who, I thought, would be glad to support that subsidy to maple sugar producers. Unfortunately some hon. members thought fit to oppose the subsidy, as they had done in previous sessions. So for some reason I do not wish to discuss here, the federal government decided not to renew the subsidy this year. If I bring up this subject again, it is because I believe we should keep protecting that very special maple product, not only in Canada but especially in countries which import it.
According to the 1951 census, 22,443,061 pails were used for that purpose; out of that number, 17,308,823 pails have been changed, and the shares of the federal government and

the provincial government have been one-third respectively, with the other third being paid by the farmers. There are 13,382 maple sugar producers who have taken advantage of that opportunity to change their pails, out of a possible total of 21,700, always according to the 1951 census.
Thus, there are about 5,135,000 sap pails which have not been replaced. So, I urge the federal government to continue this subsidy to maple sugar producers at least for a year or two, in order that they may replace these 5 million odd pails. They could thus increase their income and, consequently, improve the situation of their families. It would also enable them to share more fully in the economy of the country and, especially, to continue exporting to other countries this maple product whose purity is its main quality.
I remember that, some years ago, Queen Victoria was presented with a jar of maple toffee, and Her Majesty, having tasted it, said to those who were sampling it with her: "This is the most delicious sweetmeat I have ever tasted."
So I am asking the federal government to help the producers, because I would like our maple products to keep their high quality.
This year, only about 250 thousand sap pails will be replaced, which will mean an expense of about $50,000 for the provincial as well as for the federal government, and for the farmers.
Last year, I put on record a table showing the production and value of maple products in the province of Quebec, from 1937 to 1954, as can be seen on pages 3343-44.
I also put on the record a second table referring to the production and value of maple sugar for the years 1953 and 1954; a third table showed the production and value of maple sugar for the years 1953 and 1954, while a fourth table showed the classification of maple syrup commercial production in the province of Quebec from 1949 to 1954.
Those interested in the situation of the maple industry in the province of Quebec will kindly refer to those tables which, as I said, are given on pages 3344 and 3345 of Hansard.
Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. However, I renew my request, and ask the central government to continue, at least for another year or two, to grant a certain amount to allow the change over of sap pails to be completed. The farmer will then lead a

better life because, with the syrup and sugar industry paying him more, he will get an added revenue to the production of his land. I submit that our farmers are a rather important group in our country and have made enough sacrifices and enough efforts to be entitled to federal as well as provincial assistance.
(Text) :


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: There were quite a number of very good speeches this afternoon, all of them Conservative. The minister's estimates provide not only the members who come from agricultural ridings but many other members an opportunity to understand and take part in the unending problems of agriculture.
I wish to compliment the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) on his speech this afternoon. I am just going to review two or three of the things he had to say. In his introduction he mentioned that in the throne speech there occurred these words:
Canada has enjoyed, on the whole, a high level of prosperity. Some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in this increased well-being.
He said then the government was quite aware of the plight the farmers were in. It is one thing to be aware of the plight they are in and another thing to do something about it, which has not been done. That is the trouble. Being aware of it is just not good enough. He dealt with the discrepancies in the marketing of corn, pointing out that he was hopeful that the United States would reduce its duty so as to bring about equality of tariffs. What a hope. I do not think there is a chance in the world that the United States will change its tariff policy just because we are producing more corn and might want to send some into the United States.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) comes from a cash crop area. I was very much interested in some of the other items produced there, with which he dealt. He talked about onions. The duty on onions coming into Canada is 374 cents a bag, while on onions going to the United States it is just double that, 75 cents. He failed to say also that 22 carloads of Egyptian onions were unloaded at Montreal at the very time growers in Kent and Essex and the other onion-growing areas were harvesting a crop, and that played a disastrous part in reducing the price to the Canadian grower. At the same time those products were held in the warehouses of the trade.
Supply-Agriculture
The consumer got very little benefit, if any, from the disaster that was caused the producer.
There are many farm products imported into this country that are produced-and more of them could be produced-in Canada. As I have said many times, there are many agricultural products that we, a northern country, are not able to produce and that we are glad to import from the United States. However, when we can produce corn, soybeans, sugar beets, apples, potatoes and many other things, it looks a little foolish that we cannot, either through a tariff or a quota system, assist our Canadian farmers. Here we are building up surpluses of certain farm products that we cannot sell-more acres of wheat than we know what to do with-and at the same time importing millions of dollars worth of farm products which Canadian farms could well grow.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) had something to say about soybeans. Soybeans come in from the United States duty free, but if Canadian soybeans are exported to the United States they are charged $1.20 a bushel duty. Yet the government does nothing about it. At the same time there is the importation of soybean and other vegetable oils with no duty or quotas. The hon. member talked like a Conservative, but he votes the other way.
I am amazed at the number of government supporters who have taken part in the debate on the speech from the throne, the budget debate, the debate on parity prices for agricultural products and today the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I have reviewed what those members from western Ontario in particular have had to say, and I think it is rather interesting. It looks to me as if they are running for cover and holding up an umbrella. They want to be able to say, "This is the speech I made in the House of Commons for the agricultural industry in my constituency." When the next election rolls around they will have that to rely upon, and they will say: "This is what I had to say."
That is not the question. What did you do about it? Not a thing. For example, the hon. member for Waterloo North made a speech that is to be found at page 449 of Hansard. I have read his speech very carefully, and if I ever read or heard a Conservative speech that is one. He talks and thinks like a Conservative but he votes the other way. The junior member for Queens made a speech to be found at page 493 of Hansard in which he had this to say:
While Canada as a whole is prosperous-

Supply-Agriculture


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I take it from the page number in Hansard, without checking more particularly, that the hon. member is referring to another debate in the same session.


Harry Oliver White: Yes. I failed to remember, Mr. Chairman, that I could not quote from a speech made in another debate in the same session, so I will more or less paraphrase what his ideas were.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Without referring particularly to the wording of the rule, my recollection is that it covers referring to a debate in the same session, so that paraphrasing is equally out of order.


An hon. Member:: He said the same thing last year.


Harry Oliver White: This is not going to curtail in any way what I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I will just put it in another way. I would point out that Prince Edward Island is noted for its production of potatoes. I would also point out how onesided the tariffs and quotas are so far as Canadian and United States potatoes are concerned, and that 7,000 carloads of potatoes were imported into Canada last year. No wonder members from the maritimes who are interested in the production and sale of potatoes have something to say about these problems.
In the past some speakers have said that if an imported article can be bought more cheaply than a home-produced article Canadians, being no different from anybody else, will buy the imported article. Consequently we find cheap products coming into Canada not only from the United States but from other places and the Canadian public are buying them, for which I do not blame them one bit. The textile industry, particularly those firms engaged in processing wool, has had a very difficult time for some years now, and if I remember correctly 22 concerns have ceased operations in the last five or six years. In one year the number of employees in the wool processing industry dropped from 10,500 to 6,000. That will give some idea of the impact of the policies of this government as they are reflected not only on agriculture but on labour in many of the cities of this country.
I was also interested to note that the hon. member for Northumberland and the hon. member for Grey North went out of their way to say how difficult times were for the farmers, but offered as a solution the setting up of producer marketing boards. This is amazing to me, because I can look back over the years when times were good and farm products were scarce and the government was quite prepared to be the marketing
fMr. White (Middlesex East).]
agency for farm products. But when the going got tough the government told the farmers to form their own marketing boards and solve their own problems. They were quite prepared to turn these matters over to the farmers once they found that they had failed.
But what is the use of turning them over to the farmers? The farmers cannot solve the problems involved in the importation of the very same products they are producing. The farmers have nothing to do with the importation of vast quantities of farm products, particularly from the United States, that compete with the production of Canadian farmers.
Mention was also made last year and the year before of fruits and the canning factory industry. The farmers are finding right down the line that the many farm products imported only aggravate the surpluses with which we find ourselves confronted.


Mr. Cardiff:: Cheese, for instance.


Harry Oliver White: I have referred to a few hon. members from western Ontario and one from the maritimes who have emphasized the serious situation. I have done so to emphasize the inconsistency of their arguments, because when they talk they talk one way but when they vote they vote the other way.
About a week ago I spoke on the bill of the hon. member for Kamloops respecting income tax, and at that time I failed to complete what I wanted to say. I do not expect to complete what I have to say about it at this time, but I want to finish my remarks with respect to one particular case involving the tobacco farmer and his daughter who was charged almost $2,000 because her father was her banker over a period of ten years.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again but I recall his former speech and if he intends to pursue the same line of thought I fail to see how that can be related to the first item of the agriculture estimates.


Harry Oliver White: The impact of income taxes on agriculture is very serious. It is decreasing production and driving young people away from the farms. What is worse, the worst of the situation is not over yet. My friends across the way shake their heads, but it is the fellow who wags the pencil next time who will be the deciding factor. I want to complete what I intended to say about this one particular case.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I have already indicated in as kindly terms as possible that it will be impossible to complete that case under

these estimates, and I hope the hon. member will co-operate with me in that regard.


Harry Oliver White: I will as far as I possibly can, Mr. Chairman. Just give me a moment to get the matter wrapped up here. There are many new Canadians who have come to Canada and purchased farms. Right in my own neighbourhood I see the mother and the father working the farm and there are one, two or three young people who are employed in the city. They bring home their monthly or weekly pay cheques and help the father to pay for the farm. The chances are that ten years from now the income tax department will probably say that when he bought the farm ten years ago he only had $500 or $1,500 to pay down and now he is worth $20,000. Consequently, as he paid us only so much income tax, he owes us so much more.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sure the hon. member will agree that remarks of this kind have no place in a discussion of the first item of the Department of Agriculture. Further than that, the hon. member said, "I want to complete a speech which I failed to complete on a former occasion". That statement causes me immediately to come to the conclusion that the hon. member himself must realize that he is not in order in attempting to discuss this matter at this time. I have listened with interest to his speech, but in fairness to other hon. members I must ask him to devote his remarks to a discussion of this item.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I rise on a question of privilege. Surely to goodness an hon. member speaking on farm problems has a right to refer to income tax as far as the farm is concerned. It has a great deal to do with the matter of profit or loss on a farm. If the income tax department is going to assess the farmer for income tax, surely to goodness we may have something to say about that matter.


Mr. Fulton:: Speaking to the point of order, may I say that I was going to raise somewhat the same point as that raised by the hon. member who has just spoken. I can recall speeches made by the Minister of Agriculture on the first item of the estimates that have strayed much further, according to the strict interpretation you are trying to give, than has the speech of the hon. member for Middlesex East. On the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, when we are discussing the economic position of the Canadian farmer, surely it is in order to mention the factors that militate for or against his economic position. That is all the hon. member is doing. In agricultural speeches I have heard the Minister of Agriculture talk about
Supply-Agriculture
the wheat board regulations. Surely the hon. member for Middlesex East can talk about the income tax regulations as they affect farmers.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops, who is a lawyer, would not care to pursue that argument too far. A farmer uses our national parks-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not on his farm, I hope.


William Alfred Robinson: -but questions pertaining to national parks would be much better discussed, perhaps, on the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Our rules are designed to allow us to debate matters at the most appropriate time. We are now discussing agriculture. By custom, on the first item of a department we discuss departmental policy. Surely the hon. member for Kamloops is not going to argue that, on this item, we should discuss a matter which certainly more directly relates to income tax and which might much more appropriately be discussed under the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would be prepared to argue most certainly that the position of the farmer and the position of the agricultural industry generally are affected by the things which the hon. member is seeking to introduce into the debate here. On the first item, when you are discussing the position of the farmer, one of the things you are discussing is the level of farm income. I submit that it is perfectly in order to relate the facts which make for a healthy farm income to the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. I come back again to what I said earlier. The Minister of Agriculture in his speeches embraces all these matters. If he can do so on the first item, I can see no reason why the hon. member for Middlesex East cannot do so in reply.	.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops has failed to read the speech of the minister on this particular item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was here when he made it.


William Alfred Robinson: However, I have heard the arguments of the two hon. members who spoke to the point of order and, persuasive as they are, I fail to fall in line with their reasoning. I am afraid I must rule that a discussion of this income tax problem is not in order at this time.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, I shall leave discussion of the question of income tax for some future date, and it shall be the fiercer for the delay.
There is some misunderstanding with regard to subsidies. Many people, especially those in the cities, think all the subsidies that

Supply-A griculture
are paid by the government are paid to one industry, namely agriculture. They are the only ones we hear about. I have in my hand a set of figures taken from the dominion bureau of statistics reference paper No. 39. I just want to point out the number of subsidies that are paid, to whom they are paid and what they amount to.
Back in 1940 agricultural subsidies amounted to $41 million and non-agricultural subsidies amounted to $11 million. Agricultural subsidies back in 1940 were 79 per cent of the total. But when we come from 1940 to 1954 we find that agricultural subsidies amounted to $34 million and non-agricultural subsidies to $51 million. Hence the whole situation has been reversed. Today industries other than agriculture are enjoying greater subsidies than is agriculture. The percentage in 1954 was about 40 per cent; I refer to agricultural subsidies.
These subsidies do not take into consideration any of the tariffs. After all tariffs, regardless of what they are, are really a subsidy to manufacturers, which the consumer pays. Not only the industry that enjoys the subsidy but the labourer who works in that industry is benefited by that tariff. I want to point out that fact because so many other hon. members who have preceded me in speaking have more or less been asking that the whole tariff situation be reviewed. As I mentioned before, the total agricultural subsidies in 1954 were $34 million. But for the same year the gold mining industry received $15 million- one industry alone-more than half as much as all agriculture received. I should like the people to realize that the agricultural industry is not the only one that is being subsidized in this country.
Just while I am dealing with tariffs, may I say that I hold in my hand a statement concerning the turkey industry. The poultry industry has grown by leaps and bounds in this country. Now we find the importation of dressed turkeys and other poultry products from the United States making inroads into the trade of the Canadian farmer. Right down here on Sparks street you will see Vermont turkey advertised. In 1954 Canada imported 5 million pounds of turkey from the United States. In 1955 the figure jumped to 10,351,000 pounds. So far this year, or up to February 25, the imports have amounted to 470,000 pounds as against 95,000 pounds in the same time last year. In other words the importation of United States poultry into Canada is making terrific inroads. Here is a market for Canadian grain. Canadian poultry producers would be buying more grain to feed their poultry if it were not for those importations, and it would help to reduce the

surplus of grain in the western provinces. This is a product that Canadians can produce.
What about the duty? The poultry people asked for a duty of 12J per cent, as now, but with a minimum of 5 cents a pound. This is identical with the United States tariff on eviscerated turkeys. However, on dressed turkeys the United States rate is 10 cents a pound; hence the Canadian proposal is a moderate one. I suggest that the government give further consideration to the problem.
I hold in my hand an editorial from the Montreal Gazette of today. The editorial is based on a pamphlet issued by the Canadian institute of international affairs. It is entitled, "What is Happening to Wheat?" I have been critical at times of the length of time and the number of speeches that have been devoted to wheat in this house, but the western economy and in fact the Canadian economy are tied up with it. This is one of the things the Canadian institute of international affairs had to say:
But the conclusion remains inconclusive. "Looking into the tunnel of the future of wheat sales," the writers admit, "it must be conceded that no light is visible".
In other words, there does not seem to be any answer to this problem of recurring wheat surpluses. For some time we have been a wheat exporting country, but many of the countries to whom we exported wheat are now exporters themselves. Instead of being importers they are now exporters and that aggravates the situation. Agriculture in Canada needs more to be diversified than at any time in its history. Some guidance and some assurances are required from the government before the farmers in large numbers are going to switch from one type of agriculture to another. There must be some guidance, some continuity of markets before they make the switch.
I also hold in my hand an editorial from the Sarnia Observer which is entitled, "The Sad Sugar Beet Story". There are many acres in Manitoba and Alberta that are suitable for the production of sugar beets. In southwestern Ontario we have been growing sugar beets for many years. There are two sugar beet factories in southwestern Ontario, one at Chatham and the other at Wallaceburg. I understand that one of these plants will not operate this year. Yet we have acres of land that could be devoted to the production of sugar, an article we import. The use of those acres for this purpose would take wheat off the market and put sugar on the market. The farmers who have been engaged in sugar beet growing in the past have done fairly well. Yet we drift and lose the sugar beet industry that we have built up. The sugar beet plants in southwestern Ontario

require at least 30,000 or 40,000 acres of sugar beets to operate economically and well. So far this year only 19,000 acres of sugar beets are contracted for in southwestern Ontario.
We as a people are prepared to delegate authority to groups without giving the matter sufficient consideration. If there is one agricultural product produced in this country that I know anything about it is honey. It has had its ups and downs so far as production and prices are concerned during the last few years. For many years Canada has been an exporting nation, but now she has drifted into the column of the importing nations so far as honey is concerned. Our importations are now running around 5 million pounds a year, but we used to export a great deal more than that each year.
In many of the provinces co-operative companies are set up by the honey producers to process and market the honey of their producer members. One of the astounding things to me is this. The Canadian beekeepers' council, in co-operation with the managers of those co-operatives, has brought enough pressure to bear on the dominion Department of Agriculture to have the words that designate the country of origin of the honey removed from the containers. It is no longer necessary for a Canadian packer of honey to put on the container how much, if any, foreign honey is in the container. That is working against the Canadian producers of honey. Those very co-operatives that were supposed to serve the interests of the producer are among the importers of this foreign honey.
As I say, they have brought pressure to bear on the dominion department to have that grading and marketing regulation changed. I hold in my hand copies of the letters that have to do with it. I notice that the province of Quebec particularly protested very strongly against changing the regulations. According to the regulations as they now exist all that has to be put on a carton of honey that holds 12 or 24 pails is the country of origin; but when it reaches the grocer's shelves it is marked as Canadian honey, and even the word "Canadian" can be removed. As I say, we delegate too much authority to certain people and do not follow it up to see what they are doing.
There is another thing the Department of Agriculture should look into. Some time ago I asked that the tenders for milk for the veterans' hospital at London, Ontario, be tabled. One of the dairies tendered a rather low price. That is all right, but this is what happened. Immediately the district purchasing agent at Kingston had this to say, and I quote from a letter from the Department of 67509-226
Supply-Agriculture
Defence Production signed by Frank Power, district purchasing agent, 953 Somerset street west, Ottawa. He wrote to Mr. Fred Burnette, secretary of the milk distributors at Kingston, Ontario.
Our headquarters have been checking the milk prices paid in this area and in view of the fact that the dairies in Ottawa and Picton are supplying the army with fresh milk at $0.57 per gallon, they have instructed us to write you and request that you give serious and immediate consideration to the high price you are charging for fresh milk in Kingston.
As soon as this one dairy tendered at a low price to get into the market in London, Ontario, the effect was going to be siphoned back to the suppliers of fresh milk in every area in the country, apparently, because this took place very shortly after the tender was received in London.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, with relation to the discussion we had earlier I would like to point out to you, sir, that although as the hon. member from Middlesex East has said he could deal with the point elsewhere, when it comes to the matter of discussing the impact of income tax on farmers and on agriculture generally, in fact, the matter has been alluded to on more than one occasion in the course of the discussion of certain estimates, and in the house in a speech made by the minister himself.
I would refer Your Honour to page 1061 of Hansard of this session, where there was some question of income tax figures; to page 1062, where the minister made reference to figures of real income versus cash income and discussed cash income and net income; to page 1063, where the minister and the hon. member for Dauphin indulged in some discussion of the question of net worth as against some other basis of calculating income, the position of farmers, and where mention was made of the figures produced by the income tax branch; and also to page 1064 where figures of net income against cash income were used.
I suggest to you, sir, that the subject has been introduced and made a matter of some considerable importance in the course of the speech made by the minister in introducing his estimates.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member is making a case with which I cannot entirely agree. For instance, I have in front

Supply-Agriculture
of me one portion of the minister's speech reported at page 1061 of Hansard, which reads as follows:
Good farmers in Saskatchewan, since we have had income taxes to pay, carry their wheat along knowing that they can average their income over the years-
-and so on. I do not think the hon. member would wish to argue that a passing reference to income taxes is in the same category as attempting to discuss a particular case at some length, as the hon. member for Middlesex East indicated he wished to do. However, I will look at the other references the hon. member for Kamloops has given me and will be very glad to consider them.


Mr. Yuill:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to take up the time of the house by quoting a lot of statistics that have already been quoted. I believe my colleague the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose and many other hon. members have given statistics that prove conclusively that the plight of agriculture is not a happy one.
Statistics are always extremely interesting, particularly when they relate to the part of agriculture that is closest to one's heart. Being associated with the livestock industry for a number of years it is always interesting for me to find out what is going on. Generally speaking the statistics to which I refer relate to the number of livestock produced and their gross sales value, broken down as to various types and grades and of course the unit prices that relate thereto.
Generally speaking, many of the people who are engaged in the livestock industry seem to accept these statistics as inevitable. They appear to take it for granted that it is an act of fate that we have substandard grades. I believe this is partly due to the unrealistic thinking of some of those engaged in the agricultural business. I cannot bring my reasoning to coincide with those who feel that they can forever produce substandard foundation stock and expect' to get top grades. I think that is one of the common faults of many livestock producers today. In that respect I believe we contribute considerably to our own plight, and if that is so I think another thing must be taken into consideration.
Many people today, particularly those who are not established in agriculture or livestock producing, feel that it is beyond the financial ability of the livestock producers to go out and buy No. 1 breeding stock. This is reflected in many ways. First of all it is reflected in the grade the producer receives, and it is also reflected in the over-all standard of the dominion as a whole.
I believe it would be worth while for the government to make available to those in
[The Chairman.]
that position certain sums of money in order that they may provide a proper foundation stock. It may be argued, of course, that such money is already available through farm loans. I do not know how it applies, but my experience with farm loans is that by the time they take care of the other apparently more urgent needs there is nothing left to apply to proper foundation stock. I do not know exactly what attitude the government would take, but I believe that charity begins at home, and I think that would be one way whereby the government could greatly assist with a minimum of expense.
There are other things which contribute to the plight of the livestock grower. When he takes his stock to market he receives top grades in some cases but in many cases he receives substandard grade. Another matter which is worthy of consideration is the ill-advised practice followed by those charged with processing, particularly pork. It is a well known fact that after these products are processed and marketed many inferior grades masquerade under a first-grade banner or brand. I think I can say with safety that you can go into nine out of ten meat stores in this city and discover that this is the case. If the government would be a little more careful in its inspections it would be of benefit to the over-all economy of the country.
I think we took a step in the right direction last session when we ruled out of the picture striped wrapping for bacon. That was something which was very necessary at that time, but I think we left as a substitute for it something which is perhaps even more vicious. It has been my experience since coming here this session to find, masquerading as No. 1 back bacon, meat which is nothing but No. 4 sow back bacon. True, it had the fat trimmed off and looked rather good to the unsuspecting public, but in reality it was still sow bacon. I have bought bacon myself wrapped as No. 1 which proved to be at least No. 2. Then you will find hams which by no stretch of the imagination could be qualified as No. 1. They may be split into perhaps three pieces, but are wrapped in attractive packages and sold at No. 1 prices.
These are some of the things that could be done to help the consuming public and at the same time allow the farmer, the ultimate consumer, to buy back his own products at a fair price. These things may not appear to be important, but I think they are. It is the easy things of this kind that we can do in order to get back to a more realistic sense of duty and responsibility. So long as we permit these unfair business tactics to prevail we will be falling short of our responsibility as members of parliament.

Then so far as the beef industry is concerned there are many merchants-this is more characteristic of the big merchants- who are ready to charge a price without having any sense of the true value. It may be that I am more critical than some, but I always try to keep my eyes open to see what the other fellow is doing in my own business. I have found many cases where the true grade is not represented. The article is put into an attractive package and a price charged which is far beyond the true value. To me that is nothing less than racketeering, and I think it is high time we did something about it.
There are many who feel that the government must take full responsibility for everything in connection with agriculture, but I think we should be realistic enough to know that there are contributing factors. The price of meat is regulated by many factors, the weather being one. If the roads are bad and the supply is short inevitably the price goes up, or the reverse can happen. I believe that if we would try to deal with these simple things which are within the realm of possibility we would do a lot. It is simply a matter of carrying out regulations which exist already. There is a body of inspectors who are supposed to check these things. Someone must be falling down on the job, because it is quite obvious what is happening. You do not have to go very far before you find these things which are anything but right and fair.
So far as assistance in the purchasing of proper foundation stock is concerned, that to me would seem to be one of the easiest things to do. As far as the actual dollars and cents are concerned, it would cost the government next to nothing and I am sure it would pay huge dividends.


Mr. James:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a few minutes to express some of my thoughts on agriculture and to do something which I have not done since about 1950 or 1951; that is, to express the pride which I have in agriculture as it is practised in Durham county, from which I come. I have been most interested in listening this afternoon and this evening, as well as the other times we have been dealing with these estimate':, to the extremely well-prepared and well-presented addresses dealing with agricultural problems as well as the many suggestions that have been made.
I should like to pay a real and sincere tribute to my good friend and colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, who has been handling the estimates for part of this afternoon and this 67509-2264
Supply

Agriculture
evening. In my opinion he is as well qualified to deal with these matters as any hon. member on the opposition side, if not better. Over the years he has done a terrific job for agriculture in Ontario and throughout Canada, as has his minister. We are proud of him and we congratulate him.
I want to congratulate the Department of Agriculture and the government upon their agricultural policies over the years. I have no apologies to make, either to my own people back home or to anyone in Canada, for the agricultural policies which have been pursued by this government for a period of some 20 years. A tremendous job has been done for agriculture.
Undoubtedly everyone, and this would include the Minister of Agriculture and his cabinet colleagues, will admit that at the present time there are soft spots in agriculture. I would be the first to admit that. I have a letter which I received today from a good friend in Durham county who is engaged in agriculture. The main point he brings up is that hon. members of this house, and especially the member for Durham, should continue to put forward the agricultural position so the urban people may understand the difficulties which agriculture must face. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Assiniboia suggest that the neswpapers across Canada do not present a fair picture of agriculture and its problems to their readers. I wish he had qualified that statement by referring only to urban newspapers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said most of the big city dailies.


John Mason James: It so happens that I have some connection with a weekly newspaper, of which there are some 900 in Canada. I can assure the hon. members of this house that the weekly newspapers are most conscious of the problems facing the agricultural people of this country. Over the years they have done a great deal to support them in their activities. I repeat that I wish the hon. member had qualified his statement. I do not want to condemn all daily newspapers, as I know there are some which appreciate and understand the problems of agriculture, but others seem more inclined to think of the high prices the city people might have to pay if agriculture received the prices it is entitled to receive.
To deal just for a moment with agriculture in Durham county, we are very proud of our agriculturists, as I have said. There may be objection to this from some quarters, but we feel that without any doubt we have the finest apples there are in Canada.


Mr. Bennett:: Pardon?

Supply-Agriculture


John Mason James: I am glad to see that the hon. member for Grey North is taking exception to that, because he made some disparaging remarks when talking about his own county's apples some time ago, and I am just handing it back to him.


An hon. Member:: What about some samples?


John Mason James: You had samples a few years ago, and I know everyone enjoyed them to the full. One of the finest proofs, if you like, that the apples we have in Durham county are of a superlative type was given at the last Royal Winter Fair, when an excellent farmer and apple grower, Wilfred Carruthers, and his son, from Bowmanville, practically swept all the top prizes at that fair in apple growing.


An hon. Member:: Conservatives.


John Mason James: I hesitate to say anything in response to someone who is injecting "Conservatives", because I am quite well aware that, in this case especially, there are good Conservative apple growers in Durham county as well.


Mr. Siuder:: The socialist apple would have a worm in it.


John Mason James: But the prize ones happen to have been grown this year by a family of good Liberals.


An hon. Member:: You mean there are good ones?


John Mason James: I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Carruthers, and his wife and son for the excellent job they did. There is another field in which Durham county has excelled for many years. It comes under the heading of the agricultural representative. Our agricultural representative is a man by the name of Ed Summers, who has been there for some 26 years now. He has done one of the most remarkable jobs I have seen or anybody else has seen. His judging teams of young farmers have swept practically all the prizes throughout Ontario and, indeed, he and his teams, especially his seed grain judging team, established a record of 26 consecutive victories in the district competition, which I believe has never been equalled, nor will it be equalled in your lifetime or mine.
I also wish to pay tribute to the many other fine farmers we have in Durham county. Some of them are doing remarkably well. Some of them are following the trend that is outlined in the Financial Post, of gradually obtaining more and more land and, in this industrialization of farming, converting their

small acreage into large operations. I believe those people are doing remarkably well and will continue to do so.
Some of the small farmers are not doing as well as one would like them to be doing. Undoubtedly there are many marginal farmers who are working hard but not getting the results from their efforts that they should. We are in a rather unique part of Canada in that we have an excellent farming community and right alongside we have the great plants of General Motors, Goodyear and so on, down through to Port Hope, where we have the Mathews Conveyer Company Limited, Nicholson File Company, Port Hope Sanitary Manufacturing Company Limited, and many other plants. Those plants have employees who are receiving excellent wages, almost top wages within Canada. It is very difficult for the farmers of my area to resist the temptation to leave their farms, being lured to the towns where those industries are paying, as I have said, top wages throughout Canada. But many of them are staying on the farms and continuing the lives their fathers and grandfathers led before them, in the hope that farming will continue to provide their livelihood for the remainder of their lives. I have one friend who went through college, came to work in Ottawa for a while in one of the departments, then returned to his father's farm and took it over. He appears to be sincerely enjoying that type of life. It is a type of living that one cannot get from the factories or in the urban communities.
As I have said, I have no apologies to make for this government's farm policy. I have seen it progress throughout the years. I have seen the great demands-what I would almost call the irresponsible demands-from the opposition benches. According to their words, those members would quite willingly give pie in the sky to everyone in Canada. They have no responsibility for carrying it out. I dare say if they were on the government benches they would not carry out one-eighth of what they have said in this house.
Fortunately in this country we have a government which is most interested in agriculture and in every other part of the economy. We have a responsible government, a government which is responsible not only to the city-dwelling taxpayers but also to the rural taxpayers, a government which is carrying out that responsibility to the best of its ability and upon the advice of the many farm organizations across Canada. We have seen from the many briefs we have received that in the main the agricultural organizations back this government's policy to the full. Certainly they want more than this government is able to do at the present time or feels it should do at the present time.

I believe that holds true for practically every member who has rural constituents and who is interested in farm policies. We too are constantly urging the government to do more, and we have the same sense of responsibility some of the opposition speakers seem to have. We would probably be on our feet screaming our heads off about how dreadful conditions are on our farms and how poor those farmers are, and screaming to high heaven for parity prices-120 per cent parity prices, if you like-


Hazen Robert Argue: That would not be parity.


John Mason James: You would not take 120? I am glad to hear that. They have had 90 and 75, and it is very difficult to know just where they end. However, as I have said, we Liberals too are most interested in the farm policies of Canada. We are most interested in farmers and in their welfare-


Mr. Fleming:: And their votes.


John Mason James: -and we are constantly urging the government to take further steps along these lines. We have seen at least two improvements this session, with the extension of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the extension in the general farm loan legislation. I feel quite certain that this improvement is going to continue until we have agriculture at the level where the government thinks it should be and the farmers throughout this country feel it should be.
I was most interested again in the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia, who has a very peculiar concept of what should be done in Canada. He seems to feel, as indeed some farm organizations and some farmers throughout Canada seem to feel, that there is only one way to lick the problem of farm surpluses and other problems of the farm economy, and that is for farmers throughout Canada to join with labour and form a great pressure group which could automatically elect a complete government of labour and farm people which would automatically do everything for labour and the farmers. If you follow his thinking far enough, it would do nothing for anybody else.
I cannot quite see the day coming when that kind of pressure politics would be accepted as a normal thing in our Canadian political system, and I hope it never happens. We represent the people of our areas here as best we know how and we shall continue to do so. I am quite confident that the government will remain in office on the strength of the votes of farmers who will support the policies that have been enacted over the years and that will be enacted for their benefit on a responsible basis in future years.
Supply-Agriculture
I was most interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia when he quoted Dr. Hope, the economist of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as saying that this government was doing less than any other government in the world for its farmers. Peculiarly enough I had read an article by Dr. Hope some time earlier, at one of the federation of agriculture meetings I have attended over the years. The article is to be found in the January issue of The Country Guide. This well known economist made a very good survey of the problem of the squeeze on farmers. I should like to read a part of what he said, which shows quite definitely that Dr. Hope, as an economist with considerable knowledge of this problem and with no political bias, shall we say, did not blame the situation of the farmers on the federal government of Canada as so many speakers have done tonight. Dr. Hope, who should and I believe does know his subject, and who is also more interested in the farmers than possibly most people here, had this to say:
International trade in farm products, which rose steadily from 1946 to 1951, has now levelled off and is not increasing. Countries which, a few years ago, needed to import large quantities of food products, are now requiring less or, in some cases, have even become large exporters of some products. Examples of the latter are France and Turkey, which are now net exporters of wheat. This drying up of export demand from countries outside of North America has seriously affected the export trade in farm products for Canada and the United States . . .
In this article, Dr. Hope goes on to say that one of the main reasons for the decline in farm income from 1951 onward is the very point made in the quotation I have read, the surplus of agricultural products throughout the world, including Canada and the United States. If you accept Dr. Hope's opinion on the one score, surely you will be willing to accept his opinion on the other.
May I say again to hon. members and to my constituents back home that I shall continue my efforts while in the house to have done for the farm economy of Canada everything I feel can responsibly be done. I will also bring every effort to bear on the cabinet if I feel they are not doing enough, and will bring that same effort to bear in encouraging them to continue the policies-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which policy?


John Mason James: -they have followed for many years and to improve-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which policy?


John Mason James: -as we go on the policies of this government and the Liberal party throughout Canada. I am sure that in the end the farmers will fare far better than

Supply-Agriculture
they would if they entrusted their luck to the peculiar sense of responsibility evidenced by the Conservative, C.C.F., or Social Credit parties in this house.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Durham. He spoke of the great apple growing industry in his constituency and I am sure it is every bit as good as he says it is. I do not know whether he is an apple grower himself, but he surely qualifies as an apple polisher. He did a splendid job tonight.
I was rather intrigued with his argument that agriculture is well off under present Liberal policy, but I think a cold, unemotional look at the statistics is perhaps more indicative than the kind of speech we have just heard. When we look at the statistics and find that the almost 20 per cent of the Canadian population engaged in agriculture last year received less than 7 per cent of the national income, then I am afraid my hon. friend will have to revise some of his opinions with regard to the prosperity of agriculture generally.
However, it is not my intention to follow the line he has taken. I want to refer this evening to a few matters that come under the administration of the Department of Agriculture and try to get answers to some of the questions we have been asking for a number of sessions. I wish to begin with one of the acts administered by the department, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. My colleague the hon. member for Selkirk has on many occasions brought up in the house the problem of the application of that act as it affects his constituency, and there are many other areas in the province of Manitoba which are similarly affected.
At this time I should like to make a plea to the parliamentary assistant, who is piloting these estimates through, and to the government generally to have a second look at the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In the speech from the throne at the beginning of the session we were advised that amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would be coming forward this session. Later in the session, in reply to a question from this side of the house, the Minister of Agriculture stated that the government had changed their minds and that there would be no amendments to the act during this session. I am hoping they will change their minds again, because if we have crop losses in the prairie provinces on the same scale or anything approaching the scale of 1955 we are going to find that the act will

again be a most inadequate instrument to compensate the farmers for the losses they will suffer.
There are a number of things wrong with the act, and I should like to point out three of them. First of all there is the question of picking out eligible blocks. We know it has been difficult enough to qualify under the act at any time. A few years ago an amendment was passed by parliament making an eligible block an irregular block, that is making it permissible to attach parts of townships to an eligible block regardless of whether they were rectangular or any other shape. That went a long way toward ironing out some of the injustices which had occurred under the act in previous years.
Later, I believe it was two years ago, the government saw fit to amend the act to do away with the irregular block and return to the rectangular block again. Since that time we have again had the experience of some farmers in a township who have had a total crop loss not being able to qualify because there were farmers living near them who had had a fair crop of wheat; and because it is not possible now to attach blocks of sections to the rectangular block they find themselves left out of the act entirely. That is something that must be changed if we are to bring about any kind of justice under that act, particularly in the province of Manitoba.
There is another matter, and that is the part of the act which now denies the benefits of the act to any person who is farming land which he purchased from the provincial government after January 1, 1940, with the exception, of course, of V.L.A. land. There are many farmers in the province of Manitoba, particularly in the northern parts of it which developed rapidly after 1940, who purchased land from the government of Manitoba. This land is quite suitable for growing grain.
These farmers are obliged to pay a levy of 1 per cent on every bushel of grain they market. It is deducted from their grain ticket when they deliver to the elevator; it is not a matter of choice. It is a tax which they are obliged to pay. That money goes into the prairie farm assistance fund. Then after a number of years, after having paid perhaps $2,000 into the fund, when these farmers suffer a crop loss and make application for prairie farm assistance, they are told that under the act, since their land was purchased after January 1, 1940 and it is not V.L.A. land, they are not eligible for prairie farm assistance.

That is a distinct injustice. It is a distinct discrimination. Under any form of crop insurance scheme a thing like that simply could not occur. We know that under any crcp insurance scheme, if a person pays his premium he becomes eligible for compensation in case of loss. That is a fundamental principle of insurance. But under this legislation the government has taken unto itself the right to levy a tax of 1 per cent on every bushel of grain the farmer sells and then to tell him, after he has paid this levy for five, six or ten years, that he is not eligible to collect anything from this fund. It is a one-way street as far as they are concerned. That is another injustice which must be ironed out. It is becoming a major problem in many parts of Manitoba, and many farmers feel strongly on that point.
Those are two of the items that need straightening out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We would have expected that some action would be taken during the present session of parliament. However, we have been informed by the minister that he has changed his mind and no amendments will be brought down. I hope he will take a second look.
While I am dealing with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act I also want to say this. In the prairie provinces, particularly in the province of Manitoba, which under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has had the experience of having paid into the fund almost three times as much as it has received from it, there is a growing feeling that some other form of insurance is required. But even in the other provinces which we have, percentagewise, fared a little bit better under this act there is growing up a strong demand for some form of crop insurance.
Only two years ago in Manitoba, and earlier than that in the province of Saskatchewan investigations were made into the feasibility of setting up a crop insurance scheme on a provincial basis. The reports of the commissions in both provinces have raised some doubts whether it would be financially possible for a province to underwrite a crop insurance scheme on its own. I think the time is going to come-and it may have to be very soon- when the federal government will have to sit down with the representatives of the three prairie provinces and work out a sound, feasible financial arrangement under which a crop insurance scheme covering the three prairie provinces could be set up in order that every farmer who pays his premium under such a scheme would become eligible for
Supply-Agriculture
compensation in case of crop loss. That is something with regard to which the federal government should take some initiative.
I also want to refer to another act which comes under the Department of Agriculture. I refer to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. At the beginning of this session I had placed on the order paper a resolution calling for the expansion of the present Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into a sort of Canadian rehabilitation act which would cover all agricultural areas in Canada. We on the prairies are conscious of the fact that there are many other parts of Canada outside the prairie provinces that have problems of reclamation, conservation and drainage, and that there should be something under which these projects could be undertaken.
I want to deal particularly with what are referred to in the estimates as the special projects. These are the projects which are carried out by prairie farm rehabilitation personnel and management but which do not come directly under the terms of the act. They are carried out under a special vote of this parliament. We have had a number of these special projects in the province of Manitoba, and a good part of the work was done in the constituency of Dauphin.
This spring we were greatly disappointed to find that the federal government is backing down or backing away from even the inadequate position it had taken some years ago with regard to these special projects. Until recently the arrangement that had been made was that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the cost of these special projects having to do with flood control and that the province would share the other 50 per cent with the municipalities. In practice it worked out that, at the beginning, the federal government paid 50 per cent of the cost plus the costs of surveying and engineering, which were carried out by P.F.R.A. personnel and the province paid approximately two-thirds of the other 50 per cent. That left about one-sixth of the cost for the municipalities concerned. Even under that system, and even though a great deal of valuable work was done, it was a heavy burden on the municipalities. In most cases the municipalities which needed these special flood control projects most were least able to pay their part of the cost.
Mr. Chairman, I note that it is ten o'clock.
Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the estimates of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Justice.


Mr. Green:: I did not hear the second one.


Walter Edward Harris: Justice.


Howard Charles Green: You are not taking transport tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister in a position to tell us the program for the first part of next week?


Walter Edward Harris: On Monday I think we will start with the bill to amend the Judges Act, which is on the order paper, but I am not sure what follows after that.


George Alexander Drew: No decision yet.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How much has been expended by the federal government each year since 1950, on flood control measures on the Assiniboine river?
2.	What has been the nature of these flood control measures in each year since 1950?
3.	Have any expenditures been made by way of implementation of (a) the Russell reservoir; (b) the Portage cut-off, as recommended in the P.F.R.A. report of December, 1952?
Answer by:	Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner
(Minister of Agriculture):
1.	1951-52	
$ 68,410.011952-	53	
49,991.321953-	54	
99,989.431954-	55	
69,154.051955-	56 at March 1 . .	140,839.232.	Diking and cut-offs.3.	No. The P.F.R.A. report of December, 1952, merely sets out the findings of the investigations made with respect to possible conservation and flood control measures which might be undertaken along the Assiniboine river, and is a part of the over-all investigations made for flood control in the Red river basin with particular reference to the greater Winnipeg area.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-FILM AWARDS
Mr. Mitchell (Sudbury): 1.	Have any of the films of the Department of National Health and Welfare ever won awards?
2.	If so, which films have won what awards?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1. Yes. A number of the department's films have won high awards, mostly of an
Questions
international nature. The awards were made by panels of recognized experts in the film making, medical and educational fields.
2. "Drug Addict"-First, non-theatrical class-First Canadian film awards, 1949.
"Challenge:	Science Against Cancer"
(French version)-First, international film festival, Venice, 1950.
"Teeth are to Keep" (French version)- Award, international film festival, Venice, 1950.
"Why Won't Tommy Eat"-Awarded place on "Ten Best Sellers" list of nutrition films for the U.S.A., 1951.
"Folie a Deux"-which demonstrates certain manifestations of various mental disorders. Received first place in the mental hygiene class at the 12th international film festival in Venice in 1951.
"Shyness"-which deals with abnormal shyness in children-judged the best 16 millimetre film at the sixth annual film festival, Cleveland, Ohio, in 1953. Was awarded a first at the Canadian film awards in 1953. Received the second award prize in the adult education section, at the fourth annual film festival at Boston in 1954.
"Frustrating Fours and Fascinating Fives" -a mental health film in the well-known "Ages and Stages" series-Award, Boston, 1953; Award, golden reel film festival of the American film assembly, 1954.
"The Homeless One"-a civil defence welfare film-Honourable mention, Canadian film awards, 1955.
"To Serve the Mind"-dealing with present day facilities for the treatment of mental health-Award, health and hygiene class, golden reel festival of the American film assembly, Chicago, 1956.

Friday, May 4, 1956


BANKING AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hunter.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has received assurance from Mr. Frank McMahon that he has $50 minion of equity capital now available to proceed with the pipe line to Montreal and that he is prepared to deposit an adequate bond to guarantee the completion of the pipe line as far as Montreal by 1958?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have no knowledge of any such communication. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce might give a further reply.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have received no communication of the type indicated but I have been in touch with Mr. McMahon within the last few minutes, and he has agreed to allow me to remove the "private and confidential" from his letters. As soon as the necessary copies can be made I propose to table the correspondence I have had with him during this year.
ILater:1


TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN COST
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he will inform the house whether the government has approached Premier Manning of Alberta, Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan and Premier Campbell of Manitoba in regard to the possibility of their sharing in part of the additional financing that the government is considering in extending the pipe line through western Canada?


FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1954-55 WHEAT-INITIAL PAYMENT ON GRAIN FOR 1956-57
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I have given him previous notice, hoping he could, if possible, answer it today.
Is the minister in a position to announce the final payment on wheat through the wheat board for the 1954-55 crop year? Can he also inform us what the initial payment on grain will be during the new 1956-57 crop year?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, having received notice of the question I have been able to get certain information and can make a statement to the house concerning three aspects of the western grain marketing situation: one, the final payment on the 1954-55 wheat pool account; two, the policy of the wheat board with respect to delivery quotas during the remainder of the present crop year; three, initial prices for wheat, oats and barley during the crop year which begins August 1 next.
Dealing first with the final payment covering the 1954-55 pool account wheat, I am pleased to be able to advise the house that the Canadian wheat board propose making a cut-off as at May 4, tomorrow, and are recommending to the government a transfer of the unsold stocks, approximately 50 million bushels in amount, to the 1955-56 pool account as at that date. This action will enable the board to close out the 1954-55 pool account.
Total receipts of wheat from producers in this pool amounted to 318,439,061 bushels plus 615,839 bushels purchased from other than producers and 164,055,511 bushels transferred from 1953-54 pool account, a total of 483,110,411 bushels.
As soon as the board's accounts have been completed, I shall be in a position to announce to the house the exact amount of the final payment and the rate per bushel for each grade of grain delivered to the pool. I expect to be in a position to make this announcement about the middle of this month. According

Inquiries of the Ministry to present plans, the wheat board will begin issuing cheques to producers on or about May 22 or 23 and will have completed this final payment about the end of this month of May.
I turn now to policy with respect to delivery quotas at country points. A very heavy movement of wheat and other grain into and out of country elevators is now under way. Deliveries by farmers will increase as road conditions improve and will continue at a high level during the balance of the current crop year. The movement of grain to seaboard is also very heavy. Our export clearances are now reflecting heavy sales commitments entered into in recent months, about which I have previously informed the house. I am not yet in a position to put a firm estimate on export clearances for the whole of the crop year but I can assure hon. members that wheat and flour export clearances will substantially exceed last year's figure of about 252 million bushels.
As a result of this heavy outward movement, the wheat board has been able to increase its grain delivery quotas very substantially in recent weeks. As at May 1 only 14 stations remained on a quota of 1 bushel per specified acre. A 2-bushel quota is in effect at 478 stations. Some 572 stations have a 3-bushel quota, 602 stations a 4-bushel quota and 400 stations a 5-bushel quota. In addition to these basic quotas, supplementary quotas are in effect covering delivery of malting barley, high grade oats, rye and various classes of seed grain. Since the beginning of the season an open quota has been in effect covering the delivery of Durum wheat and flaxseed.
Total grain deliveries since August 1 are now about 300 million bushels and the Canadian wheat board expects that space will be provided at country elevators to enable total farm deliveries * of about 500 million bushels during the crop year. It is expected that wheat deliveries for the whole of the present crop year will exceed 1954-55 but that deliveries of oats and barley will fall somewhat short of last year's figure.
I have, been advised by the board that although they expect that they will be in a position to accept delivery from producers of as much grain as in 1954-55, it may not be possible for them to arrange to equalize deliveries by individual farmers to the extent that this was arranged for during the past two crop years. Hon. members may remember that during last crop year the board endeavoured to provide delivery opportunities to enable all producers to deliver a minimum quota of eight bushels per specified acre. This looked like a feasible target.


However, estimates of potential deliveries at many delivery stations proved to be wide of the mark, and it was not possible for the board to accept all the eight-bushel deliveries prior to July 31. It therefore became necessary for the board to issue special 1955-56 quota delivery permits to enable producers who had not delivered their eight-bushel quota prior to July 31 to complete these deliveries along with new quota deliveries during the current season.
It is always the aim of the board to equalize delivery opportunities in so far as this is possible. The board has advised me, however, that last year the attempt to reach a uniform target did have an adverse effect upon the marketing of Canadian grain in export markets. Much of the grain delivered last fall against the previous year's quota and moved to terminal positions was made up of varieties and grades not needed for immediate marketing requirements. This grain added to the congestion in storage facilities and utilized scarce transportation, thus creating difficulties for the board in moving to seaboard position for immediate clearance those varieties and grades of new crop grain for which there was an immediate and urgent demand.
In the light of this experience the Canadian wheat board have advised me that, if they are to meet market requirements and their forward sales commitments, it may not be possible to attain a uniform quota at all delivery stations during the present crop year.
The primary objective of the board will be to bring forward grain to cover sales commitments or for which there appears to be a ready demand. The board will, however, working with the transport controller, the elevator companies and the railways, continue to endeavour to achieve as high a degree of equality of delivery opportunity as is possible without interfering with the sales objective. The board will increase delivery quotas at individual stations as space is created, but will restrict shipments of grain from higher quota stations to the movement of grain required to meet commitments. In order to avoid the serious situation that arose last year, the wheat board has decided that all quotas in effect as at July 31, 1956, will expire as at that date and deliveries after August 1 will apply against the 1956-57 crop year quotas which will be made effective on August 1.
Although this wheat quota policy may result in some producers in western Canada, at the end of the current crop year, having delivered more grain per specified acre than others, there should be general agreement

that, at a time of intense international competition, the Canadian wheat board must have freedom to give preference to deliveries of the varieties and grades of grain for which there is an immediate demand and that the board cannot afford to pass up market opportunities in an endeavour to equalize farm deliveries between producers.
At this time, I also wish to announce to the house that the government has approved initial prices to be paid by the Canadian wheat board on the basic grades of wheat, oats and barley for the crop year beginning August 1, 1956, at the same level as during the present crop year. These initial prices are as follows:
Wheat-$1.40 per bushel basis No. 1 Manitoba Northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
Oats-65 cents per bushel No. 2 Canada Western in store Fort William/Port Arthur.
Barley-96 cents per bushel basis No. 3 Canada Western six-row in store Fort William/Port Arthur.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is in position to say whether the storage payments the government is now making will result in total payments for wheat for 1954 being as high as in the previous year. In other words, will the final payments be as high as last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be able to announce that to the house in about two weeks.
[Later: 1
On the orders of the day:


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce another question. Could the minister say how high the minimum delivery quotas will be made by the end of July and whether the government will consider declaring delivery points open so that the grave discrimination that will flow from unequal delivery quotas may be kept to a minimum?


An hon. Member:: You are never satisfied.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I ventured to predict deliveries under quota last year and, because we could not attain my forecast within the crop period, I have heard about it at least eight times from my hon. friend. So I shall make no further predictions.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the press report by Gerald Waring that
Inquiries of the Ministry loans by the chartered banks for new housing are down by about 30 per cent this year compared to what they were at this time last year, is the government considering expanding its activities in the field of direct loans for housing construction?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not seen the report by Mr. Waring but, as the hon. member knows, these are matters of policy, and decisions are communicated to the house only after they are taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Is he aware of the report that the decline in lending by chartered banks for housing construction arises from the advice of the central bank to the chartered banks to reduce their lending?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: I should like to answer another question raised by the hon. member yesterday in regard to the rates of pay for women cleaners in Winnipeg. The rates for women cleaners are established by the treasury board on the basis of local surveys conducted by the Department of Labour in various localities.
The Department of Public Works requested a review of the rate for women cleaners in Winnipeg in September, 1955, and the report in November following completion of an extensive survey indicated that no change was warranted at that time. The rates are under constant study and would normally be reviewed again in June.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Yesterday the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) asked whether I could give the house any information as to what steps had been taken to alleviate the storage situation for private plane operators in the Ottawa area. I would reply by saying that the matter has been discussed with aircraft owners and operators in the Ottawa area, including the Ottawa flying club, but no decision in the matter has been reached.

Supply-Agriculture SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1. Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services), $670,015.


Hayden Stanton: In taking part in the debate on the agriculture estimates, it is not my intention to take up too much time, and I do not believe I shall take my full allotted time of 30 minutes. Nor shall I give what might be termed a statistical address, offering a multitude of figures that I know few people care to listen to and even fewer people care to read. I shall leave that to the Minister of Agriculture, who is a past master in the art of conglomerating and twisting figures and statistics to suit the immediate occasion. Nobody knows what they are all about; perhaps not even the minister. It all simmers down to a little bit of addition here and a little bit of subtraction there with even some multiplication and division thrown in, and I am sure that in order to make the farmers appear better off than they ever have been he must have used much more addition than subtraction. We have been told of meetings held across western Canada in protest against the government's wheat policy. On reviewing the proceedings and statements made by different members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at their meeting in Hamilton one sees that the same thing could very easily happen in eastern Canada. I should like to quote a few extracts from what was said at that meeting. In the Rural Co-operator of January 31, 1956 I find the following:
The federal minister of agriculture is trying to "make fools out of the farmers of this country'', D. E. Stauffer, a past president of United Cooperatives of Ontario, told the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Hamilton on January 25. Mr. Stauffer urged the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to protest strongly the misleading impressions of farm prosperity given by published reports of a January 23 speech of the Canadian Minister of Agriculture.
Again I quote:
The C.F.A. annual meeting on January 26 approved a statement noting "with regret" that the minister's comparison of cash and net farm income for the most recent five year periods "while technically correct tends to leave an erroneous impression with the public."
I quote further:
"How long is Mr. Gardiner going to be allowed to get away with this kind of thing", Mr. Stauffer asked. "A whole year's work is thrown away when the minister gives statements like that to the press. He does it every year before the C.F.A. meeting, and it's got to stop."

Eastern members have listened very attentively and, I may say, with a great deal of interest and sympathy to the debate with relation to the difficulties of the prairie farmers which has taken up much of the time of the house since January 10. After listening to the debate yesterday on the distribution of box cars I am beginning to wonder whether there has not been a word spoken in the house for every grain of surplus wheat there is in the western provinces.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could have a little order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It is very difficult to hear the hon. member. At the same time, if he did not refer so extensively to his notes perhaps he might himself command a little better order in the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That is a fine bunch to be applauding.


Hayden Stanton: I am referring to notes and I have noticed that many hon. members on the other side of the house, especially the cabinet ministers on the front bench, refer to notes all the time.


An hon. Member:: They read their entire speeches.


Hayden Stanton: We fully appreciate the fact that many hundreds of farmers in the three prairie provinces are experiencing very difficult times. It is no secret, it is a known fact to everyone that the whole economy of the west depends on the prosperity of those living in the rural districts and their ability to dispose of their wheat or at least to deliver a sizeable quantity of their crop to the elevator.
From listening to different members and looking over reports concerning the prairies we know that there are many millions of bushels of wheat still on the farm and that many hundreds of farmers have received very little and in some cases no cash for their crop for a year or more. Is it any wonder that the farmers are not only asking for but demanding, although in vain, cash advances on farm stored grain? I admit that guaranteed bank loans will be of some help. That is why we the official opposition supported the resolution; but it will not solve the financial difficulty and stress that many producers find themselves in at the present time. The wheat they have in storage on their farms is in fact equivalent to their hard-earned dollars of the past year, and in some instances for a longer period. No wonder they object to paying interest on

their own money. I have been in communication with many western wheat growers and they seem to be all of the same opinion, regardless of their political affiliations, namely that the wheat board should advance them cash on the grain stored on their farms.
While western agriculturists at the present time are subjected to all this difficulty, that is not saying that everything in eastern Canada is rosy; not by any means. The farmer in eastern Canada-and I have in mind now the dairy farmer-has his many problems owing to reduced revenue and rising cost. The dairy farmers in eastern Canada would and could feed many millions of bushels of western grain if they could get for their milk products a remuneration comparable to the cost of grain they buy. Every farmer is well aware of the fact that if he purchases feed grain at $3 per hundred, which is the price in the east at present, and has been for quite some time, he must receive the same price per hundred for his milk in order to make it profitable for him to purchase. Today the farmer who is producing milk for butter, evaporated or powdered milk or cheese receives from $2 to $2.40 per hundred net. Hence it is utterly impossible for him to buy grain at $3 per hundred and receive an average of approximately $2.25 for his products.
At this time I should like to give some statistics with regard to the price paid in one of the three concentrated milk plants in my own county in order to show the committee the difference in price of milk at the present time as compared with that in 1951. In 1951 the top price in this one particular milk plant was $3.25 per hundred with a low price of $3.15. I am taking the lowest price paid that year. In 1952 the price dropped to $2.75 or a drop of 40 cents per hundred. In 1953 the price dropped again to $2.33 per hundred or a net drop of 82 cents from 1951. In 1954 the price dropped to $2.34 per hundred or a net drop of 81 cents from 1951. In 1955 the price was $2.43 or a drop of 72 cents from 1951.
Taking into consideration the total number of pounds of milk shipped to this milk plant in those four years, the net loss to the shippers to that plant was $1,322,653 or a net loss per year of an average of $330,000.
In my county we have three milk plants of practically comparable size. Therefore the loss to the dairy farmer in Leeds county, or its borders, in the three milk plants is $1 million per year. Cheese also is an important product in my county, as well as in other parts of eastern Canada-as you know, eastern Ontario has the banner cheese-producing county in Canada, Things are not altogether 67509-224
Supply-Agriculture
rosy for the cheese producer either. In 1951 the average price for cheese milk was $2.74 per hundred. In 1952 it was $2.16; in 1953, $2.14; and in 1954, $2.20. When you take into consideration the amount of milk that is purchased in Ontario to make cheese you will see that the loss in those four years was $3,625,200 annually. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that proves conclusively to me that there has been a reduction in the purchasing power of the dairy farmers of Ontario, particularly of eastern Ontario.
I say to my western friends, if we in the east were to receive a fair and comparable price for our produce we could take care of many, many millions of your western grain surplus. In fact, we would have to increase the grain rations to our herds of cattle by an average of only three or four bushels a day for each farm to take care of a least 50 million bushels of your surplus. I have heard many farmers make the statement that they would like to feed their cattle, especially the dairy cows, more grain but they could not afford to purchase it.
Few people who have not had the experience can visualize the overhead cost of a dairy farmer. He must provide storage for his hay, grain and silage and stables for his cattle. The cost is terrific and now that farm labour is so scarce he must have his farm well-equipped with machinery, not only seeding and harvesting equipment but very expensive machinery for his forage crops such as hay and corn. This runs into many thousands of dollars.
If a young professional man, or a man working in industry at a fair salary or wage, wants to build or purchase himself a house he can get a loan from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation up to 90 per cent of the value, but if a young man wants to purchase a farm he can get a loan of only 60 per cent of the value from the farm loan board. Why is this? Why the discrimination? It must be that the government thinks the earning power of the man in business, or the man who works in industrial plants, is greater and more secure than that of the man on the farm. If this is so, it is about time they gave some consideration to the needs of agriculture so that the earning power of the farmer will be equal to that of people in other walks of life.
A young man may buy a farm now with the ordinary down payment, and by the time he gets it stocked with cattle and equipped with the necessary implements and before the mortgage is discharged, he has paid the equivalent of the amount of the mortgage two or three times in interest and, in many instances, at his death he is compelled to leave a portion of the mortgage for his son

Supply-Agriculture
to finish paying. That has happened quite often. Is it any wonder that the farmers' sons are not staying at home to carry on where their fathers leave off? I hope the time will not come when it will be the survival of the largest. Surely there is a place in our rural districts for small-sized family farms; but I am afraid they are fast disappearing. Why? Because the farmer and his son or help, whichever it may be, on the ordinary farm cannot make his revenue meet his expenses.
Farmers to the number of 205,000 filed income tax returns for 1953 showing an average net income of $2,125. Of this number,
135,000	with an average income of only $1,244 were not taxable. Those who do file income tax returns are the largest and most successful farmers, and yet they earn only an average income of $2,125. But that is not all. We must realize that it is not the farmer or the head of the house, who earns this income; it is the earnings of the whole family, his wife and family combined. I think it is high time that the farmer's wife, who works long hours on the farm and helps her husband and looks after the family, should be allowed $250 as an exemption in income tax as are other wives who work in offices, shops or factories.
Then, there is the smaller farmer, his wife and family, who are earning an average of only $1,244 or less. A man who is slightly handy can go down town and buy himself a hammer, a saw and an old rusty square and earn far more as a carpenter's helper, working only eight hours a day, five days a week, than he can on the farm at the present time.
Whenever the Minister of Agriculture speaks he always averages the years 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955. He is very careful not to present the economic picture of the last three years when the net farm income declined around 60 per cent. I have a machine price list in my hand. In 1941 a binder could be purchased for $253.50. At the present time anybody who has had anything to do with farming and with farm machinery knows that the price has more than doubled. At the present time we pay $550 for a binder. There has been an increase from $253.50 in 1941 to $550 at the present time. That goes for all. kinds of machinery that the farmer must buy to carry on his farming activities. It is not so much the number of dollars a farmer owns, it is the purchasing power of those dollars that count.
In 1901 the farm population was 45 per cent of the total population. In 1951 it was only 19 per cent. But the lamentable part
[Mr. Stanton.1
of the story is that 19 per cent of our population today is receiving only 6-8 per cent of our gross national income, which is out of all proportion. In fact, from 1951 to 1954 the farmer's share of the gross national income has dropped from 13-6 per cent to 6-8 per cent, and still the minister has the audacity to tell the house and every public meeting that he addresses that there is nothing wrong with agriculture.
There were more unpaid taxes in the rural municipalities of eastern Ontario in 1955 than there had been for many years, and I presume that is true of all farming districts of Canada. Also, many grocery and hardware stores in the rural villages are going on a cash basis, which is a very good criterion of the diminishing purchasing power of the farmers.
It has been so long since eastern Canada has had a minister of agriculture that we in the east are beginning to wonder whether the minister is of the opinion that there are no farmers in the east at all. I believe we have not had a minister of agriculture in eastern Canada since 1911. If the Conservative party does not appoint one from eastern Canada after the next election-surely we are entitled to one in every 50 years-they will certainly hear from me.
The heads of the different agricultural associations have been doing a wonderful job in creating better public relations between the urban and rural districts. They have gone a long way in dispelling the suspicion that the farmer was getting too much for his products. Now the minister runs around telling how well off the farmers are, how much better off they are now than they were years ago. He does more harm in one of his speeches that is broadcast on the radio and printed in the press than the public relations association can rectify in a whole year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And he does it just about once a week.


Hayden Stanton: Mr. Chairman, in my constituency we have a very large turkey industry at the present time although I would not say it is thriving because we do not have ample protection for poultry, especially turkeys. If the duty were sufficient to protect the turkey growers in Canada, it would expand into one of the great industries of this country, consuming much of the surplus grain that the prairies have at the present time.
In 1954, Canada imported over 5 million pounds of turkey from the United States; in 1955 she imported double that, or 10 million pounds. Now, what do we have in 1956? Up until February 11, the market report shows imports of 422,000 pounds, and for the same period in 1955 it was 96,000 pounds.

The official prediction from the United States department of agriculture is for an increase of 6 per cent in turkeys raised this year. With the Canadian tariff as it is, at 124 per cent ad valorem, if there were a break in the United States market owing to the tremendous amount of turkeys being raised this year the duty might well drop to three or four cents per pound.
I think that the turkey growers, of whom there are now a considerable number in Leeds county-and there will be more if they are adequately protected-are not asking for too much when they suggest that the tariff should be 12i per cent ad valorem, but not less than five cents per pound.
Under the present tariff, turkeys may come into Canada at a very low tariff when the price is lowest in the United States, and this may have a very damaging effect on our market here. The farmers are reasonable when they ask for protection only comparable to other industries in Canada. This they must have, if they are going to survive and play their part in expanding this country in the next fifty years, making it the great nation that we all visualize.
It is time the government woke up to the fact and admitted that all is not well with our basic industry. It is time it realized that there should be more equality in the distribution of our gross national income. Surely the government must realize that much of our present industrial prosperity can be attributed to credit buying. Without a very strong agricultural economy, I hesitate to imagine where this whole Canadian economy may drift.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make on item No. 1 of the agriculture estimates and though I think my remarks will primarily be of interest to hon. members from the province of Ontario some of the topics which I discuss will no doubt be of interest to all the farmers in Canada.
The first suggestion I would like to make to the Minister of Agriculture would be that he broaden the broadcasts which occur at the luncheon and dinner hours regarding the marketing of livestock on the Toronto stock exchange. The reason for this is that the beef producers of Wellington county have sent a resolution to me asking not only that the price be given but that the number of beasts which are sold at that price be recorded. This would give the farmers some idea of the quantity of stock that is being handled and at what price that stock is being sold.
I feel there is great merit in this recommendation. I realize that these broadcasts are not paid for by our government but are handled as a news item, but I believe that the
67509-224J
Supply-Agriculture
department does furnish the various radio stations with this information.
The second point I have been asked to bring to the attention of the minister is that truckers are presently required to have their trucks disinfected after delivering stock to the stockyards. This requires that the trucks be washed. Many of the truckers buy cattle at the stockyards and on the return trip transport them back to the various farmers who require feeders. After they have been washed, the bottoms of the trucks are very slippery. Although I realize it is not the responsibility of the dominion government to look after the stockyards it might recommend to the provincial government that some sand be made available to the farmers which they could throw into the bottom of the trucks in order that they would not be slippery after the disinfecting process. Again this seems like a reasonable request to me, and I submit both problems to the minister.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, on a question
of privilege, I wonder if Your Honour will consider the effect of a situation in which there is no minister of the crown in a position to speak on behalf of the government. I understand that our system calls for a minister of the crown to be present in the house and to be able to speak on behalf of the government at any time during a debate in this house, and there is no minister present at this time.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Chairman, I am quite
sure that a minister will be here in a minute or two and if I may I shall carry on.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it would be a
courtesy if Your Honour would give a ruling on the question that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


William Alfred Robinson: I am unaware of any rule or citation which requires the presence of any particular members in the house at any particular time so long as there is a quorum in the house. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will be kind enough to direct my attention to the rule or citation which he had in mind when he raised this alleged question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that it is part of the tradition of parliament that there shall be someone in a position to speak on behalf of the government at any time in the house. Under our system of collective government responsibility any minister of the crown can speak on behalf of the government and does so on behalf of the whole government.	* <[DOT]
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that no rule or reference is necessary to emphasize the fact
3522	HOUSE OF
* Supply-Agriculture
that our parliamentary system cannot function effectively and properly unless there is a minister of the crown present.
Since I raised the point one minister of the crown has entered the house; therefore the point does not need to be dealt with of necessity. But I would ask Your Honour to consider the point I have raised and express your opinion at an appropriate time as to whether it is proper under our system of responsible government, in which the government is responsible through some minister for what may arise at any time, to be conducting a debate when no minister of the crown is present.


William Alfred Robinson: I shall be very glad to consider the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I might immediately point out to him, however, that in the appointment of parliamentary assistants I understand that the assistant to a minister is so appointed to assist the minister of the crown in such manner and to such extent as the minister may determine, and to represent his department in the House of Commons in the absence of the minister. I make that comment immediately, but I shall be glad to take the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition under advisement.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, since you are taking it under advisement and have raised a question with regard to parliamentary assistants, I would point out that the presence of a parliamentary assistant has nothing to do with the point raised. Our system of the responsibility of the government implies the joint responsibility of all ministers and the capacity of a minister of the crown who is under a special oath in relation to that office to be able to speak on behalf of the whole government. That is where our system of government is clearly distinguished from that of the United States or from similar systems. Our system calls for the possibility of an answer by some minister capable of speaking on behalf of the government collectively.
The parliamentary assistant has certain duties and can speak in connection with certain limited matters on behalf of the minister to whom he has been appointed as assistant, but he is not sworn to the privy council and certainly is not in a position under any circumstances where he can speak with responsibility and authority on behalf of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I was in my office for a little while getting some information in case someone would ask some questions that had to do with what is before the committee at the present time. When I went out

the hon. member who was speaking was not dealing with my estimates at all and under the rules of this house he really should not have been allowed to continue.
There is nothing before the house at the moment as the house is in committee. I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that when the house is sitting there should always be a minister present, and there should be a minister here while the house is in committee but not for the reason mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition.
There is only one thing under consideration, the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. The only questions which can be asked properly while the house is in committee on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are questions related to those estimates. My assistant who is sitting beside me is quite capable of answering any question which any member of the opposition may be asking in the same manner as I would answer it, or perhaps in many respects much more effectively than I could do it.


George Alexander Drew: I think there would be agreement on that.


James Garfield Gardiner: There would be agreement that probably my hon. friend has more difficulty in putting up with the answers he gets from me than he would with the answers from most people, but that is the answer which the opposition is called upon to put up with. When the members of the opposition ask questions, they get answers which sometimes suit them and which sometimes do not. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that if he or any member of the official opposition has any question to ask about anything my assistant is quite capable of answering it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, since the matter is under consideration and under advisement I would point out that the remarks of the right hon. minister have no bearing whatever on the point raised. I am quite sure that there would be many who would agree that there are a number of hon. members who are not sworn to the privy council who would be infinitely better in the position of Minister of Agriculture. But that is not the point. The point is that our system provides for the possibility of a question being asked at any time which may call for an answer from the government. Whoever the minister may be,
I submit that while the house is sitting with the Speaker in the chair, or in committee, a minister should be present and be in a position to speak on behalf of the government. I merely raised the point that no minister was present. We welcome the return of the Minister of Agriculture but that does not in any way change the point that I have raised.
fMr. Drew.l


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, just in reply to what the Leader of the Opposition has just said, I can assure my hon. friend that there are other members in this house, particularly on this side, who would do just as well in the position I am occupying, and I can assure my hon. friend that there are many members of his own group, although that group is not very large, who could fill his position much better than he fills it.


George Alexander Drew: That is the type of cheap and tawdry remark we might expect from you.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just as cheap as yours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since you are going to study the point may I ask you to give consideration to a couple of citations which may have a bearing on the matter. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly right when he said that by custom at any rate there should always be a minister of the crown in the house. I think it is always accepted, as well as being laid down by the rules, that a committee of the house is an extension of the house and is governed by the same rules. The Minister of Agriculture cannot evade this question by saying that we are in committee rather than in the house.
It seems to me that the point made by the Leader of the Opposition is particularly true and carries particular force at the present time because we are dealing with the estimates. We have before us a resolution dealing with the expenditure of money. I would ask you to pay attention to section 54 of the British North America Act which has to do with the voting of money and which makes it clear that that can be done only at the instance of someone who can indicate to the house the recommendation of the Governor General. I would also draw your attention to citation 479 which reads:
Supply resolutions are submitted in the following terms: "Resolved that a sum not exceeding . be granted to His Majesty for . . . for the year ending 31st March, 194 ." Each resolution is moved by the minister for whose department the amount is to be voted.
Obviously under that citation we can only be discussing the estimate now before us if it is moved by a minister. It seems to me that it would follow that that minister should be here for the discussion on that estimate.


William Alfred Robinson: The Leader of the Opposition interrupted the hon. member for Wellington South on a question of privilege. When I asked him to give me the rule or citation covering his question of privilege he was unable to do so, but he referred to what he called the tradition. I said previously that I would take his remarks under advisement,
Supply-Agriculture
but I think hon. members will agree that there is no compulsion to interrupt the proceedings of the committee except for the lack of a quorum. I do not think we need labour the point at greater length and I will see the hon. member for Wellington South.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member or Winnipeg North Centre has raised a question, and in order to keep the record straight may I say that I was in the house when the resolution was moved on February 10 last, when I spoke to it, and I was in the house when it was moved today. There certainly is not any rule, regulation or anything else which prevents a minister who is before the committee leaving the chamber and allowing his assistant to take charge for the time being. It may be essential or advisable that some other minister should be here, as was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, but it certainly is customary in this house for the assistant to a minister to take charge of estimates while the minister is out of the chamber on other business.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, may I express the hope, notwithstanding the fact the right hon. gentleman has just laid down the rule to be followed, that you will pursue your inquiry and let us know the results.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition, who has a home in my riding and whom I rather fancy I represent in the house, for causing a delay so the right hon. Minister of Agriculture could go to his office and be able to return to hear my remarks. However, I cannot allow the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that there is anyone in this house on either side who can do more for the farmers or who has done more for the farmers than the present Minister of Agriculture. The people of the whole of Canada know what a good fighter Jimmy Gardiner is. They admire him for it. They do not always agree with him, but no one can say that he has not fought for the farmer down through the years, in a way which has been a credit to those that he represents in agriculture.
If I might return to my discussion of a few points that I think are interesting to the farmers in our country, I should like to speak for just a moment about some observations that I made while I was in Europe. I took a trip abroad last summer during the recess to see and to learn about some of the conditions that exist in other countries, and I should like to pass on a comment or two on these, comparing them with the conditions in our own country.

Supply-Agriculture
The first I should like to mention has something to do with the fall fairs that our Department of Agriculture does a great deal to promote. There are larger fairs like the Royal Winter fair, and I was pleased to hear the address made by the Minister of Finance at the last Royal Winter fair, where he was prepared to listen to the requests of the governing body of that fair that they need a new addition to their coliseum. People who attend that fair know very well that the coliseum is inadequate, and it was very gratifying to listen to him take the lead in letting the people know that our Department of Agriculture appreciated this need and that it might, if conditions were right, be prepared to assist in seeing that an enlargement was carried out.
Turning to the use of this fair, I should like to discuss for a moment or two what I have seen abroad and how it compares with what we do here. I spent a week in Denmark and, thanks to our minister there, I was permitted to visit some of the hog feeding stations and to discuss how they have managed to raise those beautiful Landrace hogs.
I was informed that the farmers themselves felt that, if they were going to market their product, they had to produce a hog they could sell. One advantage that Denmark has over us is that it has a good market for sow belly, the type of meat that we find difficult to handle and get rid of in this country. The German market is close to Denmark, and is a very good market for what is more or less a waste part of the pig in Canada.
They had to do two things. They had to capture the British market, and therefore they had to produce good bacon. There came a time when they had to get United States dollars, and the only source of United States dollars that they had in that country was for hams, and so they had to produce a pig that had good hams as well as good bacon in order to get United States dollars. The farmers of that country decided that they would set up stations that would feed test hogs so that they would produce the best type of hog for bacon and ham. Three or four years ago, before they needed the United States dollars, they produced a hog with a Wiltshire side of some 36 inches in length. For the benefit of hon. members I might say that we produce in Canada a grade A hog, one that has a side of 29 inches. A good hog in Canada has a side 32 inches long.
They have been encouraged to breed this type of hog because fairs and shows in that country will give prizes to hogs only on their performance. They do not give prizes to hogs on appearance. Let me ask the minister to speak to the judges, if he thinks it is wise, in regard to changing the method of

judging hogs in Canada. In Denmark a hog to get first prize, has to be the type of beast that will cut up and make good Wiltshire sides with good hams.
Let me quote a few figures. At the Toronto show we had some hogs exhibited by Prince Edward Island, in the Todd trophy class. Prince Edward Island had 16 exhibits and won 13 prizes. This class is judged on the carcasses, so that the judges can view the ham and the bacon side. With regard to the Brethour trophy we had a similar situation where the hogs from Prince Edward Island entered in some 15 classes won, I believe, 12 prizes. Yet in the live classes similar pigs from the island did not get one first-class award. So I would ask the minister, considering the donations we make to these fairs, whether it would not be wise to ask the judges whether it would not be better to give prizes to live hogs for the type of hog that when killed will give us good bacon and good ham.
I also learned some other things when I was in Denmark. The Danish farmers told me that they had to buy our feed grain, ship it from Canada to Denmark, feed it and then send the dead carcasses back to England in competition with our pork. I asked them how they managed to do this. They said, "Well, there are two or three things that we do a little differently from you people. One is that we must feed carefully. We cannot feed our hogs in a wasteful manner. We have learned that it takes two pounds of feed to put a pound of pork on a pig that weighs 50 pounds. It takes five pounds of feed to put a pound of pork on a pig that weighs 200 pounds." So, if we are going to be efficient, we must ship out lighter weight grade A hogs.
At this point I should like to commend the minister for the stand that he has always taken in supporting our farmers when they produce grade A hogs. It is very important that we continue this bonus even when other governments have seen fit to withdraw their donations for grade A hogs. I should like to recommend that we double our payment to $4 on grade A hogs-that would give an extra $2-in order to encourage the farmers to proceed along the route on which they have now started in Canada. They realize, and with good sense, that we have to produce a type of bacon which the Americans like. We are able to sell our hogs now in the United States market and get 4 to 5 cents more than the Americans can get for their fat-fed hogs. Our farmers have done a good job at working to produce grade A hogs, and this would be a tremendous encouragement for them to continue to do that. I would not want to take credit for suggesting this for the first time,

because four years ago Mr. Arnold Darroch, the member at that time for Wellington North, recommended this program.
Since I have been abroad and have seen what can be done with careful feeding, and with fairs that are judged on producing a product which when killed is what is desired rather than for it's good looks when it is alive, and by seeing the type of Danish pig that has taken away from Canada our market in Great Britain, I think it is well that we make moves to assist our farmers to produce a similar pig here. I believe that next year the method of buying by the British government will end and that the private buyers of Great Britain will be coming to Canada and looking for their own goods. Farm products will not be bought by the government any more. If we have the type of pork the British want, and I am now referring to side bacon, we will have a chance to recapture the market that has been lost to us for the past three years. At least we will be competitive, and we will be able to be proud of what we have done.
When I was in the United States a year ago I discovered that the Americans were selling a Canadian type of bacon there, a product which they were advertising very strongly. This suggests the Americans envy the program of producing leaner bacon which your department has encouraged and to which the farmers have co-operated so well. If we encourage our farmers to be a little more efficient in feeding their pigs and to sell them before they get too heavy so that they do not eat too much and put on that last few pounds, we will not have hogs with 30 to 40 pounds of fat. A grade A hog generally turns out to have about 20 pounds of fat on the carcass which cannot be sold as pork. A grade B hog has about 30 pounds of fat and a grade C hog about 45 pounds of fat. It is generally in the last stage of feeding pigs, in what might be termed the inefficient stage, that the fat is put on. All of these suggestions that I make hinge on the production of more grade A hogs in the hogs that are raised.
Coming back again to the question of the fairs or shows that we have, in Scotland and northern England a wonderful market has been created for show cattle. I think most people agree that the British Isles have brought about a wonderful market for show cattle. They have gone to great pains to create that market, but I do not think many people in Canada feel that this type of show beasts we buy from these markets are good cattle to put in our barns and pens and feed to be killed for beef. There are not many people who want to buy the beef that comes from these show beasts and use it in their homes. There is a perfectly good reason for that. It is much too fat.
Supply-Agriculture
However, Great Britain is a small country and they have produced this type of beast because it catches the fancy of the wealthy American and Canadian show buyer, and we have followed suit in judging our show beasts. I do not think there is anything that has been more harmful with respect to the type of cattle we wish to market than the type of show beast that we have raised in this country. Exactly the same thing is true of hogs. We have not paid enough attention to the carcasses of these show beasts and what we get out of them when they are killed.
There is one more thing we do that I should like the minister to look into. When we kill a grade A pig we measure three fingers from the H bone at the hip, cut it off there, and that is considered the ham. We go to the third rib from the front shoulder, we cut it off at the centre of the third rib, we then have a side and a shoulder. If we follow that plan in cutting the shoulders with regard to the long Danish hogs that are 36 inches in length we have a front shoulder weighing somewhere about 44 pounds. The reason for that is that the Danish pig has been bred in such a way that each vertebra takes up more room and by cutting at the third rib on a long pig you have added a lot of extra shoulder.
The Danes have got away from that. They measure three fingers from the first rib and cut it off there in the same way as is done in the case of the rear quarter. On a long-vertebrae pig, that may mean cutting it at the second rib. So they get about four pounds extra of good side bacon. We should look into that situation. I think a committee could well be set up to look into the matter of supplying information to the farmers with regard to producing the best beasts and the actual amount of profitable meat they get out of them.
I would hope that these matters would receive some consideration during the next year. I should like to mention one other thing that is troublesome to our farmers, the price of butter, the price of cheese and the price of powdered milk. I would ask the minister to look very carefully at the situation with respect to cheese and powdered milk: I believe that in the opinion of most people the minister has done an excellent job with his butter program, but I would not want anyone to think I was recommending the same treatment for cheese and powdered milk. There might be some other way that this problem could be handled.


An hon. Member:: Tariff.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I would ask the minister to look at that matter carefully and see what he can do.

Supply-Agriculture


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the minister's estimates I propose to deal with one specific problem which is related to agriculture in all Canada. My colleagues have dealt and will deal with other aspects of agriculture in our Canadian economy outlining the decline in our share of the national income and making suggestions which we would like to see adopted to improve the welfare of agriculture. I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Wellington South has been listening to some of the speeches made by members of this group and that he too advocates an increase in the premium on grade A hogs. That is a view that has been voiced by members of this group.
The hon. member said that he had had the opportunity of visiting Denmark but I wish that he had travelled a little more throughout the countryside of Ontario so that he would have a better appreciation of agriculture. I noticed that, particularly when he used terms such as "dead carcass". Personally I have never seen a live carcass. I was wondering where he got his terminology.
He also took the opportunity to express his congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture and I noticed that the hon. member for Leeds was quite envious of the fact that the minister represents western Canada. If a poll were to be conducted among the farmers of western Canada I think you would find they would be only too pleased to give the hon. member the present Minister of Agriculture so that the people of Ontario could have him.
The problem I wish to deal with specifically is a very important one and it can only be brought up at this stage because it concerns several items of the minister's estimates. It is related to the present congested condition we have on western farms and perhaps that is one reason why the government has not been too active in trying to solve the problem. I wish to deal more specifically with the tremendous inroads that weeds have made on the agricultural economy. This is particularly important now because of the decline of agriculture's share of the country's income. The farmers do not have the finances with which to carry out proper cultural practices to eradicate the weeds that are making such inroads. The matter is of direct concern to farmers in all parts of Canada because many of the cultivating operations that they perform are directly aimed at eradicating weeds so that the crops they plant will be able to benefit from the available moisture. The municipalities in all parts of Canada-including

your counties in Ontario-are familiar with the problem of weeds along country roads and in the fields. I think we should make a brief survey of the magnitude of this problem in relation to the Canadian economy. Mr. H. E. Wood, chairman of the Manitoba weeds commission in 1953 pointed out this, and I will quote from the Manitoba Cooperator of June 30, 1955:
Mr. Wood said he had undertaken an estimate of the toll weeds extracted from prairie agriculture. On the basis of the 1953 crop, the cost of weeds amounted to $255 million, or for the 248,000 farms, an average of $1,028 per farm.
That is one of the factors which is certainly drawing down the agriculturalist's share of the national income. It has been estimated that wild oats are a direct cost of over $500 per farm. I think the minister is aware of conditions which exist in his own area and which are prevalent in my area where farmers are forced to go out and cut out acres of badly infested sloughs in order to prevent the reseeding of the wild oats. There are areas which have been virtually taken out of cultivation because of infestation by this weed.
Mr. A. H. Martin, director of the crops, seeds and weeds branch in Ontario, has estimated that weed losses in that province are $4.65 an acre or approximately 14 per cent of the field crop value.
It has been estimated that the over-all cost of weeds far exceeds the combined losses due to insects and disease. I think we can appreciate the magnitude of that problem when statements such as that are made by people in responsible positions. The individual farmer, of course, is very much aware of the impact of weeds on his agricultural production. When chemical weed controls were first introduced we found the farmers receptive to their use. In the early years of chemical weed control we were advised not to use 2,4-D on flax. The farmers were so far ahead of scientific research that they found that, by reducing the application, 2,4-D was extremely effective for use on flax.
The municipalities are closely associated with this problem. I have a letter from Tramping Lake, Saskatchewan, written by Mr. Ralph Fluney, councillor for division 2 of rural municipality No. 380. He writes as follows:
This municipality 380 spends about $2,000 each year trying to kill this weed. Other R.M.'s adjoining ours spend more and in and around Marsden they have gone broke trying to kill this weed. I have some patches on my own land and know what I am talking about.
The debate which we had in the early part of this week ties in closely with this problem that the councillor for the rural municipality of Tramping Lake points out,

namely that the Anal responsibility is apparently resting on the shoulders of the municipal authorities. They have the responsibility for appointing weed inspectors and for acquiring and utilizing chemical weed controls through high-pressure sprayers so that these weeds which are showing up in the municipality and which are a threat to the welfare of the individual farmers in that municipality can be controlled. It also is the responsibility of rural municipalities-and they are accepting it-to build municipal seed cleaning plants, something which of course puts another direct cost on the farmers, and hence on the municipal authorities.
I think we should make a study into the infestation of noxious weeds in the various parts of Canada so that we would be in a position to suggest to the science service and to the experimental farm service what action they can take to deal with these problems. The worst weeds that we have in Saskatchewan at the moment are toadflax, Russian knapweed, hoary cress and leafy spurge. Toadflax is one that is very prevalent in certain areas of the province. Toadflax called linaria vulgaris was found in North America as early as 1758. The first specimen was collected in the University of Saskatchewan herbarium in 1918. The weed survey in 1955 states:
This species was found to infest 134,602 acres in 4,583 quarter-sections in 78 municipalities within the surveyed area.
It has established itself since 1918 to cover nearly 150,000 acres. A resurvey was made in 1955 and the results of that resurvey are frightening:
In R.M. No. 372 the number of acres infested increased from 114 to 311 from 1952 to 1954, while the number of infested quarters increased from 83 to 108 .. .
In R.M. No. 440 the number of patches increased from 2,650 to 9,869 from 1949 to 1953, while the number of infested quarter-sections increased from 607 to 729.
That gives us some idea of the inroads that this weed is making in the agricultural economy, because once your land becomes infested with toadflax, virtually nothing can be done about it with the present knowledge we have. The agricultural representative service in the province of Saskatchewan is providing an invaluable service in organizing a front-line attack against these weeds. They are working closely with the agricultural committees of the rural municipalities to discover and to control patches. In fact, the agricultural committee of my own municipality, R.M. No. 290, informed me that Macedonian toadflax was being advertised for sale in an eastern seed house. I recall asking a question of the Minister of Agriculture on February 22, 1955.
Supply-Agriculture
I asked the minister whether he had taken action to control the sale of Macedonian toadflax by this seed house. The minister replied in part:
In reply I wish to state that the control of weeds is a provincial and municipal responsibility.
Farther on he stated:
There is no legislation that forbids a seed house selling a plant such as Macedonian toadflax. It is an ornamental flower.
That answer, Mr. Chairman, showed that the Minister of Agriculture was still farming with horses, that he was miles behind the times because the regulations concerning seeds were changed to allow better control of linaria vulgaris, linaria dalmatica and linaria macedonica. In fact, the Canada Gazette of November 10, 1954, lists all the species of toadflax as being a primary noxious weed. The minister knows that if it is a primary noxious weed, no seeds are allowed in registered certified or No. 1 seed. I think we must broaden our thinking on this whole approach to weeds. The horse-farming technique is not good enough when you are dealing with a problem that is moving so rapidly. The weed survey in 1955 had this to say on broad-leaved toadflax. It is interesting enough to quote:
Within the past decade a broad-leaved species of toadflax, linaria dalmatica, has become troublesome as a persistent perennial weed in parts of Washington and Idaho. This species is the same as one which is spreading in Saskatchewan. Seventy-nine small infestations of this species have been found within the surveyed area. Many of these occur in gardens and cemeteries. Undoubtedly many more infestations occur, since the field men were not asked to note these infestations until the 1953 survey.
The minister may argue that linaria dalmatica and linaria macedonica are two different varieties when in fact they are, according to the authorities whom I have consulted in the University of Saskatchewan, a strain of the same species. I was most disappointed with the attitude that the minister took on this problem. Nevertheless, even though the minister did make that mistake at that time, he might be prepared to admit it and to follow some of the suggestions I am going to make now so that the matter of weeds can be more effectively controlled in the future.
On many occasions the Liberal party has hidden under the skirts of the British North America Act. In this case they cannot evade their responsibility because agricultural research is explicitly outlined as a federal responsibility. What is being done in connection with research on this whole matter of weed control? Last year I put a question on the order paper and received as an order for return sessional paper No. 213 which gave

Supply-Agriculture
information as to what was spent on weed control as opposed to another important aspect of agriculture, namely, entomology. I found that in 1954 there were eight full-time weed control specialists in the whole dominion of Canada. Six of them were located at headquarters at Ottawa, one in Ontario and one in Alberta. The total amount of money spent in salaries of these individuals was $37,055. When you compare that with entomology you find that there were 256 employed as full-time entomologists at an expense of $1,176,977. I am not saying that we should reduce the amount of money that is spent on entomological research but I am saying we should certainly pay more attention to the agricultural research that should be done in connection with weeds.
Dr. R. O. Ripley, chairman of the national weed committee, has estimated that in 1953 the total cost of weed investigation at the dominion and university level was $110,658. We find that outside of the Ottawa headquarters science service and experimental farm services there are no botanists working on this problem of weed control. We should take immediate steps to establish a chain of laboratories to investigate the problem. We should establish a D.E.W. line against weeds. This same suggestion might involve another change that I feel should be made in departmental administration. For some time now I have felt that there is a duplication of services in the science service and in the experimental farm service. I feel that in many instances the headquarters are located in identical stations. For example, there is a science service and an experimental station at Lethbridge. The same thing is true at Kentville, Nova Scotia. There would certainly be increased efficiency if the experimental farm service and the science service were amalgamated so that the professional men working in entomology and the field men working in experimental farm service could correlate their activities.
In connection with this same weed problem, we find that an investigation was carried on at the Belleville parasite laboratories where, incidentally, they employ 40 entomologists who are trying to find parasites which control weeds. One of them found a parasite on the toadflax samples which were sent down from Saskatchewan which seemed to do considerable damage to the reproductive mechanism of the toadflax. They found two insects on toadflax samples in Ontario where toadflax is not a serious weed. I would suppose that with the seriousness of this weed in western Canada the authorities in the science service would have immediately established a regional laboratory in the Marsden area fMr. Johnson (Kindersley).]
where this insect could be controlled to see if it would effectively control toadflax, but nothing was done. In fact, one part-time man at the Scott experimental station has been moved to Lethbridge so that there is no one there except those who are on loan from the field husbandry department.
I do not think it is a matter of pleading with the minister to take action on this particular problem; I do not think he ever thought of it before. But if we are to be serious in our approach to weeds which are, as I mentioned, so expensive to farmers in all parts of Canada, something must be done immediately to stem the tide because it is far better to do it now than even five years from now when there might be from 500,000 to 1 million acres seriously infected. The onus of responsibility is on the federal government. The farmers in all parts of Canada feel that it is the responsibility of the federal government to perform this useful function, and although it might be contrary to Liberal policy, they might increase the surplus of wheat which we have for future generations to benefit thereby.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I would like to take six or seven minutes this afternoon to discuss one specific subject, namely, the lack of adequate long-term credit in agriculture throughout the country. As a matter of fact, I think hon. members on both sides of the house would agree that many of the difficulties which farmers have today can be traced to the lack of such facilities. At the present time, almost every branch of agriculture is suffering because they are starved for working capital.
The reason for this undesirable situation is not difficult to find. Apparently, private capital is failing to meet the problem posed by the lack of farm credit. Today private lenders, whether they are banks, investment houses or mortgage companies, can find more lucrative fields in which to invest their money, and fields which are less risky. As a result, in latter years these companies have been placing an ever smaller amount of their investment funds in farm mortgages.
I think the Bank of Canada regulations curtailing credit, which we have recently seen, will make this situation worse. The squeeze on farmers is bound to become even more serious. I can understand the lack of enthusiasm, which lending companies have; yet, I would like to tell them that their neglect of the long-term farm credit field could have serious consequences, not only to the nation but also to themselves. If the private lending companies do not devise methods whereby farmers can get adequate long-term credit, the government will have to come into the field in an ever more extensive way.

I am going to suggest today that these lending companies, if they are to take the advantages of the free enterprise system, should also assume some of the responsibilities. One of the responsibilities should be the granting of better long-term credit to farmers.
The lack of adequate credit today is having serious effects on our farming communities. In the first place, many young farmers who would like to go into farming are moving into the towns and cities, because they cannot get sufficient money to go into farming. After all, the price of land has skyrocketed and the price of machinery is very high. Moreover it is difficult for young farmers to find sufficient money to purchase a basic herd. Thus many young farmers who cannot obtain adequate credit are leaving the rural areas.
In the second place I suggest that a lack of adequate farm credit today is causing a concentration of farms in the hands of fewer and fewer farmers, because such credit as is available invariably goes to the wealthier farmers. This means inevitably that the number of marginal farmers tends to decrease while the number of tenant farmers tends to increase. I suggest that adequate farm credit could reverse such a trend.
I would like to point out in the third place that adequate farm credit today is lowering the productivity of many Canadian farmers. Farming is like most other businesses, in that the old adage that "it takes money to make money" is just as true as elsewhere. If our farmers could get better credit today, I think they would go into extensive irrigation projects, reclamation works, regrassing, etc. They would purchase better livestock and so on.
The farm credit problem is resulting in a lower productivity on farms than is necessary. Thus I suggest that parliament should give the problem attention without delay.
The government has recognized the problem this session with two amendments, one to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the other to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. Both of these amendments are welcome; yet I think most hon. members would agree that all they can do is nibble at an over-all solution. As in the past, I am still convinced that farmers who go to make loans under the provisions of those acts will find that the down payments required are too high, the security requirements are too severe, or the actual amount which can be borrowed is too small.
I point these facts out because under those acts only about 15 per cent of all farm loans are made. We have to take additional action if the situation is to be solved.
Supply-Agriculture
It seems to me that the real answer to this long-term farm credit problem is not to oe found in direct government loans. I think a method must be found to encourage private Canadian lending institutions to re-enter and greatly expand their activities in the farm mortgage business. I have a suggestion as to how this could be accomplished.
As I said a moment ago, many of our lending institutions feel-and I must admit perhaps with some justification-that marginal farmers are too great a risk because of climatic conditions, because of the uncertainties of markets and prices, et cetera to be given 20 year loans. As a result the farmers who really need money today very frequently cannot get it.
I remind hon. members of this house that the banks and lending institutions took the same attitude a few years ago toward urban dwellers who wanted to borrow money for a 20 or 30-year period to build a house. Parliament rectified that situation very successfully about three years ago, when it introduced legislation which guaranteed the banks against losses on 20 or 30 year loans made to urban dwellers to build homes.
I suggest that it would be feasible today to give the banks a similar guarantee on losses which they might incur by making 20 or 25 year loans to farmers to buy new farms or to buy equipment. In other words, I think parliament should consider having a national farm credit act along the lines of the National Housing Act.
As I see it, the principle would be precisely the same in both cases. Under that legislation the farmers would be able to get long-term farm credit without an unbearable burden being put on the taxpayers. Since the banks are making long-term loans under the National Housing Act, I think they might also be prepared to give the farmers longterm credit if suitable guarantees against losses were given by parliament.
I repeat that the time has come for the house to come to grips with this problem. Canadian agriculture must have better longterm credit facilities. In a booming economy we cannot permit agriculture to lag so far behind other industries.


Raymond Elmer Anderson: Mr. Chairman, the house will recall that on July 22 last year I spoke on the estimates for agriculture and made a request for a dominion experimental station in Norfolk. I do not intend to make the same speech all over again but there are a few points I would like to re-emphasize.
First of all, farm income has not risen with other lines of endeavour and in some cases it has declined. This would be bad

Supply-Agriculture
in any event, but to make matters worse our operating costs have risen sharply and farmers are now in a squeeze that could be disastrous if nothing is done about it.
One way for government assistance to work to the advantage of our farmers would be for us to have this experimental farm located in Norfolk so that farmers could, under direction, work out some of our problems. I think perhaps our needs are greater now than they were in 1955 and I am renewing the request for this station.
Our temperature in Norfolk is about five degrees lower than at Harrow and Vineland, the other two government stations, and varieties that do well there would not give us the same production under our different growing conditions and temperatures.
My request of last year has won universal support in Norfolk and it has particularly won the support of the county council which sent four of its members here on April 24 to support the request for a station.
Bruce Wallace, who is a large apple and cherry grower and manager of Norfolk Fruit Growers and Norfolk Berry Growers, met the minister with us. We were favourably received by the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance and the deputy minister of agriculture.
The press in Norfolk has also supported the request both editorially and in news items. The London Free Press and the Brantford Expositor have also given the request much support.
I think perhaps the committee will bear with me if I quote some of the production figures I gave last year. I regret that these figures are for the year 1954 and perhaps are not quite relevant to the year which has passed.
First of all, we had 2,000 acres of apples in Norfolk and 400,000 bushels were produced in 1954. Last year we had relatively the same acreage but we produced many more apples and experienced some difficulty in selling them. There were 30 acres of sweet cherries and we produced 640 bushels. There were 142 acres of sour cherries and we produced 16,730 bushels. That was in 1954, Mr. Chairman. In 1955 sour cherries were about double and again we experienced some trouble in disposing of them.
There were 500 acres of peaches which produced over 60,000 bushels. There were 66 acres of Bartlett pears which produced
20,000	bushels. There were 103 acres of Keifer pears which produced 16,000 bushels. Now I would like to deal with strawberries.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member speak up a little more.


Raymond Elmer Anderson: We had 1,100 acres of strawberries in 1954 which produced 3,300,000 quarts and in 1955 this production was well over 4 millions quarts. Our production has increased a little in the two years. We expect we will have a very heavy crop in 1956 because they weathered the winter well.
I wish now to deal with fresh market vegetables. We had a production of 15,000 bushels of tomatoes and 175,000 bushels of potatoes in 1954 and last year it was about the same.


John Horne Blackmore: Would my hon. friend tell us what section he is speaking about when he says "we"? I am sorry but I did not hear his introductory remarks.


Raymond Elmer Anderson: I am speaking mainly for
the people of the county of Norfolk and the counties surrounding Norfolk.
In the area between Simcoe and Port Dover there was produced in 1954 a total of
450,000	crates of sweet corn. Some of that was exported after being precooled. More of this crop could be grown.
Something else that is new in Norfolk is irrigation. The tobacco men have miles and miles of irrigation pipe. They use the creeks as a water supply and also any low-lying areas which fill up in the winter with water which can be used when needed. This provides a problem because we are not too sure yet as to what we are doing. Sometimes too much irrigation will ruin a crop and it must be applied at the right time. There is an old saying that every farmer has a stiff neck because he is always watching the sun and the clouds. Weather determines what we are going to do from day to day.
We need new varieties, especially in strawberries. Twenty years ago we had a variety called the Parson Beauty that produced quite well for years. Lately the Premier variety has predominated but we are always looking for a new variety which will produce well and remain firm in shipping.
There is an experimental tobacco station at Delhi, but the soil there is not representative of the county. It will grow tobacco but not all kinds of fruits and vegetables. Perhaps the minister could see his way clear to allowing the office there to be used so that any directions could go out from that point. I would respectfully request that the minister give careful consideration to this matter in the light of the support that has been forthcoming from every part of the farm population of Norfolk and in view of our increasing need.
I should like also to support the hon. member for Wellington South in his request that the premium on grade A hogs be increased

and that the premium on grade B hogs remain the same. This would tend to add quality to our bacon and assist in our exports.


James Alexander Smith: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate, particularly when we are discussing the estimates of the one department which is of great concern to a large majority of my constituents.
During my trip home at the Easter recess it was my privilege to attend the graduation exercises at the Vermilion school of agriculture. I know that the Department of Agriculture does not make any grants toward the operation of schools of agriculture in Alberta, but another department does make grants to the three schools we have. The total grants from the federal treasury to the province of Alberta in this connection I believe is in the neighbourhood of $47,700. There are three such schools in the province, one at Olds, another at Fairview and another at Vermilion in my constituency.
These schools give a very practical type of education to the young farmers and homemakers of the province. However, there is one disturbing factor about the operation of these schools, in that attendance is gradually decreasing. Does that mean that the young people of western Canada have lost faith in the future of the agricultural industry? It may just happen that that is the case. If it is the case, then I feel that all governments should view the situation with alarm.
It has been pointed out time and time again during this session that net farm income has been steadily decreasing during the last number of years. For example, in 1952 it was down 3 [DOT] 13 per cent of what it was the previous year; in 1953 it was down 21-6 per cent; and in 1954 it was down 66-64 per cent. This disastrous trend must be halted if we are going to maintain any semblance of development in Canada's major industry. I submit that Canadian citizens are justified in looking to the senior government for some direction and action in this regard.
During the graduation exercises which I attended at the Vermilion school they held what is known as the Little Royal, which is fashioned after the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto. I was interested in following their program. They put on a splendid stock show where the young students were able to demonstrate their training in such things as the judging of stock and showmanship. As I went through the plant I saw displayed the work of the carpentry shop, the welding shop and the meat-cutting department. I was quite interested in a remark made this afternoon by an hon. member who was telling how it was
Supply-Agriculture
possible to get a larger sized side of bacon from a dead carcass. I have yet to see a living carcass.
Continuing through the school we saw the dairying plant and then we went into the portion of the school used by the homemakers where cooking, dressmaking and so on were taught. This is good practical training as far as the young people of our province are concerned. We should be encouraging young people to take greater advantage of this type of training. Agriculture in our province as in other parts of Canada indicates that the average age of farmers actively engaged is rapidly going up.
I feel that in order to be successful a farmer must be trained, that the proper training is more important than perhaps even a healthy body. The day of the strong back and the farmer going together in order to make a success is long past.
I should like to congratulate the federal government upon the grants being made for this type of education. I would ask the federal government to take immediate steps to do something toward stabilizing the agricultural industry. If that were done I do not think any other incentive would be needed to get our young people to stay on the farm.
During the present session we have discussed at some length resolutions extending the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Canadian Farm Loan Act. These acts are good as far as they go and the machinery which is to be provided is better than before. However, I would point out that the machinery will be no good unless the policy of the government expressed through these boards is changed and the conservative elements found on the boards during the past few years removed so that these two acts may serve the purpose which we as members of parliament trust they will.
There is another matter I should like to bring briefly to the attention of the minister, and that is the ever-increasing cost of commercial fertilizers to the farmers of the west. This morning I was reading a report issued by the Department of Agriculture which stated that the cost of commercial fertilizers had not gone up last year, and that it was hoped the upward trend had been halted. However, I should like to submit that the rise in the cost of fertilizers over the past years has been far too great. I hold in my hand some delivery slips given to farmers at the time they purchased fertilizers throughout the years. All these will deal with the cost of ammonium phosphate 11-48-0.
On June 21, 1946, you could buy a ton of this fertilizer for $58.50. By April 2, 1949, the same type of fertilizer had gone up to

Supply-Agriculture
$74.40 per ton. By November 8, 1950, the farmer was forced to pay $85.35 per ton. By April 15, 1952, it was $97.70 per ton. On May 29, 1952, the farmer was charged $100.15 per ton. In the fall of that year it was $105.60. Last summer, on May 10, 1955, the price was up to $107.
I have tried to get some information as to why these prices have risen so sharply over the years. I am given to understand there are only two large plants producing commercial fertilizers in Canada, and I am wondering whether those two plants are not exercising some sort of monopolistic control over prices. If that is the case, I submit the Minister of Agriculture would be well advised to take a very close look at the situation and try to do something about it.
I just want to point out that in the course of a few years fertilizers which we wish the farmers of western Canada to use, and which they must use if they are to retain the fertility of their soil, have more than doubled in price.
Now I should like to spend a few moments discussing the hog industry as it affects the province of Alberta, and particularly as it affects the producers of hogs in my area. During the first half of 1954 hogs were sold at $33.33 per hundredweight. During the second half of that year they were sold at $24.92 per hundredweight. During the first half of 1955 they were $23.52 per hundredweight, and in the second half of 1955 $23.17 per hundredweight. I have taken these statistics from the Livestock Marketing Review. They point out that hog prices have dropped 33J per cent in the last two years. This is serious, because in our province we produce nearly one and a half million hogs a year.
I should like to point out that the livestock report in the Edmonton Journal of April 14, 1956, has this to say concerning hogs:
Hog prices dropped 50 cents at Winnipeg to 20-23 and Montreal was unchanged at 23-23-50. Toronto hog prices declined 50 cents to 23 and most Saskatchewan markets were down the same at 19. Prices remained steady at Vancouver at 22-15 for top grade hogs.
, In my constituency I have several large hog producers, and one of these producers has had extensive correspondence with the Minister of Agriculture in the past few months. This gentleman is a young man who is interested in the hog industry, has been in it for years and is hoping to make it his lifework, but if the present trend continues he will likely have to do what it has been suggested that he do,' quit raising hogs. However, he wrote the Minister of Agriculture in December,- 1955. I shall just take one
rMr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose) .1
paragraph of his letter. The minister has the letter and knows it is true:
I can't make enough money out of hogs after paying expenses and raising my family to pay my debts. The only reason I continue on is to live in hopes that your government will do something; that will give we farmers parity prices. Our prices have dropped but the prices we pay haven't come down.
I think he has summarized the situation fairly well as far as the hog producers are concerned. Perhaps it may be argued that, after all, hogs are only a sideline as far as the majority of the farmers in the west are concerned, though I do not accept that argument. I say that the hog industry in Alberta is one of the major branches of agriculture in our province. Last year, for example, we produced 1,691,193 hogs in the province of Alberta. That is not a small-time-business.
For that reason I should like to put on the record this afternoon a few figures I have been fortunate enough to secure. These figures are based on an actual 42-sow unit operated for the purpose of producing weaner pigs, and follow the project right from the time the pigs are born to the time they are marketed. It is pointed out that the following figures represent the cost to produce a hog:
Assuming that feed mixture consists of one-third oats and two-thirds barley, with 200 pounds, of concentrate in one ton of feed, the cost per cwt. is . . . $2.15.
That is the cost of feed for pigs. I do not wish to burden the committee with a lot of figures. Perhaps I shall put the others on record another time, but I want to point out that the cost of a 30-pound weaner pig has been estimated at $9.17. They give the cost of raising this 30-pound pig to 200 pounds. The cost of feed is $16.45. The cost of straw for bedding is 78 cents. The cost of incidentals and overhead, etc., is $1. Labour costs and weaning to market cost $3.50 per head. Marketing cost is $1. The total cost per pig, according to this survey, is $31.90 for this group of hogs. That is what it actually costs the producers to raise these hogs.
Assuming that 40 per cent of these hogs are graded A, 54 per cent B-l and 6 per cent C, and also assuming that the prices received for grade A hogs on the markets of the west are $20 per.hundredweight-and that is very generous now, by the way-grade B-l $19 per hundredweight and grade C $16.50 per hundredweight, what happens? There would be sold 254 grade A hogs from this 42-sow unit; there would be 343 hogs grade B-l and 38 hogs grade C. The average sale price of this group of fiogs which started out iri the weaner stage would be $30.60. To the producer the net loss per hog Would be $1.30.

Surely the minister will agree with me that a hog raiser who is going into it in a scientific manner cannot continue too long when he is losing $1.30 per hog. The minister will perhaps be able to advance other figures as to how much it costs to raise a hog. If he has them I would certainly appreciate it if he would put them on the record so we can look at them.
I have already pointed out that according to the figures of the federal government, during the course of 1955 there were 1,691,193 hogs raised in Alberta exclusive of domestic slaughterings and so on. What happened to those hogs? One-third were consumed right in the province of Alberta, and I am given to understand that 90 per cent of the remainder were shipped live weight or dressed to the Vancouver market. That being the case, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture how he can justify a support price for hogs of $18.50 on the Edmonton market and $23 on the Toronto and Montreal markets. When we consider the fact that the actual selling price of hogs on the Edmonton market is not much above the support price of $18.50 and that it costs $1 per hundredweight to ship those that are sent to the Vancouver markets, making $19.50, surely the farmers of Alberta are being given a bad time by a deal like this.
Somebody is making a huge profit out of the hogs that are raised in the province of Alberta, and I have already pointed out that it is not the producer. Somewhere along the line somebody is making money which rightfully belongs to the farmers of the province of Alberta. I submit to the minister that he should give very serious consideration to the establishment of a uniform floor price on hogs across Canada. I can see no reason that would justify the minister in establishing a floor price of $23 in Toronto and Montreal and $18.50 in Edmonton. It is nothing but straight discrimination against the hog producers of the province of Alberta. I will undoubtedly have the privilege of receiving a reply from the minister in this regard, and I am sure there will be many interesting discussions with respect to the hog industry.
I should like to say one thing more. I got into a little trouble the other day when I congratulated a civil servant. I do not wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, but I should like to say to him that I have enjoyed the courtesy which members of his department have extended to me during my time here.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Agriculture opened the discussion on his estimates a couple of months ago now I listened with a great deal of interest and
Supply-Agriculture
since then I have read what he had to say in Hansard. I must say that much of his speech was very interesting but that parts of it reminded me of a story that is told about a clergyman who on one occasion lost the notes for his sermon. They were picked up by a very curious member of his flock, who looked at the notes and was amazed to see a notation on the side which said, "Argument weak here; shout." I do not suggest that the minister-shouts but on reading his speech I came to the conclusion that it would be very apt if one were to put the notation beside certain portions of his speech, "Argument weak here; use some statistics."
Of course I am not criticizing the minister for doing that because it is quite a legitimate practice; nevertheless those who are on the receiving end of speeches that quote statistics at considerable length should be on their guard. In that connection I came across an interesting passage regarding statistics in a very famous book, "Mathematics for the-Millions". This book was written by a Mr. Hogben and he has this to say:
Today the lives and happiness of people depend more than most of us realize upon the correct interpretation of public statistics which are kept by government offices. When a committee of experts announce that the average man can live on his unemployment allowance, or the average child is getting sufficient milk, the mere mention of an average or the citation of a list of figures is enough to paralyse intelligent criticism. In reality half or more than half the population may not be getting enough to live on when the average man or child has enough. The majority of people living today in civilized countries cannot read and write freely in statistics. The modern man has got to learn the language of statistics in selfdefence, because no society is safe in the hands of its clever people.
In that regard I should like to make a few brief observations on some of the statistics the minister gave. He put tables on the record indicating farm cash income over a period of years and also farm net income for a number of years. These are very interesting figures. They show that, although generally speaking gross farm income is rising, over the last few years there has been a fairly rapid decline in net income. I refer only to the maritime provinces. In 1951 net farm income for the maritimes was, in round figures, $81 million, in 1952, $77 million, in.
1953,	$62 million and $62 million again in
1954.
Then there is another element in these income figures which should be realized, namely that they are not measured in constant dollars. Therefore although the farmer's net income may remain stationary or even increase, his purchasing power may be going down. That has been the case over the last few years. For example, in 1954 the percentage of the

Supply-Agriculture
gross national product which was credited to farm net income was 6-8, whereas the average for 1946 to 1950 inclusive was 12-7 per cent. The percentage of 6-8 for 1954 is the lowest percentage since 1931.
I think the minister is perfectly sincere. After all, it is his job to try to examine objectively, if possible, the true situation as far as the agricultural industry of our country is concerned. But I am rather disappointed by the fact that due to misinterpretation of statistics certain people, especially in the cities, who have not an accurate picture of the situation, have got the idea that the farmers are not too badly off after all and that their situation compares favourably with the rest of the economy. Many of these people pose as agricultural experts. I contend that they are doing the agricultural industry and farmers generally a disservice if they try to picture the industry as being prosperous or as sharing in anything like an equitable manner in the gross national product.
It was probably that sort of agriculturalist that inspired an American called Eugene Ware to say that the farmer works the soil and the agriculturist works the farmer. I should also like to point out briefly the situation as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture sees it. I shall quote a short extract from their brief entitled "Farmers meet the Cabinet". They start out by saying that generally the economy is in a healthy condition, but then they say:
On the other hand, we find that, apparently, the notable exception in this picture of record prosperity is that of the farmer and his family. We do not claim that Canadian agriculture is in a depression such as we have known in the past. We do say that the farming industry is not sharing in Canada's new high level of prosperity.
Then they go on to say this:
Farmers from coast to coast feel keenly that on the average their returns have become badly out of balance with those of other major groups in the nation. It is important to emphasize purchasing power in this connection because the farmer's difficulties are to be found as much in high prices of the things he buys as in a decline in the number of dollars he receives.
They are pointing out what I was saying just a few moments ago about the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. That matter is extremely important. Out of the farmer's net income he must provide for his family and he must provide for a great many charges which are practically standard if he is to support on an adequate basis the community in which he lives. In that connection I should like to point out that owing to economic pressures, farm units are becoming larger. This means that in a rural community there are fewer people to carry

the load of community charges which are fixed or nearly fixed for an area. There are still churches, schools, medical assistance and many other things that must be provided for the rural area whether there are many people to pay for them or just a few.
The purchasing power of the dollar which the farmer receives is away down. City people may wonder at this statement because they have not noticed any great decline in the cost of food. As a matter of fact the cost of food to the consumer is still going up. City people generally speaking perhaps have the idea-and one should not blame them if they have-that surely the amount the farmer is receiving for what they buy is increasing also. But that is not the case, owing to the fact that the cost of distribution has risen sharply in the last few years.
For this rise in cost there are two reasons. The first is that the actual cost of distribution has gone up, and the second is the fact that consumers are demanding food in a more advanced stage of preparation as time goes by. The consumer cannot expect the farmer to be as well off when he pays for a quick-frozen T.V. meal-which one sees advertised, with a bit of chicken, some potatoes and so on, on a platter-as he would be if the same price were being paid for the ingredients of that meal. The cost of distribution and preparation is taking a larger and larger percentage of the consumer's dollar.
In that connection I note this:
Based on 15 food items, which account for about 75 per cent of consumers' expenditure on Canadian farm foods. 1955 retail prices were almost 11 per cent above 1949; for the farm equivalents of the same 15 commodities, farm prices were about 3 per cent below 1949. Marketing costs increased almost 25 per cent between these two periods while the farm share was lower by almost 9 per cent.
Farmers everywhere recognize the fact that agriculture is in an extremely trying time in its history. There have recently been great changes in production methods, and it is anticipated by many that there will be even more spectacular changes in the future in connection with methods of production and so on if agriculture is to survive. One fact, of course, is that as time goes by there are fewer and fewer farmers producing the food of the nation. This situation is brought about to a great extent by greater efficiency, larger units, mechanization and food produced in various forms from feeds that were formerly fed to horses in order to provide farm power. There are many other factors. Agriculture finds itself in an extremely difficult position.
In this economic climate there are fewer and fewer young men taking up agriculture as a career. Certainly in the agricultural

districts with which I am familiar the average age of farmers engaged in agriculture is becoming greater and greater; and as these farmers retire or die off, fewer and fewer of them are being replaced. The result is that you have large numbers of farms completely abandoned, used as pasture or cultivated to a minor extent by some farmer who lives in the vicinity. This situation puts a great load on the community because there are fewer people to support the normal community enterprises.
Of course there are some cynical people who say "So what? What difference does it make?" They say that perhaps this is a necessary thing; that it is just following the inevitable economic laws; that if that is what is happening, it is just too bad but it is an inevitable thing to which those engaged in agriculture and those who live in the country generally must face up; that they must face up to the fact that by far the greatest number of them will be exterminated in the next few years if this trend continues. I should like to warn people who have that point of view that we cannot abandon, sabotage or neglect our agricultural industry, because before too many years are past we shall need it badly and we shall need it on an efficient, high level of production. Otherwise there will be food and clothing shortages even here in North America.
The United States department of agriculture put out an extremely interesting illustrated booklet, a copy of which I have in my hand, entitled "The 5th Plate". In it they point out that, in the United States, for every four plates that were set for dinner in 1950, there will be five in 1975. Therefore there must be 25 per cent more food available for consumption in 1975 as compared with 1950. To meet this need they point out it would require all the arable land now existing in the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.
They also point out that there is another way of partially meeting this need and that is to make farms, the present arable land, more productive. That can only be done, of course, if we have an economic climate in which the farmer is not forced to mine his soil to eke out a livelihood. We must have an economic climate in which he can safeguard his soil which, to the farmer, is his working capital and which is very difficult to replace.
This same booklet points out that in the United States in 1920 there were 3-62 acres of crop land for every individual in the country. By 1950 this per capita acreage had fallen to 2-25. I know these are just statistics and the city person probably does not worry too much about them because they
Supply-Agriculture
are not realities to him; they do not convey anything very real. But if you put them in terms of farming it makes the farmer realize that he has to grow food and a lot of clothing for one individual on a little over two acres of land.
That is a very difficult thing to do if you think of it in terms of sheep, cattle and horses; but when you think of it in terms of human beings it is quite a problem. We have to get away from the idea that we have an endless amount of fertile land and that there will never come a day when we cannot exploit new, fresh, virgin areas and provide an abundance of food and clothing for our inhabitants. We are getting to the point where we can no longer mine our soil in one area and then move on to fresh, fertile, virgin land when we have eroded and exploited beyond recovery the agricultural soil in a given area.
Of course, some people adopt the attitude that the answer is bigger units. That view has been put forward by at least one of our chief financial publications in this country in recent weeks. It is also the kind of thinking that induced the men in the Kremlin to set out on their program of collective farms. They took the attitude that if they had bigness, the factory type of thing, mass production, they could solve the problem. I doubt that very much. Even if it would solve the problem from a purely economic point of view, I doubt whether it is the solution we want.
I hold in my hand a full-page story that appeared in the Financial Post of April 21 this year. It contains a streamer headline which says:
Factory Farming Can Cure Our Barnyard Blues
The article reads in part:
In southwestern Saskatchewan, a dusty village squats amid rumpled hills at a point where a yellow gravel highway bumps across a single line of railroad track.
Three grain elevators-two red, one silver-tower over a rail siding. The burnt-out shell of another, never rebuilt, points blackened timbers at the sky.
A church which lost its roof to a windstorm has been abandoned. So have at least 20 houses, paint gone and yards weed-grown. Twenty years ago 306 people lived here. Now:	Only 177.
Slowly but certainly a farming community is dying.
In its own way this is a picture of agricultural progress.
This is an amazing conclusion for the writer to come to, Mr. Chairman. This is not my idea of agricultural progress.
I have another editorial which I will not bother to read, but it points out that politicians are foolish to worry about the farm bloc any more. They say that farmers are being exterminated and too much attention is

Supply-Agriculture
being given to them; that they are a dying race and that we shall soon have huge factory-like farms with only a few people operating them. They say this will be a good thing and the sooner it comes the sooner we shall have relief from this recurrent annoyance of the farm bloc demanding this or that from parliament.
I have a strong feeling that even if this is sound from the purely economic point of view, it is not sound from the sociological point of view, and that there are other things that should be taken into consideration. I ieel strongly that if our nation is to remain strong and healthy and if we are to have a large group of independent people who believe in free enterprise, and who believe in themselves, and that the world does not owe them a living but that they must earn it, we must retain the family farm.
A fine editorial on this point appeared in the Charlottetown Guardian of April 7. I do not intend to read it, but it points out, and rightly so, that this is a great problem and if our nation is to remain strong and stable the family farm must be retained, and an economic environment must be created which will permit it to remain. This is especially important in the maritimes. They also point out that in the United States something is being done about it. They say:
The same problem exists in the United States where, according to a congressional committee, more than 600,000 family farms have disappeared since 1950. There, however, steps are being taken to do something about it before it is too late. The committee which made an on the spot investigation in several farm belt states calls the family farm "the backbone of agriculture and of free enterprise in general" and warns that if it should disappear completely from the scene the strength of the nation's economy would be very seriously undermined.
I agree with that point of view most heartily. Some people take the attitude that the reason income per farm is not high is that farmers are inefficient, and they say, "You must be efficient". I point out, Mr. Chairman, there has been a great increase in the efficiency of agriculture over the years. The productiveness of the individual farmer is probably as high as that of any other member of the labouring force.
In pioneer days 90 per cent of the labour force was in agriculture. It took nine men in agriculture to provide enough to support one man in industry. At the present time the figures are reversed. Today only about one-tenth of our labour force is in agriculture, yet they still provide good food and considerable clothing for the population.
If the impression is created that agriculture is well off there is a danger that nothing will be done about it. In that connection I would
IMr. MacLean.]
like to point out that the great civilizations of the past collapsed not because of an economic collapse in the cities but because the fertility of the soil degenerated and finally disappeared. That has inevitably been the case in the past.
I think it is extremely important, Mr. Chairman, that the family farm be preserved for the reasons I have already given. In order to ensure this there are some things which I think the government should consider doing. For instance, there is the question of the customs tariff. In Canada we import a tremendous amount of fruit and vegetables from south of the border, and our balance of trade in that connection is not improving. I would like to quote briefly from a recent issue of The Grower, a trade journal, which says:
In the first nine months ol 1955 Canada imported fresh fruits and vegetables to a value of $86,973,273, a gain of $5,518,023 over the same period in 1954. In the same nine months Canada exported fresh fruits and vegetables to a value of $10,621,457, a decline of $1,739,099 over the same period in 1954. The gain in the adverse balance was therefore $7,257,122.
Further examination of the records show that imports of fresh fruits declined $740,360 whilst the imports of vegetables increased $6,258,383 for a net increase, as given, of-
That is $5 million in round figures.
There are other things, too, which I believe the government should consider doing. One is to put on the free list some additional things which are used exclusively in agriculture as recommended by the farm organizations, such as steel posts and numerous other articles which I will not detail here. In certain areas of the country encouragement should be given to the processing of food in those areas so it will be consumed there. I was shocked to read recently that of the food consumed in the four Atlantic provinces less than 30 per cent is produced there. Of course there are some exports to partly balance that, but the exports do not begin to completely balance it.
I think my time is just about up, Mr. Chairman, but I have just one more thing to say. We in the maritimes do not expect a very high rate of income, and we would go along with seeing some other sections of the country enjoying a higher income, because I think the average farmer in the maritimes realizes that farming is a way of life and is interested in preserving the family farm. If he had a choice between prairie income and scenery and maritime income and the maritime way of life he would take the latter, because he realizes that as a work of art there are few things more pleasing to the eye, or more capable of affording scope and gratification

to a taste for the beautiful, than a well-situated, well-cultivated farm.


Edward Blake Huffman: Mr. Chairman, I was
[DOT]extremely interested in the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Queens, especially when he referred to the federation of agriculture brief in which they stated that the agricultural economy is not sharing in the high level of prosperity of the country.
Although the debate on the speech from the throne has concluded I would call to the hon. member's attention that this fact was recognized by the government when it said that some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in the country's increased wellbeing. Our government has recognized the position of agriculture, and it has done many things over the years which have been helpful to the producers. One has only to recall at the time of the foot-and-mouth disease how readily and quickly the government came to the support of the people concerned. In addition to that we have floor prices on many commodities which are produced.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Huron the other day when he asked the Minister of Labour about the possibility of getting more immigrants in this country because there is a need at this time to assist in the production on our farms.
I was rather surprised when the hon. member for Leeds got up to make his speech this afternoon and immediately started to criticize the Minister of Agriculture, indicating that he had not fully recognized the problems of agriculture in this country. He also expressed the hope that at some time they would have the opportunity of naming a minister of agriculture from eastern Ontario. May I say to him, as the Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon, we are very pleased in Ontario and throughout eastern Canada because we have the assistant to the minister who is fully conversant with all the farm problems in Ontario, in eastern Canada and in every part of Canada.
I feel a little out of character in saying what I am about to say at this time. When the Leader of the Opposition raised the point this afternoon about the Minister of Agriculture and the other ministers being absent, the Minister of Agriculture upon his return made the statement that he was out to get some facts and figures so he would be able to answer certain questions which might arise. I feel that the only reason the question of privilege was raised this afternoon was because when the Minister of Finance was replying to the amendment moved by the leader of the official opposition, and seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, at
Supply-Agriculture
eight o'clock on Tuesday night, there was not a single member of the official opposition in the house-


William McLean Hamilton: At
eight o'clock?


Edward Blake Huffman: At eight o'clock nobody was here of the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Blake Huffman: The minister was speaking at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It must have been unauthorized and illegal.


Edward Blake Huffman: The house had been called to order, Mr. Speaker was in the chair, and if you want to press it further I might point out that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the hon. member who seconded his amendment was here to cast his vote when the vote was taken.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, on a
question of privilege, if we are going to get into this sort of thing-


An hon. Member:: It is the other way around now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, if we are going to become involved in this sort of question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -I think it is only fair to point out to the committee that the Leader of the Opposition was in Toronto fulfilling a speaking engagement.


An hon. Member:: He should have been here.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think it is only fair to point out to the committee at this time that it is not my responsibility to determine who started this argument and who was or was not present. It is my responsibility to try to keep the committee discussing item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I think the honours are about even in so far as the introducing of extraneous matter is concerned, and I ask the committee to please consider the incident closed.


John Cameron Pallett: May I ask the hon. member a question. Was he referring to the federal government's refusal to make any grants to the municipalities?
The Depuiy Chairman:	I thought I had
tried to make it clear to the committee that we are not discussing that incident or any other incident which may have taken place. We are discussing item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.

Supply-Agriculture


Edward Blake Huffman: Mr. Chairman, speaking
more directly to the problem of agriculture I should like first to refer to an article which appeared in the Windsor Star of June 25,
1955.	Speaking about the vast investment in agriculture it had this to say:
Due to the rapid industrial development of Canada there is occasional talk about the decline in importance of agriculture. This should be taken with a few grains of salt. Increases in other activities do not diminish the importance of agriculture.
It is wise to know the exact position, so there may be no misunderstanding about this. Agriculture still is far and away the principal industry in Canada. Indeed, there is more money invested in agriculture than in all manufacturing industries combined.
Most recent figures show the vast sum of $9,593,000,000 in capital investments in farm land, buildings, equipment and livestock in Canada. This compares with $8,470,000,000 in all manufacturing industries.
Even in the highly industrialized United States an authority avers there is a greater capital investment in agriculture than in all other industries combined. And it is estimated the incomes of 50 per cent of the people in the United States are derived directly or indirectly from agriculture.
These include not only farmers. Also involved are all in the canning, packing and other food processing plants. Also all in the farm implement business-manufacturing and distribution. And many in the chemical industry (suppliers of fertilizers and insecticides): in the railway and trucking industries; in the automobile and rubber factories, and in all the retail and wholesale trades handling foods.
The same would be true in Canada, possibly even more so in proportion. We produce large quantities of food for export.
It is well to put these facts in proper perspective, so that other industries-each of importance in the Canadian economy-will realize their positions.
In my opinion the problems facing agriculture in Canada are similar to the problems faced by agriculture in other countries. An article which appeared in the New York Times was headed "Has any country licked the agricultural problem?" The article goes on to deal with the $7 billion surplus which has been created by the policies followed in the United States. They mention that this was at the time the Russian agriculturists were visiting the United States-they later came to Canada-and continued:
I don't know whether the Russian agricultural experts who saw the farmers' homes had it made clear to them that some of the great farms of this country are mortgaged to the government for as high as a million dollars that the government hasn t the slightest idea of ever collecting on "loans" covered by unsalable crops. And that 43 per cent of American farmers still have net incomes of less than a thousand dollars per year-and are, in fact, paying the rich and subsidized farmers in enhanced feed prices.
It is understandable that there is a problem in the United States. An article in the Financial Times had this to say:
Moreover, under that system, the American farmer has lost all control over his major operations. Like the Russian, the American farmer is
[The Deputy Chairman.)
told exactly what, when and how much he is to grow. There is no incentive to develop new markets nor to reduce costs.
Referring to Europe the New York Times had this to say under an article headed "Farm surpluses face west Europe nations", and reading:
Efforts to get freer trade in food products within Europe have been unsuccessful.
All of us realize that the severe weather on the continent during the past winter changed that picture almost overnight and from a surplus position they soon got into a position of need. We all recall the great increase in the prices of practically every item of foodstuff which occurred. I recall the Indian delegate to the United Nations telling us last fall how they had been able to increase the production of foodstuffs in that country by the use of new cultural practices over what it had been a short time ago.
Returning to our own province, I should like to pay a compliment to the farm organizations which met in Toronto not so long ago and advocated that self-help was the best solution for any farm problem. I am proud to be associated with such people who are ready to work out a solution to a problem that may face them and try the best possible plan to bring the best possible result. They are not asking the government to pile up surpluses worth millions of dollars as has been done in the United States, to the point where they do not know how they are going to dispose of them. These surpluses have created a block to the distribution of foodstuffs in a free society such as the one in which we like to operate.
I realize that as individuals we cannot always maintain the position we would like to maintain, but our position is ever so much stronger when we act collectively. I should like to pay a compliment to the farm organizations in my own county of Kent (Ont.). We grow many specialized products in that county, and the production of many of them is organized. The production of other products is in the process of being organized. Where there is an organization you will find there is little or no problem as far as the return from that crop is concerned, but where the production is unorganized or, if you like, disorganized there is a problem because we are not always able to get the best price consistent with the cost of production.
I should like to pay a compliment to the government for the action that has been taken in connection with resolutions which have been passed from time to time by organizations in my county. These resolutions were forwarded to the ministers concerned, and while they were not always accepted, at times

the government saw fit to accept particular resolutions which had been passed. Those turned out to be favourable and to the benefit of the industry in my district or in whatever area they applied.
I would recommend to the farm organizations that they make an effort to use the established agencies for handling their products. This can be done, as has been ably demonstrated. I feel that there is a place for those people who know the selling business, because that is the important part. There is no doubt that we are able to produce to meet the needs, but we must have further organization to dispose of the products we grow.
I was very much interested this afternoon when I heard the hon. member for Queens speak about the fruits and vegetables that are imported into this country and the vegetables that we export to the United States. Certain it is that we cannot balance one type of commodity with a similar type of commodity, but if we did we would be denying the Canadian people the right to make the choice they would like to make as far as fruits and vegetables are concerned. But we do attempt as best we can to meet the problems that face us.
I should like now to offer a suggestion to the government that I feel will be helpful to an industry in my district. I refer to the corn industry. In looking over the figures I note that at one time the production of corn in this country was very minor in extent. I have figures only for the province of Ontario, but I believe the greater proportion of the corn grown in Canada for commercial purposes is grown within this province.
In 1940 we had a production of nearly 7 million bushels of shelled corn. In 1955 that production had increased to the point where we were growing nearly 32 million bushels.
I take a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that the county from which I come and which I have the honour to represent has extended its production from 2 million bushels in 1940 to nearly 11 million bushels in 1955. We have increased our average yield on a provincial basis from 37-4 to 62-6 bushels per acre. That is an increase of 70 per cent for the province. The figures for the county of Kent (Ont.) show an increase in the same period of over 80 per cent.
I heard the hon. member for Queens read an article stating the concern of some people about the arable land being used up, and expressing some concern as to whether we shall be able to meet the needs of our people in the foreseeable future. I for one do not believe that situation will ever occur, because at this moment our provincial average production of corn is 62-6 bushels per acre.
Supply-Agriculture
During 1955 a 4-H club member produced 304-38 bushels per acre. I feel that in the future we shall continue to improve as we have done in the past.
One of the ways in which I think we might be able to help this industry in my district is this. Corn coming in from the United States bears an 8 cents tariff. If we were to ship com into the United States it would have a tariff of 25 cents a bushel. The tariff was established at a time when we were not selfsufficient in the production of corn. Today Canadians produce the amount of corn needed by our people, and we are exporting some corn as well. Some time ago I made representations, along with the hybrid seed corn producers of our district. On that occasion, on a presidential prerogative, the tariff against seed corn going into the United States was reduced by one-half, and there are further representations being made that the executive exercise its right of reducing it at the rate of 5 per cent for three consecutive years if it so chooses. That would be helpful.
I should like to recite a specific case. At a given point in my district, 76 miles from London, where the great Kellogg plant is located, corn going over the railroad bears a tariff of 25J cents. But corn can come from Chicago, a distance of 376 miles, and cost only 5 cents more to haul, and it is being hauled under arrangements that were made quite some years ago. I would suggest to the minister, and also to the Minister of Transport that they give consideration to looking into the rates that apply on this commodity. We have the Crowsnest pass and the maritime rates and we have the bridge over northern Ontario. If our railroads are to be used in the national interest, I suggest that it would be in the national interest if something were done for this industry, which plays a very important part in the Canadian economy.
There is another item to which I should like to refer, and that is the item of soybeans. We are not self-sufficient in that commodity. We started to grow them only in 1942. In my own county we produced 308,000 bushels in 1942, and in 1955 we produced 2,034,300 bushels. Our total production in Canada for 1955 was 5-65 million bushels. Along with that, Canada has the highest yield of any country. The average United States yield is 20-2 bushels per acre. In Ontario it is 26 bushels per acre, and the county I have the privilege of representing has an average of 29-7 bushels per acre.
Soybeans come into this country free, but if we want to export them to the United States they cost $1.20 a bushel. When that tariff was established that was perfectly all right, because we needed the soybeans from

Supply-Agriculture
the United States if our crushing plants in this country were to be established. Today we have them established and, though we are net yet self-sufficient, I am sure the time is rapidly approaching when we can produce all that is necessary. Again we have the rail problem, and it is almost identical with that connected with corn except that it has one more feature. It has a different classification. It is classified under oil seeds and bears a higher freight tariff than corn. So, in addition to possibly reclassification which is necessary, this product should be put on a basis that would enable us to meet the competition from abroad.
The reason I bring up the question of rail rates is this. In Toledo, which is just across the lake from our crushing plants, the soybeans can be loaded into lake boats or barges and taken across the lake. They go across at a rate of 6 to 7 cents a bushel. In our case, to ship soybeans from Chatham, from where I come, costs 25 cents a bushel. Therefore our people are at a disadvantage of 18 to 19 cents a bushel. If we can overcome this disadvantage we will be in a very favourable position to increase our production and meet our competitors, the producers in the United States. For that reason I trust that the government will pay some attention to this aspect of the problem.
There is one other matter, and this one really brings tears to my eyes because I wish to speak about onions. Last year we had an exceptionally good crop of onions in my district but the farmers of New York state lost their onions because of severe floods. The growers of my district generously offered eight carloads of onions to the producers in New York state. The only requirement was that they would sell the onions and distribute the funds among the people of New York state. However, the government of the United States would not waive the regulations that applied, and consequently the gift could not be accepted. I hope that in the representations made to Washington from time to time these problems will be taken care of so that we can meet any competition there may be.
There is another problem with regard to onions. There is a duty of 37J cents on onions coming into Canada from the United States, and during certain periods of the year they come in free. On Canadian onions going into the United States the duty is 75 cents. Our people feel they can produce equally as well as any other country, and all they are asking is that the United States put their tariff in line with our tariff and allow us an equal opportunity to compete wherever the market may be. Our people will be satisfied if that is done. I think that is a compliment

to the ability of our people to produce, and that is what they would like to see the government do.
I should like to refer to an article that appeared in the London Free Press reporting an address by Frank E. Wolff, chairman of the agriculture committee of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in the course of which he said that food was the greatest weapon. I agree that is the case. I should like to pay a particular compliment to our plant breeders and cerealists who over the years have introduced types of plants and grains that have increased production and have given people in many parts of the world the opportunity to eat better than they ever did before. I would say that our plant breeders, cerealists, agronomists and others connected with such work have rendered a greater service to mankind than the physicists and other scientists.
We all know what happens when an atom or hydrogen bomb is exploded over an atoll. A chain reaction starts in Moscow. They say they have a bigger and better bomb, and that they exploded it first. I should like to tell you what has been done in my district by our plant breeders and cerealists. They have produced a hybrid seed corn which has increased production from the figure of around 40 bushels an acre that I mentioned a while ago to a maximum of 304 bushels an acre. When the Russian delegation were here they purchased hybrid seed corn from my district. It is going to their country and possibly it will have an effect so far as the Russian people are concerned. There is one thing of which I am sure. I am confident that a Canadian kernel is much better than a Russian kernel.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on this occasion to support a resolution passed unanimously at the twelfth annual convention of the Ontario canning crop growers at Hamilton, Ontario, on December 1, 1955. The purpose of the resolution was to recommend to the government that a pilot processing plant be established at the Smithfield horticultural substation. As Smithfield is in the riding of Northumberland which I have the pleasure to represent I think I can point' out many reasons why Smithfield is the logical place for the establishment of such a pilot processing plant. The association represents some
10,000	growers of vegetable canning crops in the province of Ontario. The resolution is worded as follows:
Be it resolved that this convention request the Canada Department of Agriculture to establish a pilot processing plant at the Smithfield horticultural

substation of the Canada Department of Agriculture for the purpose of further studying the relationship of raw product grades to those in the finished product grades of processing crops and that sufficient commercial acreage be grown at the above station to supply the pilot plant with the raw product of the crops being studied.
The resolution was supported by a brief which was presented to the deputy minister of agriculture on February 15 of this year. I should like to express the appreciation of all members of this organization for the courtesy of the deputy minister of agriculture and the sympathetic hearing he gave to the delegation. In supporting the brief I feel I can do no better than to quote very briefly from the brief itself in order to demonstrate the requirement for and purpose and need of such a pilot processing plant. The brief as presented to the deputy minister reads in part as follows under the heading "The Need":
By reason of its location, weather conditions at the central experimental farm at Ottawa are not ideal for the growing of many of the major canning crops. In recognition of this fact, the Canada Department of Agriculture some years ago established a horticultural substation at Smith-field, Ontario, to permit the study of problems encountered by growers of fruits and vegetables under actual conditions existing in one of Canada's important areas of production of these crops, particularly for the food processing industry. . . .
To be of practical value to agriculture and the food processing industry, fruit and vegetable varieties must possess qualities that enable both producers and processors to market food products that meet with consumer acceptance. The grower has to produce a crop of high quality and yield which he can produce and market at a reasonable profit. The objective of the food processor in respect to the finished product is identical. At the same time, consumers demand, in this era of keen competition both in price and variety of food products, processed food products of good flavour, colour, texture, odour and generally attractive appearance.
I go on further in the brief, and under the heading, "The Purpose" there is the following:
A food products laboratory should be established at Smithfield, Ontario, in order to help the plant breeder, the grower, the processor and the consumer. . . . Such a laboratory would provide the facilities for objective testing and evaluation of various varieties of fruits and vegetables produced on the substation acreage.
Later, results could be discussed with plant breeders and ultimately, when a variety is considered ready for commercial introduction, results and performance could be discussed with producers and processors in order to assure industry acceptance of the results of research in a minimum of time.
. . . For optimum quality of the finished product, a promising variety must be harvested at a definite maturity and processed by a definite procedure that can be carefully controlled. A food processing laboratory at Smithfield would provide the means of determining the desirable maturity and establishing a definite processing procedure for a given variety.
Supply-Agriculture
In addition, the laboratory could conduct research to determine the reasons for: flavour loss in processing, loss of colour intensity, undesirable odour development and texture characteristics of processed food products. As a further practical contribution to the industry and the economy,, such a laboratory would enable research authorities to develop new types of processed foods that would channel commodities which might at any time in the future be in surplus supply into the consumer market.
Finally, under the heading of "Requirements" of such a plan the following has been suggested:
In order to provide the facilities for such research, it is respectfully suggested that the-laboratory at Smithfield consist of:
(1)	a pilot plant.
(2)	a laboratory for evaluation.
(3)	cold storage and freezer facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to support this brief wholeheartedly because I am sure that in Smithfield we have all the requirements for the establishment of a successful pilot processing plant. I also know that the Ontario food processors' association feel the need for such a pilot plant so they may carry on extensive research on food products in this industry. They also feel that Smithfield is an ideal location for such a plant because technical personnel from Ottawa could avail themselves of the opportunity of conducting on the spot research in a major canning area in Canada, thus eliminating the necessity for recruiting additional technical staff which would be necessary if such a pilot processing plant were established in another area in Canada.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, among both growers and processors there is a feeling that since Ontario is the major centre of canning crop production, the province of Ontario is the logical place for the establishment of such a pilot processing plant. If the Department of Agriculture can give sympathetic consideration to this suggestion I am sure we shall be providing an extremely valuable service which will be of benefit not only to the growers of fruits and vegetables in Canada but also to the processing industry and ultimately to the consuming public itself.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is something of a notable day in the House of Commons, in that members of all political parties have risen in their places and said to the government that all was not well with the agricultural industry. I am most happy to see members on the government side of the house-Liberal members, in this case Liberal members from Ontario-rising and pointing out to the government that substantial improvements are necessary in its agricultural policy.
As everyone knows, in this nation today we are witnessing an increase in our wealth

Supply-Agriculture
production. In recent years we have had an almost uninterrupted increase in the general production of this country. But anyone viewing the important segment of the Canadian economy cannot help but come to the conclusion that agriculture is the one important segment that is not sharing in any way in this general rise in prosperity. As a matter of fact instead of improving its position agriculture is going down, and it has been going down for some years. Moreover, the position of agriculture is not falling at a small, imperceptible rate; it is falling at a most alarming rate.
I have here figures obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics. They show that the gross cash income for agriculture was $2,811 million in 1951 and that it has been falling steadily until in 1955 it is estimated that gross cash incomes for agriculture will be some $2,323 million. The net income position is much worse. There is a drop from $2,150 million in 1951 to $1,125 million in 1954. That is a drop of some 48 per cent within that three-year period.
I do not believe our so-called prosperous economy can be secure as long as we have this important segment with inadequate purchasing power and with falling standards of living. During this period to which I have referred the gross national product has increased from $21-4 billion in 1951 to $26-4 billion in 1955. Some may think that, as consumers, they stand to gain if prices of food products fall. In its brief to the Gordon commission the Canadian Federation of Agriculture points out that in many years when agricultural prices are falling the cost of food products to the consumer is increasing. It does not follow at all that because farm prices are falling to the producer, the consumer is gaining in any way. I am afraid the consumer will stand to lose by any further deterioration in the position of agriculture.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was pointing out that while most sections of our economy were relatively prosperous, agriculture was in no way sharing in that prosperity. Not only have farm cash income and farm net income been going down, but probably of greater significance is the fact that the prices of agricultural products in relation to the farmer's costs of production have been continually getting worse.

Shortly after the Minister of Agriculture took office back in 1935 there was established an index for the farm costs of production and for farm prices. The base of that index was taken as 1935-39. That period was taken as 100 for the farmer's cost of production and for the prices of agricultural products. The latest index based on that period as set out in the Economic Annalist for April, 1956, shows that the prices of farm products have increased to 218. But the cost of production index has gone up until it has not only reached 218 but has gone even higher until it stands at 235. According to the Economic Annalist, the prices of agricultural products today in relation to the farmer's cost of production are even lower than they were in the depressed years from 1935 to 1939. That is why we in this group say it is time the government adopted a price support policy based on parity, that is prices for agricultural products that bear a fair relationship to the farmer's cost of production.
An important announcement was made today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that will affect agriculture on the prairies and indirectly all parts of Canada. We welcome that part of the announcement concerning the 1956-57 initial prices for grain. We also welcome the statement that within about two weeks' time an announcement will be made as to the final payment on the 1954 wheat crop. But there was a third announcement that was highly disturbing to me, namely the announcement that at the end of the current crop year delivery quotas for grain to various points would not be equalized, that no steps would be taken by the Canadian wheat board or by the government to bring about an equalization of quotas.
That statement will not sit very well on the western prairies. I am afraid there will be a tremendous amount of criticism. I am afraid that in the natural course of events people who support the Winnipeg grain exchange will use this new policy as a weapon against the Canadian wheat board. I express the hope that between now and the end of the crop year the government will give serious reconsideration to the statement that was made this afternoon and change it so that quotas are equalized among producers at various marketing points. If it is impossible to equalize them on July 31, whatever quotas some farmers may be short of at that time should be extended into the new crop year.
I am for parity prices; I am for a price level that would give agriculture a fair share of the national income. But within a system of parity prices for agricultural prices I also

believe that steps should be taken to bring about the greatest practicable equalization of income amongst the farmers themselves. That is why I am so disturbed over the announcement this afternoon that even on an acreage basis there will be unequal quotas during the crop year and nothing will be done at the snd of the crop year to see that those quotas are equalized. I repeat, I hope the government will reconsider its policy and will bring about an equalization of grain delivery quotas.
A few years ago when one stood up in the house and advocated a system of parity prices one perhaps did not get too much vocal support from farm organizations; but every single farm organization of any importance, and every farm organization in Canada with which I am acquainted, is advocating some system of guaranteed support prices or some system of parity prices. The great Canadian Federation of Agriculture has brought before the government a policy advocating fair relationship prices, advocating that the government implement a system of support prices that will guarantee to the farmer not less than from 65 per cent to 85 per cent of a parity price. The interprovincial farm union council, in making their submission to the government every year and in making their submission to the agriculture committee of the house, has emphasized its position that the farmers should have parity prices. The government has done very little or nothing about those submissions.
We have a reasonably good support price for butter, but after you have said that there is little more to say. We have something of a support price on hogs and eggs; but as I have seen those support prices operate, or fail to operate, in the past I am afraid they have been pretty much window dressing.
Little has been done by the government to provide support prices for agricultural products. I would think that the Prime Minister, who comes from a province in Canada where agriculture and rural life are considered to be a very important aspect of the life of that province, would implement policies that would prevent the deterioration of the agricultural industry and the position of farmers in his province and in other provinces of Canada. The position is becoming very serious. It is not a matter of a member rising in his place and talking blue ruin and depressed agricultural prices. He does not have to do that himself; he merely has to quote the record of what other authorities have said. I hold in my hand the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, April 26. On the front page it has a heading:
Farmers Broke in Boom Times 67509-225
Supply-Agriculture
The report has this to say in part:
The federal and provincial governments have been accused of "complete lack of long-range planning" to solve the problems of the Canadian farmer, particularly those in eastern Ontario, some of whom "are going broke while the over-all economy is booming".
And that is true in every agricultural area of Canada. The report goes on to say:
In a report presented to the Ottawa diocese synod meeting by Rev. H. Clayton Vaughan of Navan, chairman of the rural community committee, the plight of the farmer is vigorously presented.
"It is difficult to realize the feeling of discouragement and uncertainty that is sweeping our rural communities".
What an indictment of the agricultural policy of this government, when such an important meeting of a church organization makes a public statement saying that because of the policies of the government agriculture is being allowed to go broke in times of boom.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is highly respected in this nation. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture each year presents a carefully prepared, well thought out, agricultural policy to the government. One of the chief persons connected with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, their economist, Dr. E. C. Hope, appeared before the banking and commerce committee the other day in connection with amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. When Dr. E. C. Hope was discussing agricultural policies generally and what his organization wished the government to do, I asked him this question, as recorded at page 114 of the proceedings of the committee:
In your study of agricultural policy in other nations of the world, do you know of any advanced nations which do less in the way of support prices and other policies for agriculture than is done by our country?
To that question Dr. Hope, the witness, replied:
No, I do not know of any country that does less.
According to Dr. Hope, chief economist of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, this government does less for the farmers than is done by the government of any other advanced country in the world. It is small wonder, then, that farmers from one end of this nation to the other are highly dissatisfied with the policy of the government and the deal they are receiving.
What are the farmers going to do about it? They are going to have to obtain a new policy; this one is not good enough. They are endeavouring to bring pressure to bear on members of the government. They are also bringing their case to the attention of members of the opposition. They are coming to

Supply-Agriculture
Ottawa time and time again to present to the government the things which they think should be done. They have obtained some results, but very few.
While they may get something from the government from time to time their general position is almost continually worsening. When the government brings in policies that are of some help, such as the payment of storage on certain quantities of grain or perhaps by way of extending the provision of agricultural credit, what do we see? We see some of the most important newspapers in this country making editorial comments to this effect:	Why should the government
bother about agriculture at all? After all, it is an industry of dwindling importance; after all, it is losing its political power and effect in the nation. When it comes to a policy the government may bring in which will help the farmers they go one step further and say that the farmers are losing representation in parliament, so why should the government or the country bother about giving agriculture and the farmer a square deal?
Some of the things they say are true. The farmer is losing some of his political weight in this country, and if he is to get a square deal he is going to need strong and powerful allies. He is going to have to enlist other groups to support his position when he asks the government to do certain things. I believe there is a growing hope that the farmers are going to get adequate support from other organizations. I have in my hand the resolutions presented to the recent merger convention founding the new Canadian Labour Congress, and I am pleased to note that those resolutions deal not just with labour problems but also with agricultural problems. While all these resolutions could not be considered individually, there were composite resolutions passed by the convention embodying the principles to which I am going to refer. Here is one resolution which reads:
Be it further resolved that our new congress strives, through the recently-created Canadian farm-labour economic council, to unite the forces of farmers and labour in Canada, for the welfare of both sections of the population and the country as a whole.
Another resolution reads:
Whereas this convention views with alarm the ruinous drop in agricultural income . . . and
Whereas we believe that all producers, whether they work in the office, in the factory, in the mines, or on the farm, are entitled to a fair and adequate return for their work; and
Whereas we join with organized farmers in their farm unions, co-operatives, and with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their fight to obtain parity for the agricultural producer:

Be it resolved that, to this end, efforts be made to regain the overseas markets that have been lost to Canadian farmers since the end of world war II; an immediate campaign to eliminate malnutrition in Canada be launched; a generous program of economic assistance be undertaken to help fight world poverty and hunger, and a generous program of support prices be established, so that both producers and consumers will be protected from violent fluctuations in price and supply.
We have frequently heard it said that the interests of labour and agriculture are separate, apart and quite opposed one to the other. We have been told that the government finds it difficult to bring in adequate support prices for farm products because the consumer will rebel but here we have the largest labour organization in Canada advocating that farmers be given parity prices for their products.
Mr. J. L. Phelps, president of the farm-labour economic council, addressed that huge convention and when he concluded his remarks he was given a standing ovation. In Canada the privilege of receiving a standing ovation seldom occurs, and the standing ovation Mr. Phelps received at the labour convention is indicative of growing farm-labour co-operation which will inevitably result in better legislation for labour and a program of parity prices for farm products in the future. We are told-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I wonder if I might interject at this moment. In some instances the hon. member has mentioned parity prices and in other parts of his remarks he has mentioned support prices. I have listened to the hon. member now at some length and it seems to me that in the main his argument is with regard to parity prices. Now, if that is the case, may I point out to the hon. member that we had a resolution with regard to parity prices negatived in the house on March 12. I must point out to the hon. member that a discussion purely of parity prices at this time on that account would not be in order. For those reasons I must ask the hon. member to refrain from a discussion of parity prices.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was about to say, Mr. Chairman, that we read from time to time of a farm bloc in the United States, and that farmers have so much power in the United States congress that at times they are able to push through a program for high support prices that is detrimental to the economy of that country. We are told that but it is not true. There is no farm bloc in the United States congress which is able to command a majority, but there is in the United States congress a working farm-labour bloc that can command a majority when it comes to legislation they jointly support. The reason the

United States congress adopted a program of so-called high support prices for agricultural products, which even then did not mean a measure of full justice or parity for the agricultural industry in that country, was because of that farm-labour co-operation. When we get that kind of co-operation in Canada the farmer with the help of labour will obtain from the government in power the legislative program to which he is entitled.
I think there are a number of things the government should do to provide a better deal for agriculture at this time. The first thing I have referred to is the system of support or parity prices. The second thing I would like to impress on the government is the need for a continuation of the Crowsnest pass rates on grain. I am afraid there is growing evidence of an attack by the railway companies on the Crowsnest pass rates. Just last year the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in his annual speech to the shareholders dealing with railway policy-


William Alfred Robinson: Would not these remarks, perhaps, be better made on the first item of the Department of Transport?


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought of that one, too.
Naturally I shall bow to any ruling you make, but I want to point out that if the change in the Crowsnest pass rates which the C.P.R. are endeavouring to obtain should be brought about it will reduce the price of wheat to the producer by not less than 12 cents a bushel. I point out further that any such substantial reduction in the price of wheat is bound to see an increase in the production of livestock on the prairie provinces, which would have an adverse effect upon the whole agricultural economy.
The third point I have listed is the need to establish national marketing boards to provide, at the request of producers, stability in the assembly, processing and marketing of main agricultural products. Fourth, to establish a board of livestock commissioners to provide scientific grading standards. Fifth, to expand the sale of agricultural products through international commodity agreements and through bilateral contract sales. We have seen evidence recently that such a program is feasible, that bilateral contract sales offer a method by which the sale of farm products can effectively be made on the international markets. I suggest that if this policy is to be used to its fullest extent the government should be prepared to sign contract agreements for the purchase of products produced in countries which buy our grain. We cannot continue to hope to sell to these countries unless we are also prepared to buy the goods they produce.
67509-225|
Supply-Agriculture
Sixth, support for an international food pool to dispose of surplus agricultural products. Seventh, double the payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and extend the act to provide income protection in time of crop failure for farmers in all parts of Canada. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act was first brought into existence in 1939 and provided a maximum of $2.50 per acre on half the cultivated acreage. That payment has not been increased, even though the cost of production has more than doubled since that time. I suggest that the payment should be doubled and the provisions of the act should be extended to agricultural producers in all parts of Canada in the case of crop failure.
Eighth, extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to all parts of Canada, making it into a comprehensive program of soil and water conservation. Ninth, immediate construction of the South Saskatchewan dam. It used to be that the Prime Minister would discuss in this house the benefits or otherwise, depending upon his point of view, which would flow from the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam, but now when he is asked a question he just says no. There is no argument, there is no consideration; the government says no. It might cost a little over $60 million from the federal treasury to build this dam, but apparently there is no hesitation in providing $80 million to pull a pipe-line company out of a very bad situation into which it is getting and in which it apparently wants to involve the country as well. There is lots of money to help a pipe-line company, but the government cannot find any money to build the South Saskatchewan dam, the cost of which would be spread over a period of ten years.
My tenth and final point is the extension of the Canada Grain Act to all parts of Canada so that feeders may obtain the benefits of the excellent grading system for grain which prevails on the prairies.
If the government does not want to consider all these, I suggest that there are three main items the government should consider. First of all they should provide a system of adequate support prices for farm products. Second, they should provide a system of crop failure protection or crop insurance for the farmer when he loses his crop through no fault of his own. Third, the government should provide adequate markets for the full quantity of food products which agriculture is able to produce.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that there are many tens of thousands of Canadians who have a most inadequate diet tonight, who are close to suffering from malnutrition. I need mention no others than the old age pensioners

Supply-Agriculture
in this country, who in many instances have to live on a mere $40 a month, a large part of which must be paid for rent when they reside in our cities. I suggest that the type of agricultural program that I have proposed is necessary, not only for the welfare of our agricultural industry but for the welfare of Canadians generally.
(Translation):


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words tonight on a matter which is particularly dear to me. However, I should not like to dwell on it at too great length.
In May of last year, I rose in this house to urge the government to continue its subsidy to maple sugar producers, so that they may continue, and to complete if possible, the change-over from tin sap pails they have been using to aluminum pails. Here is what I said then, as taken from page 3343 of Hansard of May 2:
There is a provision embodied in the- i was thus stating the main reason for this change-over.
There is a provision embodied in the Food and Drugs Act of Canada to ban lead in any kind of food. To obtain that regulations have been adopted to do away with welded tins as containers of all kinds of canned food; hooked tins are now being used. For the same reason, tea, chocolate and cigarettes are wrapped in waxed or aluminum foil; no more lead paper is used to wrap them.
And I added:
The history of this subsidy to maple sugar producers is that lead was found in maple sugar products and all shipments were stopped at once, not only shipments to the United States, but all exports outside the province of Quebec. The maple sap itself does not contain lead but the oxide of lead found in maple sugar came from the buckets made with tin plate.
I think that was reason enough to bring this matter to the attention not only of the government but of all members of this house, who, I thought, would be glad to support that subsidy to maple sugar producers. Unfortunately some hon. members thought fit to oppose the subsidy, as they had done in previous sessions. So for some reason I do not wish to discuss here, the federal government decided not to renew the subsidy this year. If I bring up this subject again, it is because I believe we should keep protecting that very special maple product, not only in Canada but especially in countries which import it.
According to the 1951 census, 22,443,061 pails were used for that purpose; out of that number, 17,308,823 pails have been changed, and the shares of the federal government and

the provincial government have been one-third respectively, with the other third being paid by the farmers. There are 13,382 maple sugar producers who have taken advantage of that opportunity to change their pails, out of a possible total of 21,700, always according to the 1951 census.
Thus, there are about 5,135,000 sap pails which have not been replaced. So, I urge the federal government to continue this subsidy to maple sugar producers at least for a year or two, in order that they may replace these 5 million odd pails. They could thus increase their income and, consequently, improve the situation of their families. It would also enable them to share more fully in the economy of the country and, especially, to continue exporting to other countries this maple product whose purity is its main quality.
I remember that, some years ago, Queen Victoria was presented with a jar of maple toffee, and Her Majesty, having tasted it, said to those who were sampling it with her: "This is the most delicious sweetmeat I have ever tasted."
So I am asking the federal government to help the producers, because I would like our maple products to keep their high quality.
This year, only about 250 thousand sap pails will be replaced, which will mean an expense of about $50,000 for the provincial as well as for the federal government, and for the farmers.
Last year, I put on record a table showing the production and value of maple products in the province of Quebec, from 1937 to 1954, as can be seen on pages 3343-44.
I also put on the record a second table referring to the production and value of maple sugar for the years 1953 and 1954; a third table showed the production and value of maple sugar for the years 1953 and 1954, while a fourth table showed the classification of maple syrup commercial production in the province of Quebec from 1949 to 1954.
Those interested in the situation of the maple industry in the province of Quebec will kindly refer to those tables which, as I said, are given on pages 3344 and 3345 of Hansard.
Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. However, I renew my request, and ask the central government to continue, at least for another year or two, to grant a certain amount to allow the change over of sap pails to be completed. The farmer will then lead a

better life because, with the syrup and sugar industry paying him more, he will get an added revenue to the production of his land. I submit that our farmers are a rather important group in our country and have made enough sacrifices and enough efforts to be entitled to federal as well as provincial assistance.
(Text) :


Harry Oliver White: There were quite a number of very good speeches this afternoon, all of them Conservative. The minister's estimates provide not only the members who come from agricultural ridings but many other members an opportunity to understand and take part in the unending problems of agriculture.
I wish to compliment the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) on his speech this afternoon. I am just going to review two or three of the things he had to say. In his introduction he mentioned that in the throne speech there occurred these words:
Canada has enjoyed, on the whole, a high level of prosperity. Some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in this increased well-being.
He said then the government was quite aware of the plight the farmers were in. It is one thing to be aware of the plight they are in and another thing to do something about it, which has not been done. That is the trouble. Being aware of it is just not good enough. He dealt with the discrepancies in the marketing of corn, pointing out that he was hopeful that the United States would reduce its duty so as to bring about equality of tariffs. What a hope. I do not think there is a chance in the world that the United States will change its tariff policy just because we are producing more corn and might want to send some into the United States.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) comes from a cash crop area. I was very much interested in some of the other items produced there, with which he dealt. He talked about onions. The duty on onions coming into Canada is 374 cents a bag, while on onions going to the United States it is just double that, 75 cents. He failed to say also that 22 carloads of Egyptian onions were unloaded at Montreal at the very time growers in Kent and Essex and the other onion-growing areas were harvesting a crop, and that played a disastrous part in reducing the price to the Canadian grower. At the same time those products were held in the warehouses of the trade.
Supply-Agriculture
The consumer got very little benefit, if any, from the disaster that was caused the producer.
There are many farm products imported into this country that are produced-and more of them could be produced-in Canada. As I have said many times, there are many agricultural products that we, a northern country, are not able to produce and that we are glad to import from the United States. However, when we can produce corn, soybeans, sugar beets, apples, potatoes and many other things, it looks a little foolish that we cannot, either through a tariff or a quota system, assist our Canadian farmers. Here we are building up surpluses of certain farm products that we cannot sell-more acres of wheat than we know what to do with-and at the same time importing millions of dollars worth of farm products which Canadian farms could well grow.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) had something to say about soybeans. Soybeans come in from the United States duty free, but if Canadian soybeans are exported to the United States they are charged $1.20 a bushel duty. Yet the government does nothing about it. At the same time there is the importation of soybean and other vegetable oils with no duty or quotas. The hon. member talked like a Conservative, but he votes the other way.
I am amazed at the number of government supporters who have taken part in the debate on the speech from the throne, the budget debate, the debate on parity prices for agricultural products and today the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I have reviewed what those members from western Ontario in particular have had to say, and I think it is rather interesting. It looks to me as if they are running for cover and holding up an umbrella. They want to be able to say, "This is the speech I made in the House of Commons for the agricultural industry in my constituency." When the next election rolls around they will have that to rely upon, and they will say: "This is what I had to say."
That is not the question. What did you do about it? Not a thing. For example, the hon. member for Waterloo North made a speech that is to be found at page 449 of Hansard. I have read his speech very carefully, and if I ever read or heard a Conservative speech that is one. He talks and thinks like a Conservative but he votes the other way. The junior member for Queens made a speech to be found at page 493 of Hansard in which he had this to say:
While Canada as a whole is prosperous-

Supply-Agriculture


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I take it from the page number in Hansard, without checking more particularly, that the hon. member is referring to another debate in the same session.


Harry Oliver White: Yes. I failed to remember, Mr. Chairman, that I could not quote from a speech made in another debate in the same session, so I will more or less paraphrase what his ideas were.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Without referring particularly to the wording of the rule, my recollection is that it covers referring to a debate in the same session, so that paraphrasing is equally out of order.


An hon. Member:: He said the same thing last year.


Harry Oliver White: This is not going to curtail in any way what I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I will just put it in another way. I would point out that Prince Edward Island is noted for its production of potatoes. I would also point out how onesided the tariffs and quotas are so far as Canadian and United States potatoes are concerned, and that 7,000 carloads of potatoes were imported into Canada last year. No wonder members from the maritimes who are interested in the production and sale of potatoes have something to say about these problems.
In the past some speakers have said that if an imported article can be bought more cheaply than a home-produced article Canadians, being no different from anybody else, will buy the imported article. Consequently we find cheap products coming into Canada not only from the United States but from other places and the Canadian public are buying them, for which I do not blame them one bit. The textile industry, particularly those firms engaged in processing wool, has had a very difficult time for some years now, and if I remember correctly 22 concerns have ceased operations in the last five or six years. In one year the number of employees in the wool processing industry dropped from 10,500 to 6,000. That will give some idea of the impact of the policies of this government as they are reflected not only on agriculture but on labour in many of the cities of this country.
I was also interested to note that the hon. member for Northumberland and the hon. member for Grey North went out of their way to say how difficult times were for the farmers, but offered as a solution the setting up of producer marketing boards. This is amazing to me, because I can look back over the years when times were good and farm products were scarce and the government was quite prepared to be the marketing
fMr. White (Middlesex East).]
agency for farm products. But when the going got tough the government told the farmers to form their own marketing boards and solve their own problems. They were quite prepared to turn these matters over to the farmers once they found that they had failed.
But what is the use of turning them over to the farmers? The farmers cannot solve the problems involved in the importation of the very same products they are producing. The farmers have nothing to do with the importation of vast quantities of farm products, particularly from the United States, that compete with the production of Canadian farmers.
Mention was also made last year and the year before of fruits and the canning factory industry. The farmers are finding right down the line that the many farm products imported only aggravate the surpluses with which we find ourselves confronted.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Cheese, for instance.


Harry Oliver White: I have referred to a few hon. members from western Ontario and one from the maritimes who have emphasized the serious situation. I have done so to emphasize the inconsistency of their arguments, because when they talk they talk one way but when they vote they vote the other way.
About a week ago I spoke on the bill of the hon. member for Kamloops respecting income tax, and at that time I failed to complete what I wanted to say. I do not expect to complete what I have to say about it at this time, but I want to finish my remarks with respect to one particular case involving the tobacco farmer and his daughter who was charged almost $2,000 because her father was her banker over a period of ten years.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again but I recall his former speech and if he intends to pursue the same line of thought I fail to see how that can be related to the first item of the agriculture estimates.


Harry Oliver White: The impact of income taxes on agriculture is very serious. It is decreasing production and driving young people away from the farms. What is worse, the worst of the situation is not over yet. My friends across the way shake their heads, but it is the fellow who wags the pencil next time who will be the deciding factor. I want to complete what I intended to say about this one particular case.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I have already indicated in as kindly terms as possible that it will be impossible to complete that case under

these estimates, and I hope the hon. member will co-operate with me in that regard.


Harry Oliver White: I will as far as I possibly can, Mr. Chairman. Just give me a moment to get the matter wrapped up here. There are many new Canadians who have come to Canada and purchased farms. Right in my own neighbourhood I see the mother and the father working the farm and there are one, two or three young people who are employed in the city. They bring home their monthly or weekly pay cheques and help the father to pay for the farm. The chances are that ten years from now the income tax department will probably say that when he bought the farm ten years ago he only had $500 or $1,500 to pay down and now he is worth $20,000. Consequently, as he paid us only so much income tax, he owes us so much more.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sure the hon. member will agree that remarks of this kind have no place in a discussion of the first item of the Department of Agriculture. Further than that, the hon. member said, "I want to complete a speech which I failed to complete on a former occasion". That statement causes me immediately to come to the conclusion that the hon. member himself must realize that he is not in order in attempting to discuss this matter at this time. I have listened with interest to his speech, but in fairness to other hon. members I must ask him to devote his remarks to a discussion of this item.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I rise on a question of privilege. Surely to goodness an hon. member speaking on farm problems has a right to refer to income tax as far as the farm is concerned. It has a great deal to do with the matter of profit or loss on a farm. If the income tax department is going to assess the farmer for income tax, surely to goodness we may have something to say about that matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speaking to the point of order, may I say that I was going to raise somewhat the same point as that raised by the hon. member who has just spoken. I can recall speeches made by the Minister of Agriculture on the first item of the estimates that have strayed much further, according to the strict interpretation you are trying to give, than has the speech of the hon. member for Middlesex East. On the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, when we are discussing the economic position of the Canadian farmer, surely it is in order to mention the factors that militate for or against his economic position. That is all the hon. member is doing. In agricultural speeches I have heard the Minister of Agriculture talk about
Supply-Agriculture
the wheat board regulations. Surely the hon. member for Middlesex East can talk about the income tax regulations as they affect farmers.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops, who is a lawyer, would not care to pursue that argument too far. A farmer uses our national parks-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not on his farm, I hope.


William Alfred Robinson: -but questions pertaining to national parks would be much better discussed, perhaps, on the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Our rules are designed to allow us to debate matters at the most appropriate time. We are now discussing agriculture. By custom, on the first item of a department we discuss departmental policy. Surely the hon. member for Kamloops is not going to argue that, on this item, we should discuss a matter which certainly more directly relates to income tax and which might much more appropriately be discussed under the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would be prepared to argue most certainly that the position of the farmer and the position of the agricultural industry generally are affected by the things which the hon. member is seeking to introduce into the debate here. On the first item, when you are discussing the position of the farmer, one of the things you are discussing is the level of farm income. I submit that it is perfectly in order to relate the facts which make for a healthy farm income to the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. I come back again to what I said earlier. The Minister of Agriculture in his speeches embraces all these matters. If he can do so on the first item, I can see no reason why the hon. member for Middlesex East cannot do so in reply.	.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops has failed to read the speech of the minister on this particular item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was here when he made it.


William Alfred Robinson: However, I have heard the arguments of the two hon. members who spoke to the point of order and, persuasive as they are, I fail to fall in line with their reasoning. I am afraid I must rule that a discussion of this income tax problem is not in order at this time.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, I shall leave discussion of the question of income tax for some future date, and it shall be the fiercer for the delay.
There is some misunderstanding with regard to subsidies. Many people, especially those in the cities, think all the subsidies that

Supply-A griculture
are paid by the government are paid to one industry, namely agriculture. They are the only ones we hear about. I have in my hand a set of figures taken from the dominion bureau of statistics reference paper No. 39. I just want to point out the number of subsidies that are paid, to whom they are paid and what they amount to.
Back in 1940 agricultural subsidies amounted to $41 million and non-agricultural subsidies amounted to $11 million. Agricultural subsidies back in 1940 were 79 per cent of the total. But when we come from 1940 to 1954 we find that agricultural subsidies amounted to $34 million and non-agricultural subsidies to $51 million. Hence the whole situation has been reversed. Today industries other than agriculture are enjoying greater subsidies than is agriculture. The percentage in 1954 was about 40 per cent; I refer to agricultural subsidies.
These subsidies do not take into consideration any of the tariffs. After all tariffs, regardless of what they are, are really a subsidy to manufacturers, which the consumer pays. Not only the industry that enjoys the subsidy but the labourer who works in that industry is benefited by that tariff. I want to point out that fact because so many other hon. members who have preceded me in speaking have more or less been asking that the whole tariff situation be reviewed. As I mentioned before, the total agricultural subsidies in 1954 were $34 million. But for the same year the gold mining industry received $15 million- one industry alone-more than half as much as all agriculture received. I should like the people to realize that the agricultural industry is not the only one that is being subsidized in this country.
Just while I am dealing with tariffs, may I say that I hold in my hand a statement concerning the turkey industry. The poultry industry has grown by leaps and bounds in this country. Now we find the importation of dressed turkeys and other poultry products from the United States making inroads into the trade of the Canadian farmer. Right down here on Sparks street you will see Vermont turkey advertised. In 1954 Canada imported 5 million pounds of turkey from the United States. In 1955 the figure jumped to 10,-
351,000	pounds. So far this year, or up to February 25, the imports have amounted to
470,000	pounds as against 95,000 pounds in the same time last year. In other words the importation of United States poultry into Canada is making terrific inroads. Here is a market for Canadian grain. Canadian poultry producers would be buying more grain to feed their poultry if it were not for those importations, and it would help to reduce the

surplus of grain in the western provinces. This is a product that Canadians can produce.
What about the duty? The poultry people asked for a duty of 12J per cent, as now, but with a minimum of 5 cents a pound. This is identical with the United States tariff on eviscerated turkeys. However, on dressed turkeys the United States rate is 10 cents a pound; hence the Canadian proposal is a moderate one. I suggest that the government give further consideration to the problem.
I hold in my hand an editorial from the Montreal Gazette of today. The editorial is based on a pamphlet issued by the Canadian institute of international affairs. It is entitled, "What is Happening to Wheat?" I have been critical at times of the length of time and the number of speeches that have been devoted to wheat in this house, but the western economy and in fact the Canadian economy are tied up with it. This is one of the things the Canadian institute of international affairs had to say:
But the conclusion remains inconclusive. "Looking into the tunnel of the future of wheat sales," the writers admit, "it must be conceded that no light is visible".
In other words, there does not seem to be any answer to this problem of recurring wheat surpluses. For some time we have been a wheat exporting country, but many of the countries to whom we exported wheat are now exporters themselves. Instead of being importers they are now exporters and that aggravates the situation. Agriculture in Canada needs more to be diversified than at any time in its history. Some guidance and some assurances are required from the government before the farmers in large numbers are going to switch from one type of agriculture to another. There must be some guidance, some continuity of markets before they make the switch.
I also hold in my hand an editorial from the Sarnia Observer which is entitled, "The Sad Sugar Beet Story". There are many acres in Manitoba and Alberta that are suitable for the production of sugar beets. In southwestern Ontario we have been growing sugar beets for many years. There are two sugar beet factories in southwestern Ontario, one at Chatham and the other at Wallaceburg. I understand that one of these plants will not operate this year. Yet we have acres of land that could be devoted to the production of sugar, an article we import. The use of those acres for this purpose would take wheat off the market and put sugar on the market. The farmers who have been engaged in sugar beet growing in the past have done fairly well. Yet we drift and lose the sugar beet industry that we have built up. The sugar beet plants in southwestern Ontario

require at least 30,000 or 40,000 acres of sugar beets to operate economically and well. So far this year only 19,000 acres of sugar beets are contracted for in southwestern Ontario.
We as a people are prepared to delegate authority to groups without giving the matter sufficient consideration. If there is one agricultural product produced in this country that I know anything about it is honey. It has had its ups and downs so far as production and prices are concerned during the last few years. For many years Canada has been an exporting nation, but now she has drifted into the column of the importing nations so far as honey is concerned. Our importations are now running around 5 million pounds a year, but we used to export a great deal more than that each year.
In many of the provinces co-operative companies are set up by the honey producers to process and market the honey of their producer members. One of the astounding things to me is this. The Canadian beekeepers' council, in co-operation with the managers of those co-operatives, has brought enough pressure to bear on the dominion Department of Agriculture to have the words that designate the country of origin of the honey removed from the containers. It is no longer necessary for a Canadian packer of honey to put on the container how much, if any, foreign honey is in the container. That is working against the Canadian producers of honey. Those very co-operatives that were supposed to serve the interests of the producer are among the importers of this foreign honey.
As I say, they have brought pressure to bear on the dominion department to have that grading and marketing regulation changed. I hold in my hand copies of the letters that have to do with it. I notice that the province of Quebec particularly protested very strongly against changing the regulations. According to the regulations as they now exist all that has to be put on a carton of honey that holds 12 or 24 pails is the country of origin; but when it reaches the grocer's shelves it is marked as Canadian honey, and even the word "Canadian" can be removed. As I say, we delegate too much authority to certain people and do not follow it up to see what they are doing.
There is another thing the Department of Agriculture should look into. Some time ago I asked that the tenders for milk for the veterans' hospital at London, Ontario, be tabled. One of the dairies tendered a rather low price. That is all right, but this is what happened. Immediately the district purchasing agent at Kingston had this to say, and I quote from a letter from the Department of 67509-226
Supply-Agriculture
Defence Production signed by Frank Power, district purchasing agent, 953 Somerset street west, Ottawa. He wrote to Mr. Fred Burnette, secretary of the milk distributors at Kingston, Ontario.
Our headquarters have been checking the milk prices paid in this area and in view of the fact that the dairies in Ottawa and Picton are supplying the army with fresh milk at $0.57 per gallon, they have instructed us to write you and request that you give serious and immediate consideration to the high price you are charging for fresh milk in Kingston.
As soon as this one dairy tendered at a low price to get into the market in London, Ontario, the effect was going to be siphoned back to the suppliers of fresh milk in every area in the country, apparently, because this took place very shortly after the tender was received in London.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, with relation to the discussion we had earlier I would like to point out to you, sir, that although as the hon. member from Middlesex East has said he could deal with the point elsewhere, when it comes to the matter of discussing the impact of income tax on farmers and on agriculture generally, in fact, the matter has been alluded to on more than one occasion in the course of the discussion of certain estimates, and in the house in a speech made by the minister himself.
I would refer Your Honour to page 1061 of Hansard of this session, where there was some question of income tax figures; to page 1062, where the minister made reference to figures of real income versus cash income and discussed cash income and net income; to page 1063, where the minister and the hon. member for Dauphin indulged in some discussion of the question of net worth as against some other basis of calculating income, the position of farmers, and where mention was made of the figures produced by the income tax branch; and also to page 1064 where figures of net income against cash income were used.
I suggest to you, sir, that the subject has been introduced and made a matter of some considerable importance in the course of the speech made by the minister in introducing his estimates.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member is making a case with which I cannot entirely agree. For instance, I have in front

Supply-Agriculture
of me one portion of the minister's speech reported at page 1061 of Hansard, which reads as follows:
Good farmers in Saskatchewan, since we have had income taxes to pay, carry their wheat along knowing that they can average their income over the years-
-and so on. I do not think the hon. member would wish to argue that a passing reference to income taxes is in the same category as attempting to discuss a particular case at some length, as the hon. member for Middlesex East indicated he wished to do. However, I will look at the other references the hon. member for Kamloops has given me and will be very glad to consider them.


Charles Yuill: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to take up the time of the house by quoting a lot of statistics that have already been quoted. I believe my colleague the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose and many other hon. members have given statistics that prove conclusively that the plight of agriculture is not a happy one.
Statistics are always extremely interesting, particularly when they relate to the part of agriculture that is closest to one's heart. Being associated with the livestock industry for a number of years it is always interesting for me to find out what is going on. Generally speaking the statistics to which I refer relate to the number of livestock produced and their gross sales value, broken down as to various types and grades and of course the unit prices that relate thereto.
Generally speaking, many of the people who are engaged in the livestock industry seem to accept these statistics as inevitable. They appear to take it for granted that it is an act of fate that we have substandard grades. I believe this is partly due to the unrealistic thinking of some of those engaged in the agricultural business. I cannot bring my reasoning to coincide with those who feel that they can forever produce substandard foundation stock and expect' to get top grades. I think that is one of the common faults of many livestock producers today. In that respect I believe we contribute considerably to our own plight, and if that is so I think another thing must be taken into consideration.
Many people today, particularly those who are not established in agriculture or livestock producing, feel that it is beyond the financial ability of the livestock producers to go out and buy No. 1 breeding stock. This is reflected in many ways. First of all it is reflected in the grade the producer receives, and it is also reflected in the over-all standard of the dominion as a whole.
I believe it would be worth while for the government to make available to those in
[The Chairman.]
that position certain sums of money in order that they may provide a proper foundation stock. It may be argued, of course, that such money is already available through farm loans. I do not know how it applies, but my experience with farm loans is that by the time they take care of the other apparently more urgent needs there is nothing left to apply to proper foundation stock. I do not know exactly what attitude the government would take, but I believe that charity begins at home, and I think that would be one way whereby the government could greatly assist with a minimum of expense.
There are other things which contribute to the plight of the livestock grower. When he takes his stock to market he receives top grades in some cases but in many cases he receives substandard grade. Another matter which is worthy of consideration is the ill-advised practice followed by those charged with processing, particularly pork. It is a well known fact that after these products are processed and marketed many inferior grades masquerade under a first-grade banner or brand. I think I can say with safety that you can go into nine out of ten meat stores in this city and discover that this is the case. If the government would be a little more careful in its inspections it would be of benefit to the over-all economy of the country.
I think we took a step in the right direction last session when we ruled out of the picture striped wrapping for bacon. That was something which was very necessary at that time, but I think we left as a substitute for it something which is perhaps even more vicious. It has been my experience since coming here this session to find, masquerading as No. 1 back bacon, meat which is nothing but No. 4 sow back bacon. True, it had the fat trimmed off and looked rather good to the unsuspecting public, but in reality it was still sow bacon. I have bought bacon myself wrapped as No. 1 which proved to be at least No. 2. Then you will find hams which by no stretch of the imagination could be qualified as No. 1. They may be split into perhaps three pieces, but are wrapped in attractive packages and sold at No. 1 prices.
These are some of the things that could be done to help the consuming public and at the same time allow the farmer, the ultimate consumer, to buy back his own products at a fair price. These things may not appear to be important, but I think they are. It is the easy things of this kind that we can do in order to get back to a more realistic sense of duty and responsibility. So long as we permit these unfair business tactics to prevail we will be falling short of our responsibility as members of parliament.

Then so far as the beef industry is concerned there are many merchants-this is more characteristic of the big merchants- who are ready to charge a price without having any sense of the true value. It may be that I am more critical than some, but I always try to keep my eyes open to see what the other fellow is doing in my own business. I have found many cases where the true grade is not represented. The article is put into an attractive package and a price charged which is far beyond the true value. To me that is nothing less than racketeering, and I think it is high time we did something about it.
There are many who feel that the government must take full responsibility for everything in connection with agriculture, but I think we should be realistic enough to know that there are contributing factors. The price of meat is regulated by many factors, the weather being one. If the roads are bad and the supply is short inevitably the price goes up, or the reverse can happen. I believe that if we would try to deal with these simple things which are within the realm of possibility we would do a lot. It is simply a matter of carrying out regulations which exist already. There is a body of inspectors who are supposed to check these things. Someone must be falling down on the job, because it is quite obvious what is happening. You do not have to go very far before you find these things which are anything but right and fair.
So far as assistance in the purchasing of proper foundation stock is concerned, that to me would seem to be one of the easiest things to do. As far as the actual dollars and cents are concerned, it would cost the government next to nothing and I am sure it would pay huge dividends.


John Mason James: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a few minutes to express some of my thoughts on agriculture and to do something which I have not done since about 1950 or 1951; that is, to express the pride which I have in agriculture as it is practised in Durham county, from which I come. I have been most interested in listening this afternoon and this evening, as well as the other times we have been dealing with these estimate':, to the extremely well-prepared and well-presented addresses dealing with agricultural problems as well as the many suggestions that have been made.
I should like to pay a real and sincere tribute to my good friend and colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, who has been handling the estimates for part of this afternoon and this 67509-2264
Supply

Agriculture
evening. In my opinion he is as well qualified to deal with these matters as any hon. member on the opposition side, if not better. Over the years he has done a terrific job for agriculture in Ontario and throughout Canada, as has his minister. We are proud of him and we congratulate him.
I want to congratulate the Department of Agriculture and the government upon their agricultural policies over the years. I have no apologies to make, either to my own people back home or to anyone in Canada, for the agricultural policies which have been pursued by this government for a period of some 20 years. A tremendous job has been done for agriculture.
Undoubtedly everyone, and this would include the Minister of Agriculture and his cabinet colleagues, will admit that at the present time there are soft spots in agriculture. I would be the first to admit that. I have a letter which I received today from a good friend in Durham county who is engaged in agriculture. The main point he brings up is that hon. members of this house, and especially the member for Durham, should continue to put forward the agricultural position so the urban people may understand the difficulties which agriculture must face. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Assiniboia suggest that the neswpapers across Canada do not present a fair picture of agriculture and its problems to their readers. I wish he had qualified that statement by referring only to urban newspapers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said most of the big city dailies.


John Mason James: It so happens that I have some connection with a weekly newspaper, of which there are some 900 in Canada. I can assure the hon. members of this house that the weekly newspapers are most conscious of the problems facing the agricultural people of this country. Over the years they have done a great deal to support them in their activities. I repeat that I wish the hon. member had qualified his statement. I do not want to condemn all daily newspapers, as I know there are some which appreciate and understand the problems of agriculture, but others seem more inclined to think of the high prices the city people might have to pay if agriculture received the prices it is entitled to receive.
To deal just for a moment with agriculture in Durham county, we are very proud of our agriculturists, as I have said. There may be objection to this from some quarters, but we feel that without any doubt we have the finest apples there are in Canada.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Pardon?

Supply-Agriculture


John Mason James: I am glad to see that the hon. member for Grey North is taking exception to that, because he made some disparaging remarks when talking about his own county's apples some time ago, and I am just handing it back to him.


An hon. Member:: What about some samples?


John Mason James: You had samples a few years ago, and I know everyone enjoyed them to the full. One of the finest proofs, if you like, that the apples we have in Durham county are of a superlative type was given at the last Royal Winter Fair, when an excellent farmer and apple grower, Wilfred Carruthers, and his son, from Bowmanville, practically swept all the top prizes at that fair in apple growing.


An hon. Member:: Conservatives.


John Mason James: I hesitate to say anything in response to someone who is injecting "Conservatives", because I am quite well aware that, in this case especially, there are good Conservative apple growers in Durham county as well.


Irvin William Studer: The socialist apple would have a worm in it.


John Mason James: But the prize ones happen to have been grown this year by a family of good Liberals.


An hon. Member:: You mean there are good ones?


John Mason James: I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Carruthers, and his wife and son for the excellent job they did. There is another field in which Durham county has excelled for many years. It comes under the heading of the agricultural representative. Our agricultural representative is a man by the name of Ed Summers, who has been there for some 26 years now. He has done one of the most remarkable jobs I have seen or anybody else has seen. His judging teams of young farmers have swept practically all the prizes throughout Ontario and, indeed, he and his teams, especially his seed grain judging team, established a record of 26 consecutive victories in the district competition, which I believe has never been equalled, nor will it be equalled in your lifetime or mine.
I also wish to pay tribute to the many other fine farmers we have in Durham county. Some of them are doing remarkably well. Some of them are following the trend that is outlined in the Financial Post, of gradually obtaining more and more land and, in this industrialization of farming, converting their

small acreage into large operations. I believe those people are doing remarkably well and will continue to do so.
Some of the small farmers are not doing as well as one would like them to be doing. Undoubtedly there are many marginal farmers who are working hard but not getting the results from their efforts that they should. We are in a rather unique part of Canada in that we have an excellent farming community and right alongside we have the great plants of General Motors, Goodyear and so on, down through to Port Hope, where we have the Mathews Conveyer Company Limited, Nicholson File Company, Port Hope Sanitary Manufacturing Company Limited, and many other plants. Those plants have employees who are receiving excellent wages, almost top wages within Canada. It is very difficult for the farmers of my area to resist the temptation to leave their farms, being lured to the towns where those industries are paying, as I have said, top wages throughout Canada. But many of them are staying on the farms and continuing the lives their fathers and grandfathers led before them, in the hope that farming will continue to provide their livelihood for the remainder of their lives. I have one friend who went through college, came to work in Ottawa for a while in one of the departments, then returned to his father's farm and took it over. He appears to be sincerely enjoying that type of life. It is a type of living that one cannot get from the factories or in the urban communities.
As I have said, I have no apologies to make for this government's farm policy. I have seen it progress throughout the years. I have seen the great demands-what I would almost call the irresponsible demands-from the opposition benches. According to their words, those members would quite willingly give pie in the sky to everyone in Canada. They have no responsibility for carrying it out. I dare say if they were on the government benches they would not carry out one-eighth of what they have said in this house.
Fortunately in this country we have a government which is most interested in agriculture and in every other part of the economy. We have a responsible government, a government which is responsible not only to the city-dwelling taxpayers but also to the rural taxpayers, a government which is carrying out that responsibility to the best of its ability and upon the advice of the many farm organizations across Canada. We have seen from the many briefs we have received that in the main the agricultural organizations back this government's policy to the full. Certainly they want more than this government is able to do at the present time or feels it should do at the present time.

I believe that holds true for practically every member who has rural constituents and who is interested in farm policies. We too are constantly urging the government to do more, and we have the same sense of responsibility some of the opposition speakers seem to have. We would probably be on our feet screaming our heads off about how dreadful conditions are on our farms and how poor those farmers are, and screaming to high heaven for parity prices-120 per cent parity prices, if you like-


Hazen Robert Argue: That would not be parity.


John Mason James: You would not take 120? I am glad to hear that. They have had 90 and 75, and it is very difficult to know just where they end. However, as I have said, we Liberals too are most interested in the farm policies of Canada. We are most interested in farmers and in their welfare-


Donald Methuen Fleming: And their votes.


John Mason James: -and we are constantly urging the government to take further steps along these lines. We have seen at least two improvements this session, with the extension of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the extension in the general farm loan legislation. I feel quite certain that this improvement is going to continue until we have agriculture at the level where the government thinks it should be and the farmers throughout this country feel it should be.
I was most interested again in the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia, who has a very peculiar concept of what should be done in Canada. He seems to feel, as indeed some farm organizations and some farmers throughout Canada seem to feel, that there is only one way to lick the problem of farm surpluses and other problems of the farm economy, and that is for farmers throughout Canada to join with labour and form a great pressure group which could automatically elect a complete government of labour and farm people which would automatically do everything for labour and the farmers. If you follow his thinking far enough, it would do nothing for anybody else.
I cannot quite see the day coming when that kind of pressure politics would be accepted as a normal thing in our Canadian political system, and I hope it never happens. We represent the people of our areas here as best we know how and we shall continue to do so. I am quite confident that the government will remain in office on the strength of the votes of farmers who will support the policies that have been enacted over the years and that will be enacted for their benefit on a responsible basis in future years.
Supply-Agriculture
I was most interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia when he quoted Dr. Hope, the economist of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as saying that this government was doing less than any other government in the world for its farmers. Peculiarly enough I had read an article by Dr. Hope some time earlier, at one of the federation of agriculture meetings I have attended over the years. The article is to be found in the January issue of The Country Guide. This well known economist made a very good survey of the problem of the squeeze on farmers. I should like to read a part of what he said, which shows quite definitely that Dr. Hope, as an economist with considerable knowledge of this problem and with no political bias, shall we say, did not blame the situation of the farmers on the federal government of Canada as so many speakers have done tonight. Dr. Hope, who should and I believe does know his subject, and who is also more interested in the farmers than possibly most people here, had this to say:
International trade in farm products, which rose steadily from 1946 to 1951, has now levelled off and is not increasing. Countries which, a few years ago, needed to import large quantities of food products, are now requiring less or, in some cases, have even become large exporters of some products. Examples of the latter are France and Turkey, which are now net exporters of wheat. This drying up of export demand from countries outside of North America has seriously affected the export trade in farm products for Canada and the United States . . .
In this article, Dr. Hope goes on to say that one of the main reasons for the decline in farm income from 1951 onward is the very point made in the quotation I have read, the surplus of agricultural products throughout the world, including Canada and the United States. If you accept Dr. Hope's opinion on the one score, surely you will be willing to accept his opinion on the other.
May I say again to hon. members and to my constituents back home that I shall continue my efforts while in the house to have done for the farm economy of Canada everything I feel can responsibly be done. I will also bring every effort to bear on the cabinet if I feel they are not doing enough, and will bring that same effort to bear in encouraging them to continue the policies-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which policy?


John Mason James: -they have followed for many years and to improve-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which policy?


John Mason James: -as we go on the policies of this government and the Liberal party throughout Canada. I am sure that in the end the farmers will fare far better than

Supply-Agriculture
they would if they entrusted their luck to the peculiar sense of responsibility evidenced by the Conservative, C.C.F., or Social Credit parties in this house.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Durham. He spoke of the great apple growing industry in his constituency and I am sure it is every bit as good as he says it is. I do not know whether he is an apple grower himself, but he surely qualifies as an apple polisher. He did a splendid job tonight.
I was rather intrigued with his argument that agriculture is well off under present Liberal policy, but I think a cold, unemotional look at the statistics is perhaps more indicative than the kind of speech we have just heard. When we look at the statistics and find that the almost 20 per cent of the Canadian population engaged in agriculture last year received less than 7 per cent of the national income, then I am afraid my hon. friend will have to revise some of his opinions with regard to the prosperity of agriculture generally.
However, it is not my intention to follow the line he has taken. I want to refer this evening to a few matters that come under the administration of the Department of Agriculture and try to get answers to some of the questions we have been asking for a number of sessions. I wish to begin with one of the acts administered by the department, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. My colleague the hon. member for Selkirk has on many occasions brought up in the house the problem of the application of that act as it affects his constituency, and there are many other areas in the province of Manitoba which are similarly affected.
At this time I should like to make a plea to the parliamentary assistant, who is piloting these estimates through, and to the government generally to have a second look at the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In the speech from the throne at the beginning of the session we were advised that amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would be coming forward this session. Later in the session, in reply to a question from this side of the house, the Minister of Agriculture stated that the government had changed their minds and that there would be no amendments to the act during this session. I am hoping they will change their minds again, because if we have crop losses in the prairie provinces on the same scale or anything approaching the scale of 1955 we are going to find that the act will

again be a most inadequate instrument to compensate the farmers for the losses they will suffer.
There are a number of things wrong with the act, and I should like to point out three of them. First of all there is the question of picking out eligible blocks. We know it has been difficult enough to qualify under the act at any time. A few years ago an amendment was passed by parliament making an eligible block an irregular block, that is making it permissible to attach parts of townships to an eligible block regardless of whether they were rectangular or any other shape. That went a long way toward ironing out some of the injustices which had occurred under the act in previous years.
Later, I believe it was two years ago, the government saw fit to amend the act to do away with the irregular block and return to the rectangular block again. Since that time we have again had the experience of some farmers in a township who have had a total crop loss not being able to qualify because there were farmers living near them who had had a fair crop of wheat; and because it is not possible now to attach blocks of sections to the rectangular block they find themselves left out of the act entirely. That is something that must be changed if we are to bring about any kind of justice under that act, particularly in the province of Manitoba.
There is another matter, and that is the part of the act which now denies the benefits of the act to any person who is farming land which he purchased from the provincial government after January 1, 1940, with the exception, of course, of V.L.A. land. There are many farmers in the province of Manitoba, particularly in the northern parts of it which developed rapidly after 1940, who purchased land from the government of Manitoba. This land is quite suitable for growing grain.
These farmers are obliged to pay a levy of 1 per cent on every bushel of grain they market. It is deducted from their grain ticket when they deliver to the elevator; it is not a matter of choice. It is a tax which they are obliged to pay. That money goes into the prairie farm assistance fund. Then after a number of years, after having paid perhaps $2,000 into the fund, when these farmers suffer a crop loss and make application for prairie farm assistance, they are told that under the act, since their land was purchased after January 1, 1940 and it is not V.L.A. land, they are not eligible for prairie farm assistance.

That is a distinct injustice. It is a distinct discrimination. Under any form of crop insurance scheme a thing like that simply could not occur. We know that under any crcp insurance scheme, if a person pays his premium he becomes eligible for compensation in case of loss. That is a fundamental principle of insurance. But under this legislation the government has taken unto itself the right to levy a tax of 1 per cent on every bushel of grain the farmer sells and then to tell him, after he has paid this levy for five, six or ten years, that he is not eligible to collect anything from this fund. It is a one-way street as far as they are concerned. That is another injustice which must be ironed out. It is becoming a major problem in many parts of Manitoba, and many farmers feel strongly on that point.
Those are two of the items that need straightening out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We would have expected that some action would be taken during the present session of parliament. However, we have been informed by the minister that he has changed his mind and no amendments will be brought down. I hope he will take a second look.
While I am dealing with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act I also want to say this. In the prairie provinces, particularly in the province of Manitoba, which under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has had the experience of having paid into the fund almost three times as much as it has received from it, there is a growing feeling that some other form of insurance is required. But even in the other provinces which we have, percentagewise, fared a little bit better under this act there is growing up a strong demand for some form of crop insurance.
Only two years ago in Manitoba, and earlier than that in the province of Saskatchewan investigations were made into the feasibility of setting up a crop insurance scheme on a provincial basis. The reports of the commissions in both provinces have raised some doubts whether it would be financially possible for a province to underwrite a crop insurance scheme on its own. I think the time is going to come-and it may have to be very soon- when the federal government will have to sit down with the representatives of the three prairie provinces and work out a sound, feasible financial arrangement under which a crop insurance scheme covering the three prairie provinces could be set up in order that every farmer who pays his premium under such a scheme would become eligible for
Supply-Agriculture
compensation in case of crop loss. That is something with regard to which the federal government should take some initiative.
I also want to refer to another act which comes under the Department of Agriculture. I refer to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. At the beginning of this session I had placed on the order paper a resolution calling for the expansion of the present Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into a sort of Canadian rehabilitation act which would cover all agricultural areas in Canada. We on the prairies are conscious of the fact that there are many other parts of Canada outside the prairie provinces that have problems of reclamation, conservation and drainage, and that there should be something under which these projects could be undertaken.
I want to deal particularly with what are referred to in the estimates as the special projects. These are the projects which are carried out by prairie farm rehabilitation personnel and management but which do not come directly under the terms of the act. They are carried out under a special vote of this parliament. We have had a number of these special projects in the province of Manitoba, and a good part of the work was done in the constituency of Dauphin.
This spring we were greatly disappointed to find that the federal government is backing down or backing away from even the inadequate position it had taken some years ago with regard to these special projects. Until recently the arrangement that had been made was that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the cost of these special projects having to do with flood control and that the province would share the other 50 per cent with the municipalities. In practice it worked out that, at the beginning, the federal government paid 50 per cent of the cost plus the costs of surveying and engineering, which were carried out by P.F.R.A. personnel and the province paid approximately two-thirds of the other 50 per cent. That left about one-sixth of the cost for the municipalities concerned. Even under that system, and even though a great deal of valuable work was done, it was a heavy burden on the municipalities. In most cases the municipalities which needed these special flood control projects most were least able to pay their part of the cost.
Mr. Chairman, I note that it is ten o'clock.
Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the estimates of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Justice.


Howard Charles Green: I did not hear the second one.


Walter Edward Harris: Justice.


Howard Charles Green: You are not taking transport tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister in a position to tell us the program for the first part of next week?


Walter Edward Harris: On Monday I think we will start with the bill to amend the Judges Act, which is on the order paper, but I am not sure what follows after that.


George Alexander Drew: No decision yet.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How much has been expended by the federal government each year since 1950, on flood control measures on the Assiniboine river?
2.	What has been the nature of these flood control measures in each year since 1950?
3.	Have any expenditures been made by way of implementation of (a) the Russell reservoir; (b) the Portage cut-off, as recommended in the P.F.R.A. report of December, 1952?
Answer by:	Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner
(Minister of Agriculture):
1.	1951-52	
$ 68,410.011952-	53	
49,991.321953-	54	
99,989.431954-	55	
69,154.051955-	56 at March 1 . .	140,839.232.	Diking and cut-offs.3.	No. The P.F.R.A. report of December, 1952, merely sets out the findings of the investigations made with respect to possible conservation and flood control measures which might be undertaken along the Assiniboine river, and is a part of the over-all investigations made for flood control in the Red river basin with particular reference to the greater Winnipeg area.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-FILM AWARDS
Mr. Mitchell (Sudbury): 1.	Have any of the films of the Department of National Health and Welfare ever won awards?
2.	If so, which films have won what awards?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1. Yes. A number of the department's films have won high awards, mostly of an
Questions
international nature. The awards were made by panels of recognized experts in the film making, medical and educational fields.
2. "Drug Addict"-First, non-theatrical class-First Canadian film awards, 1949.
"Challenge:	Science Against Cancer"
(French version)-First, international film festival, Venice, 1950.
"Teeth are to Keep" (French version)- Award, international film festival, Venice, 1950.
"Why Won't Tommy Eat"-Awarded place on "Ten Best Sellers" list of nutrition films for the U.S.A., 1951.
"Folie a Deux"-which demonstrates certain manifestations of various mental disorders. Received first place in the mental hygiene class at the 12th international film festival in Venice in 1951.
"Shyness"-which deals with abnormal shyness in children-judged the best 16 millimetre film at the sixth annual film festival, Cleveland, Ohio, in 1953. Was awarded a first at the Canadian film awards in 1953. Received the second award prize in the adult education section, at the fourth annual film festival at Boston in 1954.
"Frustrating Fours and Fascinating Fives" -a mental health film in the well-known "Ages and Stages" series-Award, Boston, 1953; Award, golden reel film festival of the American film assembly, 1954.
"The Homeless One"-a civil defence welfare film-Honourable mention, Canadian film awards, 1955.
"To Serve the Mind"-dealing with present day facilities for the treatment of mental health-Award, health and hygiene class, golden reel festival of the American film assembly, Chicago, 1956.

Friday, May 4, 1956