1957-03-20

Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln) moved:: That the petition of Mimi Aberbaek Sherback for a bill of divorce, presented on March 19, 1957, together with the clerk of petitions' report thereon of March 20, 1957, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Fulton: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence or any other department or agency of the government received, from or on behalf of Kamloops Copper Co. Ltd., any claim arising out of damage to the property of the company by ammunition and/or explosives?
2.	If so, (a) what was asked by way of compensation or restitution? (b) On what basis was the claim made?
3.	Has this claim been allowed? If so, (a) what amount has been or will be paid, or alternatively what form of restitution will be made? (b) What are the terms of payment or restitution?
t' ?. claim has not been allowed or paid, what is the present position?
Mr. Hellyer, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is "Yes". The answer to part 2 (a) is that no specific amount has been claimed to date. The answer to part 2 (b) is: It is alleged by the company that a shaft of the Iron Mask mine, owned by the company since 1952, was damaged by the crown through the detonation of condemned explosives by army personnel in 1944 and that the possible presence of unexploded ammunition in the shaft is preventing mining operations therein. The answer to part 3 is "No". The answer to part 4 is that the matter is under negotiation.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Gagnon: 1. Since April 1, 1952, what amounts have been spent each year in the county of Chicoutimi by
(a) the Department of Agriculture; (b) the Department of National Defence; (c) the Department of Defence Production; (d) the Department of National Health and Welfare; (e) the Department of Transport; (f) the Post Office Department?
2. For what purposes and what amount in each case?



NOVA SCOTIA


Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough): What were the federal government expenditures in Nova Scotia, for each fiscal or calendar year, 1936 to 1956 inclusive, under the following headings: (a) tree removal; (b) apple subsidies; (c) freight assistance on coarse grains; (d) marshland rehabilitation; (e) farm loans; (f) all other farm expenditures?




Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough): What were the federal government expenditures in Nova Scotia, for each of the fiscal or calendar years, 1936 to 1956 inclusive, under the following headings: (a) fisheries price support; (b) loans to fishermen; (c) all other fisheries expenditures?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged during the past three years between the Minister of Public Works and the city of Ottawa, the^ city of Hull, the provincial government of Ontario and the provincial government of Quebec, regarding a proposed new bridge over the Ottawa river, linking the cities of Ottawa and Hull.
Mr. Winters:: This will be subject to the usual reservations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
motion wo. iy-
-mr. r uiion:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents, exchanged from January 1, 1956 to date, between the government of Canada and/or any department or agency thereof and (a) Kamloops Copper Co. Ltd. or any person or firm on its behalf; (b) any other person
nar,vS ari^nWlth ,resPect to anV claim by the company arising out of damage to its property by ammunition and/or explosives.
Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that m view of the negotiations referred to in part 4 of starred question No. 17 it would not be in the public interest to table the correspondence requested. Therefore I would request that the hon. member agree to the withdrawal of this address.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask permission of the house to withdraw this address subject to the right to reinstate it at a later date?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian embassy in Cairo been given a memorandum by the Egyptian government setting out the terms for the opening of the Suez canal and, if so, do they include a provision that all tolls must be paid to Egypt?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador in Egypt, I think in common with all ambassadors there, was given a memorandum yesterday by the Egyptian government outlining the conditions for the opening of the canal and the passage of ships through it. I have not the details of the Egyptian proposal before me, but I shall be glad to bring them down tomorrow and table them if desired.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Canadian government considering protesting to the Egyptian government about the demanding of tolls?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman had better wait until he sees the note and then decide whether he thinks a protest would be justified. [Later:]


COMMUNIST CHINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is now in a position to report to the house on the inquiries he promised several weeks ago to make into reports that the communist government at Peking was exerting pressure on Chinese in other parts of the world to make remittances to China?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not got that report. I will try to bring it down tomorrow or at the latest on Friday.
[Mr. Hellyer.l


HEALTH INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the premier of Ontario yesterday tabled all the correspondence between the government of Ontario and the minister's department regarding hospital insurance, would the minister agree to table the correspondence exchanged between the two governments since the date of the correspondence which was tabled some two or three weeks ago?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I understand that the
government of Ontario did table correspondence with our consent between the attorney general of the province of Ontario and myself. I shall be glad to table that correspondence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would like to direct a
supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. While his agreement to table the correspondence referred to is appreciated, I take it from the terms of his statement that there may be other correspondence besides that which was tabled in Ontario yesterday. If that is the case, would the minister consider tabling all the correspondence exchanged since the last correspondence was tabled in this house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot readily agree to
that without the consent of the provinces concerned, but that I will attempt to obtain.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
22(1) OF THE ACT
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance of which I have given him verbal notice. Is order in council P.C. 1957/234 which suspends the operation of section 22 (1) of the Bank of Canada Act a routine proceeding connected with the continued suspension of the gold standard, and is that all it is?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the governor in council has suspended the provisions of section 22 every year since the Bank of Canada was formed.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the unfortunate sinking of the dredge Townsend and the declaration that it is a total loss, what steps is the minister taking to guarantee that the dredging program outlined for the Fraser river for the ensuing year will be carried out as scheduled?
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): This dredge is owned privately by the British Columbia Bridge and Dredging Company Limited, whose officials are here in Ottawa today discussing with the Department of Public Works ways and means of carrying out their contracts.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue this question. How did employees of the Department of National Revenue become involved in supplying information to certain United States citizens concerning Premium Iron Ores Limited and its accounts and income tax returns? Who gave them authority to supply this information?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice of his question, I will have to refer the matter to the officials of the department. I will bring in an answer as soon as it is prepared.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister tell the house whether or not the charges made by the minister of public welfare for the province of Ontario concerning the refusal of the federal government to participate fully in the Ontario program for the rehabilitation training of disabled persons are true?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not seen the statement to which the hon. member draws my attention. If he will send a copy to me -or perhaps I can ascertain from the press what was said-I will make an inquiry.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The news report on which I based my question was in this morning's Globe and Mail.


Mr. Knowles:: The minister's favourite
reading.



INQUIRY AS TO OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister yet had replies from the provinces regarding the proposed changes in the regulations under the Disabled Persons Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, the government has heard from nine provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of that, may we expect changes in these regulations at an early date?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows ithe constitutional practice in these matters and he knows there will be no delay.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN ATLANTIC AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. A. Maiheson (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say if the proposal made in his budget speech to assist in the provision of cheaper electric power in the maritimes-Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were mentioned specifically-is also applicable to Prince Edward Island if our government at home indicates it is interested?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, my specific reference to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had to do with the particular matters to which I referred in the budget speech, but both at the beginning and at the end of that particular reference to the Atlantic provinces I said the government would be undertaking a study of the power problems in all the provinces of the Atlantic area.
2508	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: A supplementary question: Will that include the hydroelectric development on the Saint John river as well? You said: "All power developments in the maritime provinces."


Walter Edward Harris: 1 said power developments in all the provinces, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO PRAIRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that the government has announced it will study the electric power needs of the maritimes, is the government prepared to study the electric power needs of the prairies so that similar co-operation may be forthcoming? Is the minister aware that new power developments are urgently required both in Manitoba and Saskatchewan?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The government will be prepared to study any proposal that is put forward as a self-liquidating proposal.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What work on the airport at Sault Ste. Marie will be undertaken by the government during the current year, and when will this work start?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the department's plans for development of the new airport at Sault Ste. Marie this year include the completion of the necessary engineering, survey and layout planning work which must be carried out before construction can be undertaken. It is intended that this should be completed during the spring and summer months so a start can be made on the clearing of the site as soon as fire hazard conditions permit in the autumn.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED RELEASE BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to a release which the minister made last night to the concentrated milk producers. Yesterday the minister


said he knew nothing of this release, but I find that a member of the concentrated milk producers knew of the release yesterday morning. Could the minister clarify this?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if anyone knew of the release yesterday morning they knew of it before I knew of it myself.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Strange.


James Garfield Gardiner: The decision was made about five minutes before we came into the house at 2.30.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Labour a question of which I have given both hon. gentlemen notice? Have either of the departments received complaints from western Canada regarding employment in the course of construction of the Inland Natural Gas pipe line to the effect that priority or preference seems to be given to United States employees crossing the border at Osoyoos, thus denying employment opportunities to Canadians?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: When the hon. gentleman first intimated that he intended to ask this question I had inquiries made in British Columbia and I found that there was no record there of any complaints having been made in the Vancouver office though there may have been at local offices of the employment service.
There are, I am informed, ten United States citizens employed in Canada by this company. Four are here with their families and have been landed as immigrants. Therefore they are, of course, entitled to be employed. Six are here under temporary status for six months, two engaged as distribution superintendents, two as spread superintendents and two as right of way foremen. In every case these workers were cleared by the national employment service as essential to the pipe line project before entry was authorized. In addition, there are at present applications by this company for the entry of one welding foreman and one pipe foreman awaiting clearance by the national employment service.
It has been suggested to me that it is conceivable that there might be United States citizens who had come in here as visitors and who had been hired by this company. Neither department has any knowledge of any such people. A check is being made, but if the

hon. gentleman or those who prompted his question have any knowledge of any such persons we would be very glad to have the information.



REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

Mr. T. S. Barnell (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister make inquiries and inform me when I may expect an answer to question No. 158 on the order paper in my name? It has to do with the wages of employees of the marine service division in British Columbia and it has been on the order paper since February 14.


George Carlyle Marler: I can tell the hon. gentleman
that the return, if not brought down today, will be brought down tomorrow.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: May I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is he yet in a position to answer the question I asked on Monday concerning the report that the final negotiations between Canada and the United States over the international rivers situation will not be taking place for many months?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the United States government met in Ottawa yesterday with officials of the Canadian government. I have not had as yet a full report of the meeting and I have not yet had time to make a report to my colleagues.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I did not give him any notice of my question. If he cannot answer it probably he can take this as notice. Has the minister received any complaint of faulty mail service at Weyburn, Saskatchewan? If so, will he indicate what measures the department has taken to correct that delay there?
Supply-Transport


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: I shall have to make inquiries, and I will bring down an answer later.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Radio Act and regulations-
606.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share of the costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations, as detailed in the estimates -further amount required, $1,000.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have an explanation of this item?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is an additional payment of $1,000 caused by the cost of the plenary assembly of the international radio consultative committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-*
Airways and airports-
607.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including construction work on municipal airports and payments to municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies-further amount required, including authority to charge to vote 488 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956 (as supplemented), the cost of lands purchased, by means of loans provided for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future development of those airports, that are not held for resale, $7,600,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport say on what airports this money is being spent?


Walter Edward Harris: Quite a number:	Moncton,
Montreal, London, Sault Ste. Marie, Toronto, Windsor, Winnipeg, Calgary, Lethbridge, Edmonton and Vancouver.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister know whether the money being spent at Winnipeg is for the purpose of extending the runways so that the landing of aircraft might be, at least on some occasions, a little further away from the built-up residential areas? I have in mind the unfortunate crash there a few weeks ago.


Walter Edward Harris: It is a very small amount in that case. But these are transfers actually of $5 million in connection with land that is now being kept rather than kept for sale, so that the amount for construction is different, namely, $2,600,000 and in the case of Winnipeg it is only $21,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps my difficulty is that I could not quite hear what the minister was saying. Do I understand that part of this

Supply-Transport
money is for the purchase of additional land? Is that the case in Winnipeg?


Walter Edward Harris: No. This is not purchase. This is the transfer of the accounts from the loans to the expenditures column to the extent of $5 million. The other $2,600,000 is actual construction.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: The minister went over the list so quickly there of places where this money is being spent that it was difficult to follow him. Is any of this money set aside for Malton development?


Walter Edward Harris: The amount is $1,139,000 at Toronto.


John Borden Hamilton: Could the
minister let us know what work is going to be done with this particular amount of money?


Walter Edward Harris: This, of course, concerns a
contract that has already been let and is going on and concerns the completion of the work for the fiscal year. I am sorry I could not give any details as to what the particular work is without checking the numbers against the treasury board minutes.


John Borden Hamilton: Is this a capital contract? This is not for maintenance work but for additional capital construction, is that right?


Walter Edward Harris: This is land acquisition.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I notice the airport at London was mentioned. Has the contract been let for improvements to the airport at London and is the R.C.A.F. participating in part of the cost of the runways there or is it all being done under the civil authority?


Walter Edward Harris: That is, of course, something for the coming estimates rather than the completion of the existing year's work. I notice the amount in the case of London is only $19,000 which, I assume, is for the acquisition of a small parcel of land in connection with the airport.
Mr. Pallet!: I wonder if the minister could at this time answer my question No. 152 which I put on the order paper on February 13? It has a bearing on the land to be acquired by the department from the city of Toronto at Malton airport. I asked if there would be any reduction in municipal taxes as a result of the transfer of land.


Walter Edward Harris: No, I could not, but I will see that an answer is given shortly.


Mr. Palleil:: Talking about airports, will the minister see that my question No. 117 is also answered?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall try to see that my hon. friend is not overlooked.


John Borden Hamilton: Is the minister in any position to give us an answer on the status of the negotiations with the city of Toronto concerning the acquisition of title to the main part of the airport at Malton? This is of great importance. We have heard from time to time statements that the development will go on when the city gives the title. We have heard also from the city that title is not going to be given until such time as we are sure that development work will take place. It seems to me this is one of the occasions when we have to settle this once and for all or Malton will not acquire the status of an international airport as we certainly look forward to its doing.


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to report on the negotiations. I am sure the Minister of Transport will be glad to do that. There is nothing in this vote that has to do with the transfer of title, in any form, so far as I know.


John Borden Hamilton: I realize there is nothing in this particular vote but there has been a continuing series of votes requested from time to time to cover particular work to be done at the airport. Yet, after several years, apparently we are still no closer, at least that is the impression, to a final settlement of the matter. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that somewhere along the line, as we are being asked for additional money, we should have that phase of the project cleared up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
609.	Contributions, as detailed in the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1957 -further amount required, $5,461.
John Borden Hamilton: This concerns a contribution, I think, to the international civil aviation authority. The other day the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicated that some type of arrangement through an international agency had been reached for the bringing to Canada of the new immigrants whom we expect this year in fairly large numbers. At that time, I asked if a check would be made with the department as to what method was used in letting contracts through the international agency to determine if Canadian companies had been treated fairly. I am wondering if the minister has any word from either the

Department of Transport or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in answer to that query?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman. The vote concerned is a vote to pay the balance of an assessment to ICAO, and, through ICAO, certain costs in Iceland which have nothing to do with the transportation of immigrants. However, I am sure my hon. friend will get an answer to his question very shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
610.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $818,538.
Howard Charles Green: This item contains additional steamship subventions for coastal services. Could the minister tell the committee to whom the subvention for the west coast service is to be paid?


Walter Edward Harris: Vancouver, northern part of British Columbia and Queen Charlotte islands service, $237,000.


Howard Charles Green: But to what company or companies is that to be paid?


Walter Edward Harris: I will put that on the record before we complete the estimates. I have just a note of the general vote.


Howard Charles Green: When the minister is doing that would he tie in those figures with the figures in the main estimates. There was an item of $325,000 for subventions for the same route and I wonder if he could tell the committee how the whole amount in both the main and supplementary estimates is to be divided?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, I can give the grand total. The main estimate figure was $4,016,800 and this total estimate is $818,000. I am informed that the contractor on the west coast is the Union Steamship Company.


Howard Charles Green: Is that for the vote in the main estimates or is that also for the vote in the supplementary estimates?


Walter Edward Harris: It is for both.


Howard Charles Green: They are getting the whole amount?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, the entire $237,000.


Howard Charles Green: Have there been any applications from any other shipping firms for subventions for this route or part of it?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not sure. When they came before the treasury board they had to satisfy the chairman that this was the only steamship company that could provide the service for which we are paying a subvention
Supply-Veterans Affairs and that it was necessary having in mind the costs of the particular transportation system.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister tell the committee who are the members of the Canadian maritime commission at the present time?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I will put that on the record.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As I understood the minister the sum of $237,000 for western coastal service is going to the Union Steamship Company. The sum of $325,000 is provided in the main estimates. Does the minister have any note there to indicate what are the reasons for the additional amount of $237,000 being required?


Walter Edward Harris: I am speaking from memory and perhaps I should not, but it seems to me that there were certain negotiations between the Union Steamship Company and its employees at one time that resulted in an increased cost of maintaining the service and this additional cost was reflected in the amount they required for the subsidy for maintaining the services that we subsidize.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Was this arrangement for the additional subsidy based upon the company maintaining the same freight rates and other charges on that service that had prevailed before the wage increases went into effect?


Walter Edward Harris: I think it was felt they could not increase the revenue very much beyond what they had been receiving and that is why they asked for a further subsidy from us.


Mr. MacLean:: Could the minister say to whom the subvention for the service between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland is paid?


Walter Edward Harris: The sum of $80,000 is being paid, sir, in connection with the Prince Edward Island-Newfoundland service to the Gulf Northern Shipping Company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Treatment services-
611.	Operation of hospitals and administration-further amount required, $940,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, with respect to this item I notice in the explanation on page 21 it speaks of the hospitalization of patients outside hospitals. This seems to be a new item. I have not noticed it in the general estimates and I would like to ask the minister if this reference to outside hospitals is on account of a lack of room in the hospitals or is it asked for by patients who prefer treatment in their own homes and outside hospitals? I would also like to ask

Supply-Veterans Affairs if this is the total amount for outside hospitalization or whether there is an item in the general estimates for this purpose.


Walter Edward Harris: This is a further vote for what is known as the "doctors of choice" plan where a veteran not being very handy to a hospital or perhaps not even needing hospitalization as such nevertheless requires medical care and chooses his own doctor and the fees are paid to the doctor by the department for this purpose.
I might point out that is not a new vote. I think we are referring to item No. 611 rather than No. 612.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, item 611.


Walter Edward Harris: In the main estimates there are several votes referring to it. The first one is for professional and special services, an amount of over $1 million. The next is hospitalization of patients outside hospitals, an amount of $5,225,000; and of this vote of $940,000 the sum of $500,000 goes to that particular vote and the other $240,000 goes to five other different votes.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Could the minister say what amount the doctors are paid for a hospital visit?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry, I could not tell you.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The reason I ask is because I discovered only this morning that for hospital visits to Indians the doctors are paid only fifty cents to one dollar per visit which is extremely low. They might just as well do it for nothing.


Walter Edward Harris: I would not want to comment on a vote that is not before the house-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I can appreciate that.


Walter Edward Harris: -but I am quite satisfied that no payment so low is made in connection with the veterans. I have a recollection of a standard figure and it is a great deal higher than that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I was hoping it would correspond more closely to what they normally would receive.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh yes.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Concerning this vote, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Finance could indicate whether there has been any change in the regulation which says that in order for hospitalization to be paid to the veteran on the sliding scale arrangement the treatment must be undertaken in a veterans


hospital. Does the item concerning the hospitalization of patients outside hospitals indicate that there has been any change in this particular section of the act which I believe is section 13?
I have been under the impression that in order to receive compensation on the sliding scale the treatment must be taken in a veterans hospital. Is that a question I should reserve for the Minister of Veterans Affairs?


Walter Edward Harris: I think you might; but I should point out that this represents what has turned out to be a 4 per cent increase in the use of this plan over last year and so I would assume there was no radical change in the requirement. It is merely a growth factor.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As a matter of fact, is this not altogether for outside hospitals; that is, outside veterans hospitals or outside any hospital?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, that is correct.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would like to ask the minister if the veterans have a choice of doctors. I think it is called a "choice of doctors" plan or something of that nature.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the point. The veteran may choose his doctor and we will then pay the bill and he may undergo hospitalization at home if he wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
612.	War veterans allowances-further amount required, $190,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that this item is simply to clear up the amount that is necessary under these different headings; South African war, world war I and world war II, et cetera?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has any consideration been given by the government to making the changes with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act effective at a date earlier than July 1 as indicated last week?


Walter Edward Harris: For reasons which will be explained probably during the budget debate it was not considered desirable to do that earlier than July 1, although consideration was given to the matter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will legislation be brought down at this session to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act and the other acts which were mentioned?


Walter Edward Harris: The government will do what it can to make provision for the additional payments which will take effect on July 1

and the method of doing that will be considered carefully, having in mind the timetable of the session which appears to be drawing to a close.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I assume that when the minister used the phrase "effective July 1" it was intended to mean the payment received by a recipient at the end of July?


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
613.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances) - further amount required, $110,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice $110,000 is being asked for here and an amount of $650,000 was asked for in the general estimates. Has there been an increase in the requests for assistance under this fund to such an extent as to make it necessary to have such a large amount in the supplementaries?


Walter Edward Harris: There has been a substantial increase and I will put the details on the record. The number of individuals applying in the year to the end of December 1955 was 3,086; in 1956 the number was 3,744, an increase of 21 per cent. The expenditures increased in that period of time from $371,695 to $543,571.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Indicating an increase in the hardship among veterans, I would take it?


Walter Edward Harris: Either that, or the larger number reaching the age at which they could apply and obtain it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
615. To provide for the repayment in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of an amount equivalent to the compensating adjustment made under subsection (1) of section 13 of the War Service Grants Act or the payment made pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, where the person who made the compensating adjustment or payment does not receive benefits under the Veterans' Land Act or where, having had financial assistance under that act, he is deemed by the minister on termination of his contract or agreement under that act to have derived thereunder either no benefit or a benefit that is less than the amount of the compensating adjustment or payment made-further amount required, $95,000.
John Cameron Pallett: Would the minister explain the rather lengthy wording of this item?


Walter Edward Harris: On occasion a veteran having taken advantage of a rehabilitation grant or gratuity will decide he would like to come under the small holdings, and requests that we pay the amount he would receive by way of gratuity. Then for one reason or another he may not take advantage of the small holdings, perhaps because he cannot qualify or for some other reason, and at that point we are obliged to refund him the
Supply-Finance
money he paid to qualify. This is to authorize refunds under those circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
561. To authorize and provide for a special government contribution to reduce the unamortized portion of the civil service superannuation account liability, $50,000,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this item represents $50 million out of a total of $89.9 million in the further supplementary estimates and therefore it considerably outweighs in amount all the other items which are now engaging the attention of the committee. This item is unlike any other item in these further supplementary estimates because it does not contemplate a payment out of pocket on the part of the government. All the other items, with the exception of one kindred item of $50 million for losses on the realization of active assets, represent payments to be made but this item represents only a transfer from one pocket of the government to another. It does not represent an expenditure in the true sense of the word. These two items of $50 million each have been aptly described by one journalist when commenting upon some of the statements of recent days as amounts placed by the Minister of Finance in "piggy banks".
I have something to say about this item and the use which the government is endeavouring to make of it. If there is a case at all for putting money in the civil service superannuation fund to reduce what may be described in a loose sense as an actuarial deficit then the case is one for conscious budgeting on the part of the Minister of Finance in his annual estimates. This is not something that should be used by the government for the purpose of reducing its embarrassingly large surplus, which is the measure of the government's over-taxation of the people of Canada.
This matter of the civil service superannuation account for our purposes dates from 1947 when the act was revised by chapter 54 of the statutes of 1947. At that time certain revisions were made in the Civil Service Superannuation Act affecting this account. There previously had been no need for an accounting entry to reflect the so-called actuarial condition of the fund, but after the legislation of 1947 the government set up a paper account which was simply a ledger item in the consolidated revenue fund. Whatever amounts have been credited to that fund since have simply been amounts retained by the government in the consolidated revenue fund. They have never gone out of

Supply-Finance
the possession of the government. That is why I stress the fact that this item of $50 million is a non-cash transaction entirely within government accounts. It has no effect whatever on the cash surplus, but it does serve the purpose of the government in reducing the budgetary surplus by $50 million.
After this paper account was set up following the legislation of 1947 the department of insurance was instructed to make a study of the account. That department brought to the government a report which was completed in 1951 and tabled in 1952, the gist of which was that there was an actuarial deficit in the fund of $252 million as at December 31, 1947, and that as of December 31, 1951, the deficit amounted to $312 million.
Now, sir, lest anyone be too deeply impressed by references to an actuarial deficit, let us be quite clear on this: that an actuarial deficit in this sense in the case of private business and an actuarial deficit in this sense in the case of government business are two very different matters. In the case of the government dealing with a sovereign parliament, it rests within the power of parliament year by year on the recommendation of His Excellency to provide whatever is required regardless of a deficit or anything else. We are not dealing with a closed account as would be the case if this were a private business. It is not a serious matter that there should be a paper deficit in this fund. It is true that the account is credited with interest at 4 per cent per annum, but again this merely amounts to a bookkeeping entry, a paper entry within the scope of the government accounts.
After the report was brought in, and, indeed, in the year when the department of insurance was studying the position of the accounts, the government in further supplementary estimates proposed that a sum of money be credited to the account, and that practice has been followed now on three occasions. For the fiscal year 1950-51 a further supplementary estimate, item 587, for $75 million was passed and credited to this fund; in the fiscal year 1951-52, two items in the further supplementary estimates- No. 585 for $23 million and No. 586 for $75 million-were proposed and passed, and the sums credited to the fund. And in the fiscal year 1952-53, in the further supplementary estimates, by item No. 571, the sum of $25 million was similarly credited to this fund. In other words, in those three years a total of $198 million was taken out of the apparent government surplus as the end of the fiscal year approached, and credited to this fund.
I stress, sir, that in no case did the Minister of Finance at that time budget for that 
amount. In the dying days of the fiscal year the amount was taken out of the surplus in order to reduce the apparent budgetary surplus and to relieve the government of the embarrassment of an unwarranted huge surplus which did, in each case, represent the extent of government over-taxation of the people. And now we have to have a repetition of the same act.
Mr. Chairman, since that vote in the dying days of the fiscal year 1952-53, neither the present Minister of Finance nor his predecessor brought forward any proposal in his budgets for the allocation of any sum of this kind. It evidently was not a matter which, in their view, required to be budgeted, and the condition of the account was not such as to require, evidently, a conscious appropriation of money to strengthen the account.
Sir, I put it before the house that the government has approached this, not on the basis of sound financing, not on the basis of doing what might be, and what was in 1952 put forward by the former minister as something requiring regular annual budgeting, but simply as a political manoeuvre to relieve itself of the embarrassment of a large surplus.
On March 28, 1952, the then minister of finance in a reference to the item of $75 million in the further supplementary estimates to be allocated to this fund said, at page 910 of Hansard:
We propose to continue the policy initiated by the vote of $75 million a year ago and to wipe out the accumulated deficit over a reasonable period.
That was a clear enough statement. If the fund were one that required to be strengthened, then it is an understandable policy. But, having been so stated, it was completely ignored by the government. At the time the then minister of finance was speaking, he was simply dealing with this on the basis of a further supplementary estimate. He did not introduce any such item in his regular estimates for the ensuing fiscal year, but again, in the dying days of that fiscal year 1952-53, he brought in a further supplementary item. And nowhere, from the time this policy was enunciated by the then minister of finance in March, 1952, until this present time has there been any attempt on the part of the government to budget consciously for the strengthening of this paper account.
Let us see what this manoeuvre actually is: it is a palpable attempt on the part of the government to reduce the budgetary surplus and thereby its own embarrassment over that surplus. Six days ago the Minister of Finance undertook to tell the house at page 2217 of Hansard, that "our expenditure"- that is, for the fiscal year which will end on

the 31st of this month-"will be about $4,867 million and our surplus about $282 million." And again, in further reference to the same matter, he said: "The budgetary surplus is about $282 million."
Sir, the true budgetary surplus is a great deal more than that. Taking this item and the other similar paper item that I mentioned earlier of $50 million for loss on realization of assets-taking these two items alone, the true budgetary surplus is $382 million. The Minister of Finance has it within his power to propose to the house in these dying days of this fiscal year that his budgetary surplus be reduced by these two figures aggregating $100 million, but at least he might have the grace to call this by its true name; he might at least have the grace to say that the true budgetary surplus is $382 million, but that the government proposes to cover up and hide $100 million of it, not by putting it out as expenditure but simply by retaining possession of these two sums of $50 million each and transferring them, always within the consolidated revenue fund, to the credit of a paper account. That is what is involved here, and it is no more than that. It is simply a political manoeuvre for which there is precedent on three occasions when the conditions were similar, namely when the Minister of Finance and the government having grievously over-taxed the people then sought to relieve themselves of the burden of accounting for a huge surplus by hiding part of it within the consolidated revenue fund by means of a paper entry.
It is not to be wondered at, Mr. Chairman, that this strategem is resorted to on the eve of an election.
I am sure that we can very well conclude that but for that fact and the government's embarrassment about this surplus there would be before us today no further supplementary estimate in regard to a matter like this. The minister has overtaxed the Canadian people. He does not want the people to realize the extent to which they have been overtaxed and consequently resort is had to methods of this kind to hide a substantial portion of the true budgetary surplus. Sir, the house should realize that it is being asked to take part in an act of hiding a substantial portion of the true budgetary surplus.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to add a word to what my colleague has said. I shall be very brief. I have looked back to what was said by the minister's predecessor several years ago. At that time we were led to believe that this matter was going to be dealt with in a planned and regular manner. I think we are entitled to have that done.
Supply-Finance
Can anyone suggest that it is being done in that way? It is and has been done in a spasmodic, haphazard way which is related to nothing so far as we can see except, as my colleague has said, the desire of the minister to make his surplus look less than it really is on certain occasions.
When are those occasions? We know when they are when we look back. They are related to general elections and big surpluses. As my colleague has said, why do we have to have this make-believe? Why can we not have a budget related to the realities of the situation? The only real thing about this is that $50 million has been taken away from the taxpayers. That is real enough. When we get the true view we realize that $50 million added to another $50 million and added to $282 million makes $382 million.
I do not think I need pursue the matter at length, but I wish to make it clear that I agree fully with what my colleague has said. I hope the minister is going to say something about it. I think we are entitled to some word from him and that he should not leave it entirely unanswered because he knows as well as we do that these arguments are sound and that we are entitled to an answer. I certainly ask the minister not to let this thing go through without answering. If he does, it is just another instance of that attitude of superiority-I do not want to use unpleasant words to describe it-based on long occupation of the government benches and based on the feeling which each year apparently grows stronger that the answer to any question is, did we or did we not get elected?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a question I wanted to put to the minister but I will defer if he wishes to answer the comments that have been made.


Walter Edward Harris: I suppose I should say something in view of the last two or three sentences of the hon. member for Greenwood which displayed a state of mind that I hoped really would not grow up in the house. We are sent here for the purpose of making our representations, making our speeches and explanations and saying those things that we feel we should say. But I have never thought that because one person says one thing someone else is bound to say something else. Indeed, it seems to me that occasionally one would be wise not to say some of the things I have heard said in the house.
But having in mind that my hon. friend feels it would be unfair to him or, at any rate, I would be unfair to myself if I did not answer, in other words, that I would be under the stigma he has put on me of supposing I am superior, which I never do and he

Supply-Finance
knows I do not, I will make an answer. We seem to be proceeding on the assumption that because the government asks for this vote of $50 million towards the end of the fiscal year this is somehow coming out of the taxpayers whereas it would not if we had asked for it at the beginning. If we had budgeted for this the result would have been precisely the same. We would have had the same tax rate, we would have collected the same amount of revenue-I am speaking generally of course-and the money would have been transferred in the consolidated revenue fund to the superannuation account.
Therefore when the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Greenwood suggest there would have been any other result than the result we are now going to achieve it seems to me they have overlooked the fact that it would have been in the blue book in the first place and would have been subject to debate just as this item is now subject to debate, but the result would have been just the same if the vote had carried in the long run. With regard to the government doing nothing about these things since 1952-53 and only using the opportunity which arises when a budgetary surplus is available, I think the committee ought to know that after the study was made in 1948-49 and following on the statements made by my predecessor in 1949 and again in 1952 the government has done something about this every year.
When civil service salaries are increased we have a statutory provision now which we did not have at that time that the appropriate amount that has to go into this account has to be voted, and we did that last year. When we raised the salaries of the civil servants and the armed forces my recollection is that the increases ran to about $40 million or something of that order and an amount precisely the same as the expected increase was voted by the house and put in this account to make sure that the account did not go further into the red. Also from year to year when civil servants elect to pay their contributions on certain service which they have already built up but with respect to which they have not been entitled to contribute because they had not become permanent or for some other reason, the government then matches that particular contribution for a period back beyond the date when the civil servant first elects to make his contribution. In the meantime and in addition we have been paying the interest on this account ever since the particular report was made by my predecessor.
Therefore since 1948 or 1949 the account has not gone into arrears at any time, and instead of there being a deficit of $509 mil-

lion, as was reported by the committee that looked into the matter at that time, we now have a deficit of $189 million, and if this vote is approved the deficit will be $139 million. I can only say that if my hon. friends take any comfort out of the fact that there seems to be a coincidence between the use of large surpluses for this purpose and non-budgeting on other occasions I should think the very reasons that prompt them to speak as they have are reasons why we would not budget in that way in a year when revenues may not be as buoyant and we may not have the margin of funds that we need, and that it would be on an occasion like this when we can use the surplus that should be used in order to reduce the deficit until in due course there will be no deficit at all. When we get the fund down to the point of being actuarily sound I do not know what my hon. friends will be able to say at that time when there is no large item such as this for them to use to say we have a large surplus. I only know that this government will likely be in power at that time and that we will do what we think ought to be done at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the minister has sought to brush this matter aside rather lightly in his explanation of the net result. But the house should not be so easily led as to think that this matter is quite so simple. Had the minister consciously budgeted for the two items of $50 million which we have been discussing he would not have announced in his budget speech a year ago that he was budgeting for a surplus of $113 million. He would have announced that he was budgeting for a surplus of $13 million, a very different matter. The people of the country would then have been in a position to compare his $282 million against his estimated $13 million, whereas today they will have the opportunity of comparing the $382 million of correct budgetary surplus against his estimate of $113 million. There are other factors involved in this comparison as well.
The minister has had full opportunity today, if he seriously believes in the policy of eliminating this paper deficit, to announce a policy; to announce that he intends in future to budget consciously and to ask the house to approve a deliberate policy of elimination of this paper deficit. But he has chosen not to make use of that opportunity. I call upon him to announce-if he believes in it-a definite long-range policy setting forth the rate at which this paper or actuarial deficit will be reduced annually until it is eliminated. In that way we shall prevent the government from using this actuarial deficit in its accounts as a means of concealing the true dimensions of its budgetary

surplus in years like the present one when it has so grievously overtaxed the Canadian people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether it would make any difference at all to recipients of pensions out of this fund whether this money were paid over or were not paid over at the present time?


Walter Edward Harris: No. The government is obliged to honour its obligations to the civil servants upon retirement and the pensions will be paid in full whether or not these funds were voted in this way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask one other question? Would it be possible to put money of this kind into the fund to make it possible to pay higher pensions to those already retired, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower brackets?


Walter Edward Harris: If the government concludes that it ought to pay higher pensions to retired civil servants, I presume that it would be necessary to present that as a policy and to seek a vote of the house for that specific purpose. That vote, if carried, would of course transfer the money into this fund.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
551. Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural prices support account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural prices support board during the fiscal year 1956-57, $5,019,100.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on Monday we listened to the Minister of Agriculture tell us the various prices that are being paid for eggs at different points across the country, that the floor price or the so-called floor price under the Agricultural Prices Support Act for eggs was 38 cents a dozen for grade A large, and that from that price are deducted the costs of storage, handling charges and so on to get what is ordinarily considered the effective floor price of 32 cents a dozen.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just correct one statement. I think it is not quite correct to say that the amount of carrying charges, storage and so on is deducted. As a matter of fact, it is added and it comes out to 43 cents.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then after all the other commissions, interest, carrying charges et cetera have been deducted, it comes to the producer, under the rough rule of thumb method used by the Minister of Agriculture, to a price of 32 cents a dozen. As I understand it, if 32 cents a dozen is being paid, then it is assumed that the purpose of the legislation is being carried out. But although this act has done some considerable good and although even in recent months a great many eggs have been purchased under the act, I do not think
Supply-Agriculture
the producers are getting full value from the legislation and I do not think that the money the public of Canada are investing in the purchase and storage of eggs is in fact being adequately passed on to the producer.
I am amazed to find at times that the prices paid for eggs are so much below the 32 cents a dozen. I think that fact suggests that this whole act, under which the item in the estimates is being paid, should be overhauled. I do not think it is good enough to have on the statute books an act that does not bring full benefit to the producer. I think it is assumed by all members in the house, that under the constitution, the federal government has or can have control over prices of products going into interprovincial and export trade. There does not seem to be any question about that matter. It would seem to me that under this act the government should make certain that all eggs going into interprovincial trade have been purchased at the floor price. It may be difficult-I know it would be difficult-to make certain that every single dozen of eggs sold from person to person in the country carries the floor price. But certainly any firms that are doing business in interprovincial trade should be required to pay the floor price under this act. I think there is a method by which they can be required to pay the floor price.
We have another extremely important act that deals with an agricultural commodity in interprovincial and export trade. I refer of course to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In order to make certain that the firms which are purchasing wheat and shipping wheat in interprovincial and export trade are in fact paying the prices set out by the Canadian Wheat Board, there is listed in the act a schedule of firms which act as agents of the board. I suggest that under the Agricultural Prices Support Act there should be a schedule of firms that can act as agents of the agricultural prices support board and that, in order to act as agents, they should be required to pay the floor price.
The minister has given the committee information to the effect that the floor price or the support price even recently has not been paid and that the places where the support price has not been paid and is not being paid today are in the prairie provinces mainly. We all know that in the province of Ontario in recent weeks many instances have been brought to our attention where the floor price is not being paid. The minister went on to attempt to criticize the government of Saskatchewan for not having built storage for eggs. As far as I know, the governments of the other provinces are not in the storage business. I have inquired. I am told by

Supply-Agriculture
Manitoba members that, to their knowledge, the Manitoba government is not building storage.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a socialist government.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Manitoba government is
not building storage and it is not a socialist government. The government of which the minister is a member, of course, is not a socialist government but it has been very closely associated with the business of building cold storage for all kinds of commodities. So this rion-socialist government is doing what the minister says a socialist government should do.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not saying what they should do. I am saying what they said they would do.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not expect they said
anything of the kind. The minister is always looking for an alibi. He will condemn the Saskatchewan government for not having done something even if the Manitoba government, a Liberal government of many years' standing, has never even considered doing the same thing. The amazing part of the list of prices that he put on the record is the fact that in Manitoba the price is as low as that at all of the Saskatchewan points he mentioned arid there is one point, namely Brandon, where the price being paid is even lower than the other prices that the minister has quoted.
I do not think you can have an act that is effective unless you attack the problem of storage. I do not think it can be attacked effectively by attempting to shoulder the responsibility on one provincial government. If any one provincial government built all the storage required for all the eggs that might be put into storage in that province, that would do nothing under this act to provide a floor price for egg producers in the other nine provinces. I believe the government should require the packing firm to pay the floor prices, as an agent of the agricultural prices support board, and the firms that have agreed to pay those prices should be made known. Then, the government should expand its policy of subsidizing the building of cold storage facilities to the point that the act may be effective and that producers may receive the support price.
I think if this were done it would probably save the consumer money. I imagine one of the reasons why egg prices become so high at particular times of the year is the fact that nothing has been done, or very little has been done, in periods of very high prices to effectively store eggs so that they may be available at a later date, even a few

days or a few weeks later as that often represents the difference between periods of high prices and low prices.
Another thing I suggest, and I think this is absolutely essential, is that the government set out a schedule of payments for the various grades. It is not good enough to have a suggested floor price for a certain grade and then have no price support at all for the other grades. Any legislation that is going to be effective must set out a schedule of grades, and have attached to each grade its appropriate floor price. We know that in the case of grade A medium eggs, very often the spread is enormous and unwarranted. I think this defect can be overcome by setting out floor prices for grade A medium eggs, and for any other grades that might be appropriate.
I suggest that the act should have some teeth in it. Firms should not be allowed to get away with chiselling the price for eggs down to very low points. Firms who are participating in the government program should be listed, and they should agree to pay the support price on all eggs that they purchase. If this were accompanied by appropriate penalties if the act were broken by these firms, I think you would find the packing houses passing on the floor prices to the producers. If the government would then take a look at the storage facilities in the country to ascertain whether or not it is necessary to expand this program of subsidizing cold storage construction, then I think we might have an effective act.
The Agricultural Prices Support Act as it is being applied to eggs, and as it has been applied to hog prices in the past, has very often failed to give to the producers the floor prices set out in the act. I want to point out in fairness that this is not true in the case of butter prices. We have felt that the floor price on butter has, almost without exception, been passed on to the producer. The same thing, of course, is true with regard to the initial prices established for grain under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The effective policies that have been followed with regard to several agricultural commodities, I suggest, should be adopted and followed in connection with egg prices.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the other evening I stated that there would be some announcement to be made with regard to certain milk prices, either yesterday or today. I just want to read that announcement now since it was only partly covered in that statement. I am quoting from the order in council which sets up the plan:
That under the authority of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the agricultural prices support

board proposes to purchase Canada first grade dry skimmed milk and that under authority of paragraph (a) of the said subsection the board proposes to prescribe the following prices (f.o.b. storage at Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Vancouver) with all purchases of both spray and roller process dry skimmed milk to be subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the agricultural prices support board.
The prices set are 14 cents per pound for Canada first grade dry skim milk, roller process, and 17 cents per pound for Canada first grade dry skim milk, spray process.
The undersigned, therefore, has the honour to recommend as follows:
1.	That your excellency the governor general in council under the authority of paragraph (a) of section 2 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, be pleased to designate as an agricultural product, for the purposes of the said act, Canada first grade dry skimmed milk.
2.	That your excellency the governor general in council be pleased to approve of the board prescribing the prices aforesaid for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 9 of the said act.
That is the plan which has been announced and which is to be followed in connection with dry milk powder.
I only wish to say a few words with regard to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. First, the plan which he outlined is approximately the plan which they had in the United States. It was the outcome of that plan which we were attempting to avoid when we set up our system some years after theirs had come into effect and after having seen the experience of their plan. Their plan was one which encouraged the production of eggs to the extent they filled all the storages in the country. I am sure hon, members recall that they even filled caves in the United States with eggs. After having had that experience, they had to change their policy. We set up our policy after that experience had been had in the United States.
The important fact is that after we had carried on under our policies and they under that policy and then the corrected one, our prices of eggs are just as high as in the United States, and most of the time higher. I think the outcome of our plan has proven that it is at least as acceptable as any that has been followed elsewhere.
In so far as the matter of cold storage is concerned, I did not imply nor say at any time it was the duty of any particular provincial government to build cold storage. I just referred to the fact that we have a particular kind of government in Saskatchewan which had undertaken to do those things. They were even going to build packing plants, and said so. It is the packing plants which do a considerable amount of this storage. They stated that; but then after
Supply-Agriculture
they got in no doubt they found it was not a thing they could practicably do and so they did not do it. But whatever the reason, the plants are not there, and you have a government in Saskatchewan which maintained it would be building that kind of plant when it got in.
My hon. friend says we do something similar. Well, we do pay one-third of the cost of all cold storage right across Canada wherever it is carried on in accordance with the act. Two storages have been put into Saskatchewan within the last three years, one in Regina and one in Saskatoon, on which we did pay one-third of the cost; and while these storages are not especially for the storage of eggs-probably you could not store eggs in them because they are freezing plants-they do take a considerable portion of the products out of other cold storages and leave room for certain other products and to an extent eggs. So this government has done something about the storage problem that exists there while, I suggest again, the provincial government in its own good judgment has done nothing about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Neither has any other provincial government.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only difference it makes is that it does tend to reduce the price by about 2 cents, because the eggs have to be shipped to Winnipeg or Calgary and therefore the price level is down a little, but it does not make any more difference than that. On the other hand there are provinces in Canada where they eat all the eggs they produce. The problem really is not one that concerns anyone outside the province, any more than that some of the other provinces may want to ship eggs there.
For example, with regard to the province of Ontario, from which we have had cases cited, the eggs spoken of are laid by the hens of Ontario-


Edward George McCullough: We expected that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: -produced in the hatcheries of Ontario. They are gathered up and taken into storage in Ontario, or they may be loaded on trucks and then taken into the city of Toronto and sold. We have nothing to do with those eggs. There is no law we could pass that would bring those eggs under our control. Those eggs are bought from a farmer. He makes his own deal with the purchaser and that person takes them into town-in the case I mentioned the other night, into the town of Lindsay-and they accumulate there. They are then moved from

Supply-Agriculture
Lindsay into Toronto, let us say, and sold to merchants in that city who in turn sell them to the public. We have nothing to do with those eggs at all. We cannot take any control over them.
On the other hand, however, the persons who are handling the eggs could put them under the act, and if they did they would become agents of the government. My hon. friends have stated that we ougth to have agents of the government. The Agricultural Prices Support Act provides for our appointing agents, and we do have agents to handle the products. When a certain set of conditions are established it becomes possible for a certain organization to be an agency of the government under that act. If they carry out the terms of the act they do become agents of the government.
One of those terms is that they must pay the farmers a reasonable price. No one has ever said that 32 cents is a reasonable price for eggs across this country. A reasonable price is a price that is properly related to the 38-cent floor at the storage plant to which they are delivered. The only charge that can be made against that 38 cents is the cost the individual company or corporation or whatever it is has in bringing those eggs from the producer to the plant. He is allowed a reasonable profit in connection with these transactions. All that is checked back before delivery of these eggs is taken under this act.
When we established the act originally it was not intended that eggs would be accepted until December. During the first two or three years no delivery was taken until then. Some of the experiences required that we give assurances at the time the eggs were put into storage that if the holder of the eggs desired to have them turned over to us at the first of December we would be prepared to take them.
We functioned in that way for another year or two but there were difficulties in that connection, and the regulations have been amended since that time to make it possible for us to buy eggs at any time, to actually take delivery of them and pay for them and see that they are put in cold storage. That does not necessarily mean we will take delivery of the eggs on the day on which we give the undertaking. It is done both ways.
If the person who has the eggs in cold storage under our direction desires to take them out of cold storage and sell them or distribute them as he sees fit, to his own advantage, he can do that; but if he carries them on through to a certain period in the year, then we take delivery of the eggs.

This plan was set up after consultation with the representatives of the producers' organizations. They were in Ottawa representing egg producers from all the provinces in Canada, as I recall it. At that time we discussed the matter together with those who are engaged in the storing of eggs and those involved in trade in connection with eggs. They held a meeting here in Ottawa. They came to us with a certain proposal somewhat along the lines outlined by my hon. friend a few moments ago.
We told them that in view of the experience in the United States we did not think we could make that work, and so we proposed a plan. We started out by accepting delivery of stored eggs on December 1 at 38 cents, with carrying charges added. If the eggs were put in storage in May there was a certain carrying charge, and if they were put in storage in August there was also a carrying charge, and so on. The limit that could be charged under the act for carrying charges as it then read was 5 cents, and so the eggs could run up in value to about 42 or 43 cents, and that is the price at which we actually took them.
That plan operated for one year, and then the same group came back. The gentleman who was at the head of the group-incidentally, he came from Winnipeg-came to us before the others had congregated and suggested that he still thought the plan advanced the year before was the right one. They held their meeting and they came back to see us. The gentleman got up and apologized for having taken the position he took, and advised us that the others agreed with him and were now unanimously in favour of continuing the plan that was in effect the year before. They meet annually and give us their opinions every year.
The advisory committee which is representative of all the provincial farm organizations and provinces across Canada meets twice every year and we talk about this matter. I am not going to say what the advisory committee does because that is a behind closed doors meeting, and we do not discuss their opinions; but they do discuss it every year and comment upon it. The federation of agriculture also meets from time to time and passes resolutions about these things, and there has been no undue criticism of the system itself.
People question why eggs sell at such low prices. All I am saying is that most of the eggs that are sold at low prices and about which we talk a great deal out in the country have never been graded at all. They are the nest run of eggs, eggs that are brought in from places where there are no proper grading stations to take care of their grading.

On the other hand, in some provinces you will find egg grading stations located in many places, wherever eggs are produced. As far as I am aware the egg grading situation in Ontario is pretty well covered and stations have been located there for a long time, but the situation is different in my province, as everyone from Saskatchewan knows, where you have to do some hunting to find an egg grading station.
This may be true because there is no great demand for them. In any case they are not there, and so the eggs that are produced in those areas come in quantities that are not graded and cannot be brought under this or any other act that could be passed here. The act provides for graded eggs. The hon. member has suggested that probably the plan could be amended to take care of the extra large, grade A large and medium. Probably we could go that far without any change in the act, and we do consider from time to time the advisability of making it apply in that way.
I would say that at the present there is only one thing that would happen if we made it apply, and that is it would lower the price of eggs to those who produce medium grade. The reasonable margin as between the two is about 5 cents, and I noted that the margin this morning was about 1 cent. For weeks past the margin has been 2 cents, so if we were to put on what is called a reasonable margin as between grade A large and the mediums we would probably reduce the price to the producer of medium eggs.
It is easy to understand why at the moment the price of medium eggs is high as compared to grade A large. Pullets are not laying eggs at the present time and of course medium eggs practically all come from pullets, the new layers. Large eggs come from older hens, and right at this time the medium supply is low, because the number of pullets is low at this time. If we set a margin of 5 cents we would probably take away some of the price which the producer of medium eggs now gets.
All these things are considered regularly. One difficulty about eggs is that they are a perishable product. You can crack them taking them into town, and you can do all kinds of things with eggs that will not happen to potatoes or apples or other things. I suggest that it is easy enough to talk about it but it is not quite so easy to carry it out. We must have the absolute co-operation of the provincial governments with all the legislation they can give. My hon. friend is anxious to talk about amendments to the marketing legislation and we are told the provinces are asking for this now, and
Supply-Agriculture
the province of Ontario particularly are urging us to give them co-operation by passing legislation here.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


James Garfield Gardiner: We say we are quite prepared to do it and our intention is to do it, but I think it is just as reasonable for us to say that the provinces should give us all the legislation we require.


Hazen Robert Argue: Have you asked them for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have asked them a dozen times. I have asked them out in my hon. friend's province, and I will ask them again. I do not know whether they will do it, but we will continue to ask for it. I would suggest that it is just as important that the provinces co-operate with us in giving us the necessary legislation to do these things as it is that we should co-operate with them. That is all we ask the Saskatchewan government or any other government to do. We get more co-operation from some than we do from others.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: About a month ago pressure was being applied on the government and on the opposition, and in turn the opposition was putting more pressure on the government. Why did the government have to wait until that pressure was applied before they took action?


James Garfield Gardiner: Pressure had nothing to do with it. If you can tell me why the hatcheries prefer to have eggs produced at a certain time then I will answer you. The fact is that eggs produced from about the middle of November, certainly from the 1st of December down to the 1st of February, are not suitable for oil-dipping. The feeding of the hens and the care given them and everything else reduces the quality of those eggs, and the only time you can start profitably to put on oiling is around February 1. The producers of eggs know that, and those who are engaged in the marketing of eggs know that. If you have a large production of eggs then that is the time when somebody can get cheap eggs. They may not all be the best, but they will be cheaper.
There is not much we can do about it. That is one of the difficulties of carrying on a plan of this kind unless you have everybody's co-operation. Immediately we get to the time when we are certain that those eggs will keep for at least until July 1, so we will have some opportunity of putting them on the market as shelled eggs, we will take the eggs and oil-dip them ourselves. This was done after January 26.


Mr. Charlton:: There is one matter that should be cleared up. The hon. member for

Supply-Agriculture
Assiniboia mentioned a price to the producer of 32 cents a dozen. I was under the impression that the carrying or servicing charge, which had previously been 6 cents, had been increased to 8 cents early this year. How you can take 8 cents from 38 cents and still have 32 cents left I do not know. I would like the minister to tell us whether that is true.
The minister made reference to eggs going into Lindsay, and he said they had no control over them. But in the next breath he said they could still come under this floor even though they had no control over them. In that case the eggs were being marketed within the province, but the minister was saying they could come under the control of this floor price. I do not know how that is possible, but the minister has said that dealers had to pay a certain price or the government would not guarantee the 38-cent floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I said was that if they do not conform with certain requirements the government will not take their eggs at 38 cents any time. They know and understand that. If they have any desire to turn their eggs over to the government they buy them under the conditions set out in the understandings they have.
With regard to the other question, I am sorry I have not the regulation here. As reported a few minutes ago, the first regulation set the price at 38 cents plus the maximum carrying charge of 5 cents. That is what we undertook to pay. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that has been raised 1 cent recently because the carrying charges now are a little higher than they were at that time. But the carrying charge is not included in the 38 cents. You can say that to anyone who indicates to you that that carrying charge would bring the price down to 32 cents.
The only thing that would bring it down to 32 cents is the cost of accumulating a carload of eggs or a truckload of eggs in order to ship in to a certain point. They bring in those eggs in those quantities and deliver them to the storage. The government will accept them if the eggs are properly graded and so on, and the producer will receive a reasonably related price. That means that if they have brought them in from 300 miles away there will be a wider margin than there will be if they are brought in from only 100 miles away, or possibly only 25 miles away.
There is no one price that you can say is a reasonable price when you take all the circumstances into consideration. The board agrees to accept the eggs, and once they are put into storage under their acceptance we

are bound to take them at least by December 1. Sometimes we take them earlier and sometimes we leave them there. On some occasions when we have left them there they got rid of them before December 1 and we did not need to take anything. Our undertaking is that they get a floor price of 38 cents at the storage and also the carrying charges up to the time the eggs are taken out, if we take them the producer must have had a properly related price. In addition to that we must be assured that they paid a reasonable price for them at the time they got them from the producer.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: On
Monday evening, Mr. Chairman, the minister put on record in Hansard some figures dealing with losses incurred in the handling of certain agricultural products. He pointed out that in 1955 the loss incurred in handling butter amounted to over $4 million, and that in 1956 it was more than $500,000. I would like to ask the minister if he could tell the committee how many pounds of butter were sold in Canada for less than the floor price of 58 cents to institutions and other concerns coming under the 21 cents a pound subsidy, and also how many pounds of butter were sold outside Canada and at what price.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a general statement on that which will, I think, answer most of the questions that have been asked. The last year for which I have figures on the statement from which I read two nights ago, is 1954, but I also have figures from 1949 to 1954; then in the annual report for 1955-1956, which I have here, there is a general statement which says this:	First
grade creamery butter produced in 1955, 62,990,606 pounds. That is the inventory as of March 31, 1956, held by the board. Then stock on hand, March 31, 1956, 54,712,239 pounds. That, of course, is in storage right across the country.
In addition to the other products to which we are giving support, the board considered further proposals mainly relating to the diversification of supports in the dairy industry, but up to March 31, 1956, no action was considered necessary except to continue to support the price of first grade creamery butter. First grade creamery butter, 1954-55 production, held as on March 31,	1955,
amounted to 50,190,509 pounds. This was all butter made in 1954. At the beginning of May, 1955, this butter was offered to the trade on the basis of 58 cents per pound less a handling charge for storage of 2 cents per pound. Approximately 10 million pounds were sold on this basis up to June 30, 1955. At that time the board ceased to offer 1954 production butter until the beginning of

August, 1955, at which time it offered and sold the remainder of the stocks of 1954 butter on the basis of 58 cents per pound, except for 9 million pounds which were exported. That is the answer to the question regarding the amount exported. It was approximately 9 million pounds.
With respect to these exports, the board had indicated in December, 1954, that it was willing to consider offers for export. In June, 1955, an experimental shipment of approximately 300,000 pounds of unsalted butter was sold by a Canadian trader for export. The price received by the board was approximately 37 cents f.a.s. Montreal. Further export deals in 1954 salted butter took place in the latter part of 1955 and early in 1956 at prices ranging from 37 cents to 39 cents f.a.s. Canadian seaboard. The total quantity involved was approximately 9 million pounds.
In February, 1955, the board offered to approved Canadian institutions a rebate or discount of 21 cents per pound on first grade creamery butter purchased by them. This program ran until March 31, 1956, at a cost of $1,427,930, representing discount and charges on about 6.7 million pounds. A study of these sales in February, 1956, as compared with the month prior to the entry of the institutions into the plan, based on the reports made by these institutions, showed that there had been an increase of approximately 9 per cent in the consumption of butter by these institutions during that period.
The total loss on 1954 butter sold by the board was $5,422,152.91, including $55,861.36 shown in the account up to March 31, 1955. The sum of $5,302,299.95 was included in the March supplementary, and a balance of $63,991.60 was carried forward into the current fiscal year.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I think some hon. members may be more confused than ever, now, regarding these egg prices. It has been very unfair that according to the minister's statement there is no set figure which the producer can expect for his eggs or for the eggs being sold through dealers to the government-


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a set figure which may be established in every community, but not one that applies all across Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand there is not one that applies all across Canada. But let the minister give us some of the set figures allowed to dealers transporting these eggs to storage. Let him give us, now, the figure that will be permitted under this act to those dealers transporting eggs from various places into storage, so we may know what
Supply-Agriculture
the producer can expect. How can he know what he is supposed to expect for grade A large eggs if he does not know these figures?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, one would think to hear hon. members of the official opposition, particularly those who speak on this question-though I am quite sure they do not all agree-that this government ought to be in the business of the marketing of eggs and that we ought to be taking delivery of the eggs, checking everybody in order to see that they do nothing except what this government instructs them to do.	*
That is not the policy at all. The policy is that everyone who wishes to be in the egg business may stay in the egg business. This act is simply set up to make it possible for them to secure certain advantages for the producers if they wish to do so. But only a small percentage of the eggs really comes under the administration of this act; in some years, none at all. The act is on the statute books, and it indicates that if anyone cannot get 38 cents for eggs in storage, and they prefer to put them in storage on our account, we will take them. But there is one good reason why they don't let us get them. If a man is in the egg business he wants to be able to make his own deals and sell his own eggs. Once he puts them in our hands we can give them to a business competitor or to anyone else. So he does not put them in our hands at all unless he is satisfied that it will be to his advantage, or to the advantage of people associated with him, as producers to do so.
Hon. members of the C.C.F. party are quite prepared to criticize this kind of arrangement, but I cannot understand the official opposition criticizing it. We say to everyone, stay in the business and do business as you think you ought to do it. If you have any surplus that you cannot take care of at a price, bring it to us and we will pay the set price for it provided you have treated the producer fairly.
In most cases they do not come near us at all, and certainly when farmers accept 26 to 28 cents for eggs in the area between Toronto and Lindsay the dealer will not bring the eggs to the support board. The farmers are very foolish to deliver them at that price; and if they have co-operative organizations in those areas operating in competition with the ordinary dealers they will not do so. The farmers will simply say they will deliver their eggs to a co-operative, which in turn utilizes the provisions of this act which will guarantee a price based on 38 cents. That would certainly be much higher than 26 to 28 cents in that area.

Supply-Agriculture
But we do not try to prosecute people for not doing that. We do not put the kind of teeth in the act the hon. member for Assini-boia asks us to put in it and prosecute people for not doing that. The chief reason we do not is that we could not prosecute them even if we had that kind of teeth there. That is a provincial authority and the courts can tell us we have no right to pass or enforce such law. The eggs are gathered in that area, and instead of being shipped directly to Toronto they are shipped in the opposite direction and then taken back to Toronto later. After they have gathered together a carload or whatever they want to ship they take them back to Toronto, deal directly with the merchant, supply him with eggs and he sells them to the public.
There are a lot of things that have to be done by the individuals concerned, both consumers and producers, if they want a different price for the eggs to the producer and perhaps a more reasonable price to the consumer, but they are not things we can do under this act, or on intraprovincial transactions under any act.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to farmers for quite a long while, and I was just wondering why they blame the government for not doing anything for them.


Mr. Hodgson:: That is right.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I ask the minister if this $8 million is not the taxpayers' money and a subsidy to help the farmers to produce eggs on their farms. It is really a subsidy and goes to them.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: A wonderful gift!


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a leading question. How about an answer?


John Alpheus Charlton: I think the hon. member for Fort William is under a very great misapprehension when he mentions a figure of $8 million. I do not know where he grabbed that figure, but certainly it is not in the estimates book.
The minister seemed very surprised that we should be asking the government to get in the egg business. We have never asked the government to get in the egg business. The government has been saying for years that it has been in the egg business. It has just been a sham so far as the egg producers of the country are concerned, making them believe there is a floor price under eggs when in fact the government has not put a floor price under eggs at all. The secret has just come out now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.
tMr. Gardiner.]


John Alpheus Charlton: The secret has come out. Why do you not tell the people what you are actually doing instead of leading them to believe you are protecting eggs with a support price under them? You have been carrying on this sham for quite some time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are you asking us to take it off altogether?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It is no good.


John Alpheus Charlton: If you are not going to do any more than this, you might as well take it off.


James Garfield Gardiner: No egg producer will agree with you.


John Alpheus Charlton: What good is it to the producer? I asked the minister a question a minute ago and he still has not answered it. He said if the dealer bought them for 26 or 28 cents a dozen in the Lindsay district the government would not take them over.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which?


John Alpheus Charlton: If the dealer bought them for 26 or 28 cents a dozen in the Oshawa district, I think the minister said-


James Garfield Gardiner: I said the district in between Toronto and Lindsay.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister said they would not buy the eggs because not enough had been paid for them, but the minister still has not answered the question I asked about the price to the producer. You said you had nothing to do with the eggs. In effect you are telling the producers that you have nothing to do with their eggs. You let the dealers go out and buy them as cheaply as they can.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not doing any such thing.


John Alpheus Charlton: You have just said that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


John Alpheus Charlton: You just said it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say any such thing. I have explained three or four times already that there is no way of knowing what the price of the eggs should be unless you know where they pick them up, and if they have picked them up at such low prices they are not going to come to us in order to ask us to take them. There is no way of our getting that information. There is nobody who can compel them to pay that price except the provincial government, and they have not done so. They may think that is the better way of handling the situation.
I am not criticizing them. I am simply saying that is the fact. If the eggs were picked up at 26 cents a dozen at some point between the two places I have mentioned,

we would have to know whether it was necessary to take them all the way back to Lindsay and then cart them all the way from Lindsay to Toronto to know whether we should allow that as a deduction off the price the individual should get for the eggs. But the fact that they do not bring them to us at all pretty well indicates that they know we would not take them because they did not pay the producer enough, or that they have a good sale for them without bringing them to us at all; and that good sale is in Toronto, where they can sell at a price which gives them a high profit on the price they paid for them. Therefore they do not come near us at all and there is no provincial law or board which offers the farmer a competitive market.
I repeat that if we could compel them to deliver these eggs to us we could of course do some of the things we are being asked to do, but there is no law of ours that will compel them to do it and the only way they can be compelled is by a provincial law. If the province do not want to do that it is their affair, and they deal with their own people. Probably the people in your area should not elect you if you want a Conservative government to do that, because they have not done it.


John Alpheus Charlton: We will leave that to the people of my district. The minister is now trying to place the blame on the provincial government. If that is the attitude the government is going to take, why do they not come out and say so-


James Garfield Gardiner: You just said I did say so.


John Alpheus Charlton: -instead of pretending they have a floor price under eggs?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I want to stay with this matter of eggs for a moment. The hon. member for Assiniboia made specific reference to Brandon, and said that the price of eggs was particularly low there. I can confirm that bit of information from letters I have received from several farmers. For the past three months the price of A large has been 29 cents, A medium 21 cents and A small 17 cents. Can the minister explain the reason for the low prices received from dealers in the Brandon area?


James Garfield Gardiner: The prices I quoted two days ago and which were referred to by the hon. member for Assiniboia were just the prices for one day, March 12, 1957, but the prices the hon. member has quoted as being in existence over a period are very close to the same thing. The prices given here for the one day to the producer at Brandon were 29 cents for A large, 24 cents 82715-160
Supply-Agriculture
for A medium-you have 21, I think-and 18 cents for A small; I think your price was 17. The hon. member's prices applied averaged over a period. Apparently the prices I gave were on a day that was a little better so far as the medium and small grades were concerned.
All that demonstrates is that there is no one there who is taking these eggs and intending to deliver them to the board. At least if there is anyone they are not getting enough of the eggs to have the price any higher than that. That does not mean, though, that they could not take them there. They can take them there; but if there is any good reason for not taking them there, such as not being properly graded at grading stations and so on, they are not able to put them in.
I said Monday in a rather quick reply to the hon. member for Moose Mountain that probably most of them came from his constituency, or something to that effect. As he knows and I know, all the railroads out of his constituency run into Brandon. There is no doubt that eggs are accumulated in Brandon that come from Moose Mountain as well as the area that is tributary to Brandon in Manitoba; and possibly the number of eggs that accumulate there has something to do with the price, which is 1 cent lower than in Winnipeg.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister says the eggs should be delivered to the board in order to realize the higher price. Where should they be delivered in order to get them into the hands of the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have to be delivered at a storage which is recognized as a proper storage. I imagine there should be storage in Brandon. I am not sure about that. I would think the packing plant there probably takes in eggs. But there is certainly plenty of storage in Winnipeg, and the eggs can be shipped there by anyone as long as they are in the quantities required, approximately a carload.


Edward George McCullough: I think the Minister of Agriculture is a past master in hooking red herrings and dragging them across an issue in this chamber. We have been trying to get facts in respect to the federal government support price for eggs. The minister has said he has not received undue criticism. My experience is this, Mr. Chairman. Since I have been in parliament, going back to the first time this program was put into effect, farm organizations right across Canada, not only in Saskatchewan, have been sending petition after petition to this government to do something about the

Supply-Agriculture
federal act by which the producer will be able to benefit under this act rather than the processor.
I think there are a number of things we should clear up. Certainly the farm organizations even at this point have been asking for something to be done so the producer will get the benefit of the price support. I have here the memorandum which was placed before the government by the interprovincial farm union council in December, 1956. It states:
Surely such glaring differences in price between various grades throughout the marketing centres of Canada do not suggest the existence of an orderly egg marketing system.
Then it goes on to point out that something needs to be done in reference to the act. The other day the minister pointed out, I think quite inaccurately, or tried to leave the impression that Saskatchewan was the point where the producers were getting lower prices for their eggs than were being obtained at any other point in Canada. Then he tried to leave the impression that some lack of policy on the part of that provincial government was responsible for that situation. But then he went on to give the prices in various cities throughout Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which refutes just what you are saying.


Edward George McCullough: It is
interesting to note that the prices in four cities in Saskatchewan were higher than they were in Brandon.


An hon. Member:: Under a Liberal government.


Edward George McCullough: As
reported at page 2446 of Hansard the minister said this in respect to the setting up of cold storage plants in the various provinces:
The prices are pretty much in line with what the conditions under which delivery has to be made make necessary. The government that has been in power in Saskatchewan for 13 years has never built a storage for eggs and they were going to build everything. Those eggs have to be shipped to Winnipeg for storage, or shipped to Calgary in the other direction.
I should like to point out that he has now indicated to the house that egg prices in other parts of Canada, even in Brandon where these eggs are shipped, are lower than they are at points in Saskatchewan. I think the minister will agree when I say that I do not think there is a provincial government in Canada that has set up provincial storage plants. They have been set up with some assistance by the federal government, by private companies throughout the country.
The discrepancy between prices throughout the country indicates what we and other

members have been fighting for and have been trying to get the minister and the government to take cognizance of, namely the disparity between certain grades and prices.
I have here the source of the poultry products marketing report for August 31 through to November, and here is an indication showing the disparity between the prices and grades of eggs, showing that the producer is not getting a fair deal. At Calgary on August 28, 1956, just last fall, there was a 4-cent spread between grade A large and grade A medium, and 17 cents at Toronto on the same date. The difference between grade A medium and grade B at Calgary and Montreal was 2 cents at Montreal and 20 cents at Calgary.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the date, please?


Edward George McCullough: This was August 28, 1956.
So, Mr. Chairman, the producers of eggs are trying to get orderly marketing and fair prices to the producer. I want to point out to the minister that if his government would undertake to pay the producer a price which would reflect the support price to the processor or the packer, then I think everyone would be satisfied.
I should like to point out to him that I think there is a simple method by which it can be done. I do not agree with him that there are not egg candling plants throughout a province like Saskatchewan, because there are. There are a great number of egg candling stations throughout Saskatchewan. The point is this. When the producer brings these eggs to market and they are shipped to any point-whether it is Winnipeg, Brandon, or any other point-there is no payment which comes back to the producer. I have seen these eggs shipped to those cold storage plants, and at that point they are graded.
I think the minister will have to agree that at some point these eggs generally reach the cold storage plant. I am suggesting that the minister set up some scheme by which, when they reach these storage plants and are graded, the shipper-whether it is a storekeeper or a co-operative egg candling plant -receive a payment back so the producer can get the advantage of the support price.
I should like to point out to him that I was in a place where there had been a return. This merchant had received a number of crates of eggs and had shipped them to Winnipeg. They went to the packers. The return came back after the eggs were graded, but of course he just got a certain price. I feel there should be a method set up by which these eggs are graded, the price for the various grades of eggs would be paid

back to the producer, and the producer in the first instance could get an intermediate payment and then a secondary payment later on. The way it is now I do not believe the minister has any way of checking these eggs which are going into storage, in order to determine whether or not the producer has received 25 cents a dozen for grade A large eggs or 32 cents or 38 cents, which might be the support price.
I am equally sure the minister cannot determine whether or not there has been a fair spread between what he has tried to indicate to the committee and the cost of taking these eggs from the producers to the points of storage. I do not see how the minister, under the present set-up, can give the house that assurance. So I am saying that under the present plan we have no guarantee to the producer. I along with other members have been trying to get this point across to the minister for years.
I should like to point out that this report from the poultry products marketing source indicates that there was a sudden drop last fall in the price of eggs, namely 35 per cent, within a few short weeks; and furthermore that the farmer's share of the consumer dollar for grade A large eggs declined from 74 per cent in August to 65 per cent in November.
I should like to point out that the price the consumer is paying for eggs does not reflect what the producer is getting. When we see the discrepancy I have indicated of 14 cents a dozen between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays in retail stores, I think there is something drastically wrong and something should be done about it. If there are too many eggs going into storage I would suggest that there are ways and means by which the Canadian people could receive some advantage from this. I believe people in the low income brackets could benefit by having these surplus eggs made available to them. Plans have been undertaken in other countries, such as stamp programs, by means of which these eggs could be made available to low income groups.
If the minister is trying to intimate to this committee that the United States program was in any way a program which added incentive to increase production, then I should say one of the first things we should have is a floor price which would represent something near the cost of production to the producer. Second, if we want to assist the poultry industry of this country, then some program has to be evolved by which advantages will be given to the low income groups. I think it is wrong, Mr. Chairman, to powder these eggs or to store them for long periods so they would not be fit for human consumption in
Supply-Agriculture
this country. If this government has vision, then a plan can be evolved by which, if eggs are in surplus production, the people in the low income groups can have those eggs made available to them. If we were to help the people in the low income brackets of this country as we should, then this program would receive the support of all members in this house.
I should like to ask the minister certain questions, because I think there is a good deal of confusion remaining as a result of what the minister has said. I should like the minister to give us the number of dozen eggs in storage, say for the last four years, and the support price. I should like the minister to give us the amount of money spent each year on the support of eggs over the last five years. If he has that information by provinces I should like to get it by provinces. I should like also to get the price per dozen at which this amount works out. If the minister has the information I should like him to give the committee figures showing how many provincial governments own their own storage plants, because I think the inference has been left here that Saskatchewan has not followed out some of the requests of the federal government, or co-operated with them.
In conclusion I might say that I am very happy to learn from the minister that we now have some hope of getting federal legislation by which the products marketing act will be amended so we can set up a provincial marketing board which will have authority to deal more effectively with producers' problems. I think this government has been remiss in allowing the years to slip by and trying to blame someone else for the problems. This afternoon the minister has pretty well gone the rounds in trying to blame someone else rather than accepting the responsibility which I think should be placed on the doorstep of the federal government. I do not believe the provincial governments are in a position, either constitutionally or in any other way, to meet these problems unless there is legislation which will provide for eggs and other commodities going into interprovincial or export trade.
In addition, I should point out to the minister and to the committee we have in Saskatchewan, as I think in most provinces, a natural products marketing act by means of which any producer group or co-operative can set up their own producer marketing scheme to come under federal legislation which this government might propose. I do hope that before we leave this item the minister can give some further assurance that he now knows the producers' problems; that he knows those of us who have been bringing these matters to his attention are interested in only

Supply-Agriculture
one thing. We feel that when we are spending public money, and there is a definite purpose for it, then it should be spent to meet that purpose. In this case the minister has indicated that it is to help the producer, but we say the price support act has not functioned in that way to date. I hope this new concept the government has will do that very thing.


Harry Oliver White: I am not prepared to let this item go by without saying something about egg marketing. I listened with a great deal of interest the other night during the discussion of the floor price on cheese and again today regarding eggs. It was rather obvious that what I have said for many years is all too true, namely that the real purpose behind the Agricultural Prices Support Act has been to win two or three elections and not to support the prices of farm products, as the people of the country were led to believe it would.
In so far as eggs are concerned, it seems to me that whenever the minister gets in difficulties he blames it on the provinces. So long as everything is going along well he is quite prepared to take the credit. It does seem to me it should be possible, if the government were half as bright as they would like the people to believe, to frame some legislation whereby the producers would be guaranteed a floor price, instead of passing the responsibility on to the provinces. The government claims the credit when times are good. I think the best solution of the whole problem is to get rid of this government and start fresh next June.


James Garfield Gardiner: All I would say with regard to that is the last time we did it eggs went down to 5 cents a dozen.
In answer to the questions asked by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, I would say I have not the figures in the form in which they have been requested. In the year 1950 we did not take any eggs at all. None were offered to us. In 1951 those that were offered to us only cost us $1,866.24, so there were not very many that year either. In 1952 it cost us $63,542.45 to pay for any losses we took on eggs which were turned over to us. In 1953 there were none at all. I am probably not exactly correct in saying there were none that were made available to us, but there were none turned over when we got to the period when eggs were to be taken.
Then in 1954 it cost us $546,268.87. During that summer eggs were as high as 85 cents a dozen. One of the reasons was that we had taken 107,000 cases of eggs off the market. As of July 1 we had agreed to accept those

eggs if they were turned over to us on December 1. They were held off the market until December 1, and eggs went as high as 85 cents to the consumer. It does not make any difference how anxious we are to help the producer, that kind of policy cannot be continued in a country where there are many more consumers than producers; and without provincial support in the form of legislation we cannot immediately deal with such conditions.


Edward George McCullough: Why
did you allow it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Why did we allow it? How are you going to stop it? If we do not have provincial legislation we cannot prevent eggs selling in Toronto at 85 cents which were bought from the farmer at 38 cents, but the provincial governments can do something about it in spite of what my hon. friends are saying; and that is the position.
We did do something about it, however. As a matter of fact I left the vacation I was taking at the farm out in Saskatchewan to come down here to see that something was done about it. We went to Toronto and into the chain stores and discussed the matter. I have already told the house about this two or three times, but apparently it does not register. We sent a man to Toronto who went and sat in with the chain stores and asked them why stored eggs were being sold at 45 cents a dozen when fresh eggs were being sold at 85 cents on the same counter, and the answer we received was that they were stored eggs and the housewives did not want them.
We launched an advertising campaign in the press to indicate that stored eggs are just as good as fresh eggs, with the result that they sold the stored eggs; but that did not lower the price of the other eggs from 85 cents to anything more than approximately 70 cents.
We have gone through all those experiences. I could quote the prices for the year, but I do not have them here at the moment and I do not think this is the proper time to discuss that particular question anyway, because that can be done under the genera) estimates, at which time I will have all the information on hand.
The fact remains, however, that those eggs were handled in that way at that time As a result of their being handled in tha1 way we changed the regulations the nex1 year to provide that we would not take any eggs before July 1 that we were noable to put back on the market until, le' us say, December 1. We reserved the righ to put them on the market at any time. Sc if you took the average price for this las year in which they were able to do that yoi

would get a very high average through the summer months of the year; but when you come to the next year when the farmer was better dealt with, the average price to the consumer would be lower because at that time whenever anyone tried to run the price of eggs up to 85 cents we put eggs on the market.
Speaking from memory, I think at the present time we have something over 100,000 cases of eggs that are oil dipped, and if anyone attempts to sell eggs to the consumer at prices like those which prevailed in 1954 we will put those eggs on the market and get our money back as far as this fund is concerned. We will see to it that there is a proper relationship between the price the farmer is getting for the eggs and the price the consumer has to pay.
That is not a simple thing to do. It would be much simpler if we could draft legislation and send it down to any one of the provincial capitals where the trouble lies and get it passed, but we are not in a position to do that. But when they draft legislation and send it here somebody over in the C.C.F. group says we ought to pass it.


Edward George McCullough: When did you send any legislation to a provincial government?


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not send any; we have more sense than that. It is only my friends on the other side of the house who suggest we ought to do that.


Edward George McCullough: You
have never invited any.


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion is made that that is the way to deal with it. The way to deal with governments that refuse to do that kind of thing is for the people to vote them out. That is the democratic and constitutional way to do it, and no doubt in due course the people will get around to doing that even in Saskatchewan.


Edward George McCullough: Has
the minister any suggestion to make to this committee about the kind of legislation we might have, let us say in the province of Saskatchewan? We have at the present time the natural products marketing board act under which any producer group has the privilege of setting up any type of marketing legislation it desires. I should like to know-


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me answer that question before you ask so many that I forget it. I think that was included in the other one, and the answer is that the very people you are talking about in Saskatchewan in the last two or three weeks have been asking
Supply-Agriculture
for exactly what I am suggesting ought to be done respecting the egg marketing in the province of Saskatchewan and if the provincial government does not do it there is nothing we can do about it down here.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has said is correct, in all probability, but no group of producers in the province of Saskatchewan to my knowledge have ever gone to a provincial government and asked for a marketing board and been denied. If they are now asking for this it may very well be that they realize they have to take further action in that regard; I cannot say. As far as I can see from the information the minister has given to the committee, if in 1954 the federal government spent-I think it was $546,000; is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is correct.


Edward George McCullough: And
if in 1953 they did not spend anything in price support, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is the fault of the administration of the minister's department, because since he saw fit to change the regulations in 1955 so these people could not have the advantage of using federal money and then held the eggs off the market, I think it is a clear indication that something could have been done by the government in 1954 to prevent that sort of thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Chairman, of course anyone who has never had these things to do can easily talk about them, but there is no possible way for the government to guess what some people may do. As far as this situation is concerned both parties went ahead with their eyes wide open. If my hon. friend goes back and searches the record he will find there were a lot of people storing eggs in 1954 who had not been in the egg business prior to that time. In other words there are people who sit around watching for these things which are going on and who seek an opportunity of making a profit here and a profit there; and when they do they step into it. When we found that there were a number of those people who were turning eggs over to the government we did take action. It is true that it cost something to do so. In order to answer the question asked a few minutes ago I now have the figures concerning a number of cases of eggs. This year we have purchased 98,900 cases of eggs, and there are 30 dozen in every case. The number that are stored to specification is 57,088 cases. Those that are stored to specification are not sold outright to the government.

Supply-Agriculture
As a result of the action that was taken following the experience of 1954, we have 98,900 cases of eggs which we purchased. I want to stress again that we are concerned about the producer getting a reasonable price, and we look after that; but we are also concerned about the consumer having to pay anywhere from 70 to 85 cents a dozen for eggs that were bought from the farmer at these prices which some might consider to be reasonable.


Edward George McCullough: So are
we concerned about it.


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how profitable it will be to continue this debate, because it seems to me there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of those on this side of the house, and every time the minister rises to his feet he compounds that confusion.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not my fault.


John Alpheus Charlton: Oh, no?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: When I say that I am thinking particularly of some of the arguments the minister put forward as to why the producer is not receiving a fair price.
I have in mind the argument he made on Monday last, when he pointed out that one province in particular had not provided cold storage facilities and therefore there was a difference of possibly 2 or 3 cents a dozen because the eggs had to be shipped to Winnipeg. That argument has been knocked sky-high by the figures the minister has placed on the record.
There has been quite a bit of speculation on the part of the minister that things would be considerably better if and when the provincial governments undertook to accept responsibility to the producers by placing legislation on their statute books which would facilitate the setting up of marketing boards. Within the last two or three days a delegation from Ontario has been here in Ottawa. Ontario has such legislation, but these people found that because of complications arising from interprovincial trade they must now come to the federal government and ask for federal legislation in order that their own legislation may mean something in so far as the producers are concerned.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain pointed out that he doubts if there is a province which has not some kind of marketing legislation, but because of interprovincial trade barriers the schemes mean little if anything to the producers. Apparently the minister is aware that something further could be done to help the producers, and being aware of that I would suggest that he

realize the time is long overdue when this government should accept its responsibilities and initiate federal legislation. The government could then go to the provinces and say, "We have done our part. It is now up to you to pass the necessary enabling legislation." This government must take the leadership in this matter.
I submit that there is only one man who should be supported, and that is the primary producer. What is the use of supporting the price to the packer? Experience has shown that whenever the packer is supported he finds many ways of seeing that the producer does not get his fair share. If he cannot do it by grading he does it in some other way. I do not care whether there is a government grader on the premises, that is what happens. I suggest that the government should initiate the necessary federal legislation and then go to the provinces and say, "Here is the legislation. You go ahead and introduce enabling legislation and show that you really want to do something for the producers of primary products."


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to obtain some information regarding a problem which I believe is of deep concern to the dairying industry in Canada. What is the attitude of the government with respect to the submission made by a number of dairy organizations that a new tariff schedule be established on cheese and powdered milk coming into this country? It is my understanding that they asked for a 4-cent tariff on powdered milk and a 6-cent tariff on cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position of the government is pretty well set out in what I read to the committee a few minutes ago, when I gave in substance the terms of the order in council dealing with powdered skim milk. However, this begins at a much earlier time. We are part of the commonwealth, and so are New Zealand and Australia. The climate in those countries is such that they can run their cattle outside the year round and their costs of production are quite low as compared with ours. They are thus able to produce milk products at lower prices and ship them here and undersell our product.
At one time there was a duty of 14 cents on butter, and as a result butter could not be imported into this country. However, representations were made by those two countries that they should be given a preference because they were part of the commonwealth and we should all be interested in helping one another. So the government of the day reduced the duty on butter to 5 cents in so far as those two countries were concerned. There was an understanding reached-I am

not going into the details-that there should be an agreement arrived at before butter was sent to this country. Some attempt was made to overcome that, and at one time the government of the day placed butter in bond and held it there until they had a written agreement from the country concerned. For a short time at the end of the war they seemed to forget that it was in existence and we did get a comparatively small amount of butter. But this arrangement has applied right through. I might mention that some few years ago the duty on butter was reduced to 12 cents a pound, but even this duty has been sufficient to keep out other butter.
In the case of cheese the duty is only 1 cent per pound from New Zealand or Australia, with a 7-cent duty under the general tariff which keeps out cheese from other countries, except the special kinds which sell at higher prices. In connection with Australia and New Zealand there is what I called the other day a gentleman's agreement which does not permit cheese to come here at all unless the consent of the Canadian government is given.
Until a few days ago it was open to Australia and New Zealand to ship powdered milk to Canada, or it was open to dealers in this country to obtain powdered milk from those countries. Representations were made that a 4-cent duty would stop that; that a 6-cent duty on cheese would stop that; and that a comparable duty on butter would do the same if the written agreement did not have that effect.
Before you can start to put a policy of that kind into effect there must be discussions and conferences, particularly with countries within the commonwealth. It was stated in the budget speech that some such conferences would be held dealing with these products. In the meantime cheese is taken care of, butter is taken care of and powdered milk is being taken care of. Yesterday we put a floor price on powdered milk, and we now have understandings with both these countries that they will not send any in without our consent.
But the main feature of the program in so far as the farm organizations are concerned is that the whole tariff matter will be under discussion. We could not take care of that in sufficient time to do anything about it at the present moment, so we are dealing with it in the other way. We think it will be just as effective for the time being as it would be if a tariff were imposed.
Supply-Agriculture


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, I did not want to let this opportunity pass without saying something further about the minister's reference to 1930 and 1935. I think if hon. members will take a look at the figures they will agree that while some farmers may have got only 5 cents a dozen for their eggs, that 5 cents would buy more at that time than the price being received now will purchase today. This is the result of the inflation that has gone on under this government.
Furthermore, the farmers got into that fix because of the administration during the previous years when the Liberal government was in power. It was only our coming to power, and Mr. Bennett bringing in his national products marketing act, that brought some relief. It is true the act was found to be ultra vires, but it was probably the best marketing legislation which had been introduced to that time.
Due to the findings of the supreme court, farmers' organizations of all kinds are now asking that the legislation be amended, and I hope amendments will be brought in this session so no further delay will be caused, and so the manufacturers and packers may not be able to take advantage of a disorganized marketing system to further gouge the producer.
I want to say also that during the eleven months of 1956 specified in a return tabled under my name very recently, 3,500,000 dozen eggs, or their equivalent in powdered and processed form, were imported into this country. In this case, as in a good many others of a similar kind, the ground is being cut right out from under the feet of the Canadian farmer and producer. Over the years you have been able to fool the farmers, but you still have the packers as your friends, and that is the reason these things are done.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the discussion with a great deal of interest, and I thought the minister was almost at the point of giving us some specific information. At least I am going to give him an opportunity of doing so now.
The minister stated on a number of occasions in relation to the marketing of eggs that the provinces had a certain responsibility to provide the kind of legislation-I think I heard him correctly-which would result in the producer getting his fair share of the support price now paid under the guarantee to the dealer or the packer. But at no point to my knowledge, and I have read his remarks carefully, did he indicate just what kind of legislation that would be. It is probably a matter of opinion, but perhaps I could put it this way. Can the minister say if there is

Supply-Agriculture
any province in Canada which at the present time has the type of legislation with regard to the marketing of eggs which, in his opinion, would bring to the producer, or help bring to the producer, a fair share of the guaranteed price of eggs?


James Garfield Gardiner: All the provinces have legislation with regard to dairy products which do that very thing, and there was just as much discussion about it then as there is today about eggs. The hon. member may not remember; probably he is not old enough, I do not know. He may not remember the days when they used to have cream cans inside every store. A chap came along with a quart jar of cream, poured it in and credited it to his account at the store. These cream accounts were a common thing, and there was a lot of complaint about the kind of butter that was made from the cream so collected.
But they did bring in an act. I think the first province that brought one in was Saskatchewan, and that was as much an election issue as the hon. members are trying to make of eggs now. But it was not the federal government who looked after it; it was the provincial government. They put in grading stations, and said the product had to be up to certain standards. Then later on they refused to let them handle it in the old way in the stores at all. Cream of proper quality had to be delivered to the creameries, and finally they reached the point where, in the province of Saskatchewan, they were able to produce some of the best butter made in Canada.
The same thing can be done with regard to eggs, but you have to start in the provinces because there are far more eggs sold inside the provinces, eggs which are produced in the provinces, than are exported outside. It is not a fair comparison to start comparing wheat marketing with eggs, as the hon. member for Assiniboia did. Wheat, in the first place, is not a perishable product. In the second place between 70 and 80 per cent of it is sold outside the country. The law with regard to it has always been questionable in the minds of legal people, but no one will test the law because it would not be in the interests of any one group to do so. So they say anyone who puts up an elevator to handle wheat is operating in the national interest. But try to do it in the case of eggs and see where you will end up. You would have consumers throwing them at you before long.
The handling of eggs is an entirely different matter. Eggs are breakable, perishable to the highest degree; they are marketed at a great many places, and many of them never get out of the community in which they are

marketed. In most of the towns in Saskatchewan, as a matter of fact-it used to be true all over the country and to some extent, no doubt, it is still true-merchants took the eggs at a certain price and sold them to the people in the community for the same price. In other words they were merely a medium of exchange between the people who raised them in the country and the people who consumed them in the town or village. If they had a few to send out they sent them out, but to say that this is setting the price of eggs is drawing the thing a little fine. When you want to produce eggs, say, in Saskatchewan to ship to Toronto, then they must be properly graded because they will be coming into competition with eggs produced in that province. So they must be properly packed and shipped so as to reach the market in proper condition.
The provinces all know this. We have a discussion similar to this in the first week in December every year, and all the provincial governments are represented. The method of putting this into effect is well known throughout the length and breadth of the country, and the people who went back from the last meeting that was held-organized in Saskatchewan-went right to the government. When the hon. member says it was never tried before, his memory is not very good. It is not very many years since the egg producers in Saskatchewan attempted to organize a board to handle their eggs, but after some experience in the matter they dropped it. Now they are trying it again, and no doubt if the proper educational campaign is carried on, if my hon. friends will co-operate with me and tell them how to do it in the campaign that lies ahead, then I am sure it will be done before we enter upon a new session of the house.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I want to thank the minister for the lecture he has given us on the difference between eggs and wheat. I appreciate that there are those differences. But the question I asked was not answered, except by inference, and the only inference I can draw is that no province has the type of legislation with regard to the marketing of eggs which the minister has in mind. He did not state exactly what he had in mind. One of the reasons I raise this matter is that in all the replies the minister has made on this question over a period of months he has been picking on the province of Saskatchewan and blaming that province


James Garfield Gardiner: That is because you are
starting all the talking over there.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As the minister knows, I am not speaking for the province of Saskatchewan, but it seems to me there is a bit of unfairness in the minister's attitude. He went

so far today as to say that if the government of the province of Saskatchewan was not doing the things it ought to be doing, then it should be voted out.
In the province of Manitoba, where we have a sort of Liberal government, a hybrid of a type-they do not admit being purely Liberal, but it is the closest thing to a Liberal government-they do not have this type of legislation that the minister seems to think should exist. Is the minister going to say that the people of the province of Manitoba should vote out that government? Apparently they will have the opportunity to do so very soon, much sooner than the people of Saskatchewan, who have just gone through an election. I do not think this kind of question should be dealt with on that sort of basis. We are not attempting to place eggs on the political market here.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: We are trying to find a way by which the producer of eggs can be guaranteed that he is going to get his fair share of the guaranteed price under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and the minister himself admits that has not taken place up to the present time. The figures he has placed on the record only today indicate that the intermediaries, the packing houses and other individuals, he said-I do not know what he meant by it-have been taking advantage of the act for their own benefit and have not been passing on the benefit of the support price to the producer.
That is exactly what my colleague the hon. member for Moose Mountain and others of this group have been telling the minister for the last 18 months, and at last he has come around to admitting it. But this is not the point at which to start a political wrangle. This is the point at which the minister can do a service to the egg producers of this country if he can set out in clear-cut terms what in his opinion should be done. After all, he has the staff in his department to get the information for him. They have had experience with the act. The minister has the agricultural prices support board from which he can get advice.
The minister says he is going to give certain advice very soon during an election campaign. In my opinion the worst possible place to hand out advice about marketing legislation is from a platform during an election campaign, because it will be confused by a dozen other things that do not belong in the same discussion. We are now talking about a specific thing. The minister has an opportunity to do a great service to the egg producers by placing a plan before the house. We do not expect him to be infallible, and 82715-161
Supply-Agriculture
it may not be the best plan in the world; but at least he should suggest something so the provinces can pass the proper type of legislation. The problem is common to all provinces. Then with the federal government playing its support role and placing a floor price under eggs the situation can be resolved.
At the present time, however, I think the minister has left the question pretty well up in the air, if I may say so, because instead of stating clearly what in his opinion the provinces could do he keeps repeating that if the provinces were to carry out their responsibilities the situation would be different. Even if we agree with that, what in his opinion is it that the provinces are supposed to do in order to remedy the situation? I think that is the real question.
I do not wish to prolong the discussion at all. I have not even taken part until now, but if the minister is going to go to the extent of placing all the blame on one province and advocating that the people of that province should vote out the government, we are going to have a political discussion and it is going to be a long and bitter one. I am leaving it open for the minister, if he wishes to do so, to lay a plan before the committee; or if he would rather communicate directly with the provinces that will be fine. I hope he is not planning to carry this matter into the political arena and start the egg-throwing contest which he mentioned a while ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I have placed it before the house at every session for the last six years, and it will only take a minute to lay it before this house again this session. Every province understands what could be done. We have set a floor under eggs, in spite of what my hon. friend says, and that floor is 38 cents basis storage plant. Any persons who understand the situation and are trying to work under it can work out what the price ought to be.
For example, when eggs were being picked up at very low prices in the area south of Swift Current we set the price at 27 cents for grade A large eggs, and we bought them at that price. That was the first time we did buy eggs in the intermediate season. We said that the proper price for eggs at that point was 27 cents and that we would buy them there, and we did buy them there. They would have been 29 cents or 30 cents if it had not been for the fact that we had to ship them either to Winnipeg or Calgary after buying them. So the price might have been set by someone as high as 30 cents, but we could not say that the price of eggs was 30 cents.
Having established a position where no one who did that was going to take any loss, the provincial government could say that the

Supply-Agriculture
price of eggs in Swift Current is 30 cents or if, to be absolutely safe, they preferred to make it 27 they could say 27, and they could say that anyone who bought grade A large eggs at any price lower than that was breaking the law. They can say that. We cannot say that. If that were said it would immediately set a basis on which the price would operate in that province, but it would not operate on nest run eggs, on eggs that were cracked or on B eggs that have to be broken. There would have to be somewhat different prices set for those eggs in order to bring that about.
The provincial government can do that, but we are not able to. You can enlarge on that to your heart's content, but it is a system that everybody understands whether they are in provincial or federal politics.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I thank the minister for that statement. I want to ask one more question. Suppose in any particular province an egg marketing board were set up which undertook to do exactly what the minister has outlined, set a price at which they would be prepared to buy eggs in that province. Would the minister's department then be in a position to guarantee to that board any losses they might sustain as between the price they had to pay and the price at which they had to dispose of the eggs?


James Garfield Gardiner: We would take over all the eggs from the board that they wanted to hand over to us at the end of a season or during a season when they were in storage. We would take them over at 38 cents plus carrying charges, which might mean as high as 42 cents. I think at present it is 43 cents. That is what I mean by saying there is no possibility of their taking any loss. The loss, if there is any, is borne by this act. They could turn those eggs over to us just as dealers can turn them over now.
The board would get their eggs from farmers and dealers all over the place. They would sell whatever they could, and if they could sell them on the market at higher prices they would not come near us. They would do exactly the same thing as those who are handling eggs now have been accused of doing. There is nothing to prevent them selling them at a higher price than they pay for them, but when it gets to the point where they cannot sell them to anyone else they can sell them to the agricultural prices support board on the basis of 38 cents at storage, and the board is responsible for marketing them from then on. By saying that the provinces must co-operate we simply mean that if we are going to make the act operate successfully everywhere the provinces must come in and state what the price is.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the minister
says on the one hand that the farm organizations are pretty well satisfied with the operations of the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did intend to enlarge on that and say that since they made their recommendations last fall we have made certain changes, and we have bought 98,900 cases of eggs. We had never done that before until they brought in their suggestions that changes should be made. We did make certain changes, and we are buying eggs now all through the season.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the recommendations made by the farm organizations have not been fully complied with, even in the light of the statement the minister has now made. It is probably true that in order to make the act as effective as possible there needs to be certain complementary legislation on the statute books of the various provinces. It would seem to me that the best type of legislation might be that which would delegate authority under this act and also under any provincial act to certain co-operative marketing organizations composed of producers. But until such time as the minister and the federal government are prepared to see that their floor prices are passed on to the producer at least to the extent of being paid on any eggs going into interprovincial trade, it seems to me that it is placing any single province almost in an impossible position to suggest that any legislation they might place on their own statute books would in fact make this legislation completely operative. It has not provided floor prices to the producer. The government has merely said that it is prepared to buy at certain prices eggs that go into storage.
The minister has told us that grade A medium eggs have varying spreads at different times, and that the prices support board has been unable to set a price for grade A medium eggs to prevent this very huge spread. If that is correct, it seems to me that the agricultural prices support board is going backward, because in 1949-50 they set a price for grade A medium eggs of 36 cents a dozen, which was just 2 cents below the 38 cents per dozen price for grade A large eggs. If that kind of action was taken back in 1949, it would seem to me that in 1957 they should be doing at least as much as they were doing in that earlier period to see that there is not an undue spread between the price of grade A large eggs and grade A medium eggs.
The floor price of 38 cents a dozen was first set, I believe, for the year 1949-50. Since that time the floor price has remained the same. But since 1949 the cost of production

in the country has gone up by a very substantial amount. In 1949 the index of farm costs was 204 and in August of last year the index of costs was 254 or an increase in the cost of production of about 25 per cent over that period. So while the government floor price on eggs has remained in cents the same, the price has been steadily getting lower in real terms because of the ever-increasing cost of production.
The farm organizations are not satisfied with the government's legislation. The farm organizations, including the farmers' union and the federation of agriculture, believe the legislation is defective and should be changed. The interprovincial farm union council, in their memorandum to the federal-provincial agricultural conference in December of last year, recommend that the floor price on eggs of 38 cents per dozen for grade A large be a direct guarantee to the producer instead of to the wholesaler as at present. They made a number of recommendations in connection with the poultry industry, but that was their main recommendation as far as this legislation is concerned.
The minister referred to the advisory committee to the agricultural prices support board. He referred to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and their attitude to the government's legislation. I have in my hand the annual presentation by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the Prime Minister of Canada and members of the cabinet, Ottawa, February 15, 1957. In it they make a direct reference to the Agricultural Prices Support Act by saying this:
There is no doubt that the Agricultural Prices Support Act, together with the operation of the Canadian wheat board on its present basis, has in the past few years protected agriculture from some of the worst of the price collapses to which it would otherwise have been subject.
The orderly marketing program in butter, and the other applications of the government's powers under the act in eggs, hogs, dry skim milk and other products have all been of value. At the same time we think it must be conceded that as it has developed over the years the policy and philosophy of the government in the administration of this act has been in most respects that the support board program should be a minimum one, available only in cases of extreme price decline and in circumstances where the cost to the government would be moderate and the possibility of creating any real problems in the fields of surplus disposal and trade relations almost entirely avoided.
Further on they say this:
After seeing it in operation for some time the members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have arrived at the conclusion that the support board's program as it is now carried on does not represent a sufficiently determined effort to achieve the purpose of the prices support act, which is that "the board shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and 82715-161J
Supply-Agriculture
those from other industries". We therefore suggest that a greater use be made, in the future, of the Agricultural Prices Support Act as a means of maintaining adequate market support prices of those farm commodities to which the act applies. Eggs, fowl and turkeys provide immediate opportunities for the application of this request.
That is a clear statement from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-


James Garfield Gardiner: And this is clear action.


Hazen Robert Argue: -that the act as it is at present being operated is insufficient, and that the whole attitude and philosophy of the government and of the board toward price support for farm products is inadequate and does not meet present conditions. As they have explained, the attitude of the government today is a very minimum amount of price supports for agricultural products. They say that while the act has been of some real value, it has not maintained a fair income for agricultural producers generally but has merely prevented a very drastic collapse at a given time in the prices of certain agricultural commodities.
We have had this discussion this afternoon because the prices of eggs have been so low at so many dates in recent times. Generally speaking I think it is fair to say that agricultural prices in recent months have been extremely low. They have been extremely low in relation to the farmer's cost of production. I was amazed the other night to hear the Minister of Finance say that the major factor in the increase in the consumer price index was the recovery of agricultural and food prices. I do not believe the major cause of inflation to the consumer has been a recovery in the last year in agricultural prices. I do not think that is correct. I do not think it is a statement of fact.
It may be true, and I have no doubt that it is true, that the food component of the consumer price index has increased perhaps more than any other component. But it is a great deal different to say that has been the case-which is the retail price of food and not the price to the producer- and to say that the major factor in the increase in the consumer price index was the recovery of agricultural and food prices; because if the recovery of agricultural food prices means anything, it means the recovery to the producer.


Walter Edward Harris: Let me at once say that I was referring to the index and the components of the index. I was not having anything to say about the return to the farmer.

Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: I am glad to hear the minister make that correction or that amendment, because I think it is an extremely important one.


Walter Edward Harris: It is not important at all. It is just that my hon. friend chose to read into my remarks things I did not say.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I did not. I merely quoted your words which were as follows: "The major factor in the increase in the consumer price index was the recovery of agricultural and food prices".


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not to the producer. If an agricultural price means anything it is a price to the agricultural industry. It is surely not a price to Loblaws and all the huge chain stores that are setting up shopping centres and asking the consumer to pay for them by very high food prices. Of course that statement by the minister was fully in keeping with the statement made just before, that if everything went well the farmers would have a higher income in 1957 than they had in 1951.
The thing we have been trying to get across to the government for a long time now is that the agricultural industry is in a bad way; that prices paid to farmers are inadequate; that the farmers across this nation by the thousands are going broke and going out of business; that they are caught in a price-cost squeeze, and that their prices have been remaining almost the same for the past few years while the costs of production have been going up. I think whenever the government or any minister is referring to agricultural prices as a component part of the consumer index he should make it quite clear that the producer is not receiving any substantial part of the increase in retail food prices. As a matter of fact, for a number of years now the producers' percentage of the retail food dollar has been going down. The prices of food go up and the payments to the producers remain the same or, in fact, decrease.
I suggest that the stand taken by the farmers' union, and the stand taken by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is a stand in keeping with the thinking of the agricultural producers of this nation, namely that the government's Agricultural Prices Support Act is inadequate; that it is being inefficiently administered; that the benefits paid for by the taxpayers are not flowing to the producer as they should.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I should like one further word on this matter. I think it was P. T. Barnum who said there is always a gimmick. I was very interested in the minister's statement

a moment ago in which he put forward a concise plan by which the provinces could set up producers' boards that would give the farmers, in this case for eggs, a reasonable price. I do not want to put words in the minister's mouth-


James Garfield Gardiner: You will do that anyway, whether or not you want to.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I suggest he said this, that in the case of Saskatchewan that province could set up a board and pay the producer say 35 cents a dozen for eggs, and that his board would take the eggs off their hands at 38 cents plus any carrying charges


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say 35 cents.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: No, you did not say 35 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are putting words in my mouth.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Any price; 27 cents, then. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, what would happen to a provincial board which undertook to pay a price like that? People bordering the province would come into the province and would completely wreck any hope the board had of carrying out the job it intended to do. Certainly that is no solution, and the minister knows such a plan would never succeed under those circumstances.


James Garfield Gardiner: We listened to the same arguments when we acted on dairy products.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Walter Edward Harris: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, the sum of $89,825,249 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 280, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1957.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a second time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 280, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1957.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Ways and Means
Mr. Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue the
budget debate.


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