1957-02-19

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay Easi) presented the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the house of a change which will be made by the Canadian wheat board in the basis of the specified acreage upon which general delivery quotas are based. From time to time producers, farm organizations and others interested in land utilization in the prairie provinces have expressed the view that some encouragement should be given to individual producers to increase their acreages of soil improving forage crops. They believe that such a development in suitable areas within the prairie provinces would be constructive from the standpoint of the agricultural industry. It has been further indicated that a measure of encouragement would be accomplished if acreages seeded to such soil improving crops were included in the specified acreages upon which the board's general delivery quotas are based.
The wheat board has given careful consideration to this matter and thinks there is merit in including soil improving forage crops in its specified acreage, and this change will be effective for the 1957-58 crop year.
I might add that at the present time specified
acreage consists of acreage which producers seeded to wheat other than Durums, oats, barley, rye, and land in summer fallow. I believe that this change approved by the wheat board is a constructive one and in the long-range interests of western agriculture.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the statement that specified acreage for quota purposes will include forage crops. Is this policy being conducted to encourage a shift of acreage from grain to forage crops? Has any consideration been given to adopting a Canadian soil bank program?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the change in the basis for quotas was made at the request of farm organizations. The purpose was not to penalize those farmers who believe that soil building crops are the proper adjunct to their farming methods. There is no consideration being given at the moment to setting up a soil bank program such as the one recently adopted in the United States. [Later:]



BOX CAR DISTRIBUTION AND GRAIN MOVEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: May
I ask a question which could be answered either by the Minister of Transport or by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I raise it as a question supplementary to those already asked on this matter. Has any action been taken to bring together the conference on the distribution of box cars and the transportation of grain which was recommended by the agriculture committee last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the recommendation was not clear that any particular person was to call the conference. I have not called it, and I have not been called to it. So I assume it has not taken place.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Does the government not take any responsibility for seeing that the recommendations of parliamentary committees are carried out?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the silence from the treasury benches in regard to my previous

Inquiries of the Ministry question I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would explain just what the purpose and functions of the agricultural committee are, and what action may be expected when that committee makes recommendations.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May I
suggest to the Prime Minister that the matter is now being left in a very equivocal and unsatisfactory position? What I would like to know, and I gather my colleague does also, is what happens after the report comes in. Is that the end of it all?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: There are times when a report recommends the introduction of legislation, and that kind of recommendation is considered. If the government feels that it should take the responsibility of recommending the type of legislation reported upon, it does so. Various kinds of reports are made. There were two reports today asking that committees be authorized to sit while the house was sitting, and the house gave approval to that recommendation. All I want to infer is this: the fact that a committee suggests that consideration be given to matters involving expenditure of public funds means, interpreted in constitutional practice, that it recommends that consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of taking responsibility for recommending that kind of expenditure to parliament. Consideration is given, and if the government comes to the conclusion that it should take the responsibility of recommending that expenditure, the recommendation is made. Hon. members will know that the committee, no more than this house, cannot initiate decisions with respect to the expenditure of public funds.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say whether he has considered the recommendation made by this committee last year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to the distribution of box cars? No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the Prime Minister study the recommendations made a year ago with a view to seeing whether or not in his opinion this particular expenditure of public funds would be warranted?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My understanding is that all the box cars which were available were distributed last year for the purpose of moving all the grain that could be exported, and that they were moved to the places where there were the kinds of grain which were called for according to the sales that had been made.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the Prime Minister mean, then, that such a conference will not be called?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I certainly have no intention of calling such a conference.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why have a committee?



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence the following question. Will the minister give the house some information concerning the recent crash of an R.C.A.F. bomber near St. James, Manitoba?
Hen. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence): I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. While the press coverage of this accident was quite extensive, l might summarize the principal facts. On Sunday evening a Mitchell aircraft was returning to Stevenson field from a routine long-range training flight from Vancouver. As the aircraft approached for a normal landing it apparently ran into difficulty and lost height quite rapidly. It crashed in the built-up area of the city of St. James causing some damage to one house and two garages and coming to a halt against an unoccupied partially constructed house. There were five regular air force and one reserve force airmen on board and apart from minor injuries suffered by three of these personnel there were no other service or civilian injuries.
A full investigation has been ordered and until a report has been made I am unable to deal with the cause of the crash. Civilian claims for damage will of course be settled in the normal manner as soon as determined.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unprecedented credit situation created by the tight money policy of the government whereby financial and lending institutions are now taking second mortgages and receiving bonuses ranging from 30 to 50 per cent as well as interest on loans and bonuses combined at rates of 7 to 10 per cent, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would give consideration to introducing legislation at this session of parliament to end such lending racketeering.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. gentleman loads his question with what he assumes is fact, but which is not, and therefore I think, perhaps, I have to say that I would be glad to debate this question with him at any time, but not on the orders of the day.


William Earl Rowe: You certainly did not load the
answer.



INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on correspondence which I have received and no doubt he has received similar correspondence. Is it expected that there will be any revision in the succession duty act at this session?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the house may recall that we did say last year that we expected to bring forward the revision of the succession duty act. We were not able to do that, as hon. members may suppose from the length of the session. We have a revision almost complete at the present time but I do not think there will be an opportunity during this session to bring it before the house.



REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING EXTENSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received representations urging that the 2 per cent social security tax be extended to taxable income beyond the $3,000 point where it now stops? Will he consider meeting this request in order that more revenue might be available to increase old age pensions to a greater extent than the government is now planning?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, there may have been a letter in the last day or two which I have not seen but up to that time I do not recall any such representations.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister bring the house up to date on the situation in the Middle East, particularly regarding
Inquiries of the Ministry the position in which Israel finds herself and the likelihood of a settlement in the near future?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It would, of course, be difficult and probably not appropriate for me to make a statement on the orders of the day on a matter of such general importance, and it would take a great deal of time. But I can tell my hon. friend that, as he knows, the general assembly of the United Nations was to have discussed the Middle East situation today. That discussion has been postponed until Thursday in order, among other things, to give the delegations a little longer to work out proposals which might be of some value when the assembly meets on Thursday in bringing about an agreed withdrawal of Israeli forces from the two parts of Egyptian or Egyptian-controlled territory which they now occupy.
It has been suggested that a sanctions resolution might be introduced for this purpose, and that this kind of pressure would be required, but I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we have reached that point yet. I think there is still a very good possibility of bringing about an agreed withdrawal by relating the necessity for withdrawal, which has already been indicated by assembly resolutions, with the equal necessity of ensuring that the withdrawal should not be to the state of affairs which existed last October, and which had so much to do with bringing about the explosion then.
I think those two objectives can be reconciled, and I think if they can the question of sanctions need not arise.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there are supplementary questions which some hon. members wish to ask of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is that the case?


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will indicate to the house the position of the Canadian government with reference to the proposed sanctions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already mentioned the possibility of sanctions. I believe that any proposal for sanctions should not be considered at this time until we have exhausted other possibilities for bringing about an agreed withdrawal of Israeli forces. I think that if a proposal for sanctions were introduced at the United Nations assembly at this time without these other steps having been taken it would be both premature and unwise.

Inquiries of the Ministry


EFFECT ON CANADIAN POSITION OF WITHDRAWAL OF BRITISH MILITARY PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May
I direct a question to the minister of external affairs or the Minister of National Defence, I am not sure which. Is it correct that the British government is withdrawing air force personnel from NATO institutions, as well as army personnel? If so, what effect will this have on NATO generally and on Canada's position in NATO particularly?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I understand that the details of the prospective British withdrawal from NATO forces in Europe are presently being discussed with NATO authorities. I am not aware of what the details will be until they are settled. In any event, I do not expect there will be any change in our forces for the present.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just say that the basis of my question was a report from Paris yesterday that the British government had notified NATO to that effect.


STATEMENT ON CANADIAN REPRESENTA- TION AT LONDON CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righf Hon. L. S. Sf. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) asked me a question about a meeting to be held in London on February 26 by the foreign ministers of NATO. The conference scheduled for February is not a conference of the foreign ministers of NATO, it is a conference of the seven members of the western European union of which Canada is not a member and of course will not be taking part. I think what probably confused both the hon. gentleman and me was the fact that there is being discussed the fixing of an appropriate date for the meeting of foreign ministers of NATO, but it has not yet been fixed.
With respect to the meeting on February 26, Canada as usual will have an observer attending to report on what takes place but of course he will have no qualifications to take part in the discussions.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if his department has taken note of the reported intensified efforts on the part of the communist government at Peking to compel or exert influence upon Chinese abroad to send remittances to China in the form of foreign exchange?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, we have taken note of those reports.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask what action the Canadian government proposes to take in the light of that intensified campaign?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would first have to ascertain whether the reports are accurate, and on the basis of that knowledge we will know just what, if anything, we can do.


REPORTED DEVELOPMENT OF LONG RANGE ROCKET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I have a question to ask the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister comment on the statement attributed to Mr. Sandys, the United Kingdom defence minister, that the U.S.S.R. has developed a rocket with a nuclear warhead that has sufficient range to reach Britain?
Can the minister say if his advisers have informed him whether or not any industrial centres in Canada are within the range of such a new weapon?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker, I must give the same answer to both questions.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. H. Hollingworlh (York Centre):: Can
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell the house whether or not the government is contemplating an air lift for those in the United Kingdom who wish to emigrate to Canada?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of this question and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) gave me notice of a somewhat similar question. Perhaps I could answer both together.

It is the intention of the government to institute a large air lift to supplement-and I emphasize the word "supplement"-commercial means of transport because we believe that the number of potential immigrants will far exceed the possibilities of commercial handling of the traffic. The negotiations are in a very advanced state, and I hope before the end of the week to make a definite announcement.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask the minister a supplementary question, or we might call it supernumerary. Is this massive air lift being undertaken to bring immigrants from Britain, as stated by his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, in British Columbia?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is primarily for that purpose but if we charter aircraft we will endeavour to see that every seat is filled.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I ask a supplementary question. What transportation companies are going to supply these aircraft?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Through the agency we have been asking for bids from practically all air lines, and I think, since negotiations are not yet complete, I should save the answer to that question until I can make a definite announcement.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the air lift about which he has just spoken. Will the minister assure the house that priority will be given to Canadian air carriers, both scheduled and chartered, in connection with the proposed air lift?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this is
purely a charter operation but of course Canadian air lines are being asked to bid. We would feel it would be very wrong if the Canadian air lines that could provide the service at anything like a reasonable price with the kind of equipment necessary for flying the Atlantic were not allowed to do so.


IRELAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Are the same inducements 82715-90
Inquiries of the Ministry held out to prospective immigrants from Ireland as are held out to those from other parts of the world?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, judging by the success of some of the immigrants from Ireland and of some of their descendants, as evidenced in this house, I hardly think it is necessary to advertise Canada much in Ireland.


PIPE LINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister explain to the house the transaction under which the president and the vice president and general manager of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited appear to have had the opportunity to make a very big profit on large blocks of shares of the company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the transaction. It is purely a transaction within a private company. However, I am aware that it is the custom of companies that are owned largely by banking groups to induce top management to take a personal stake in the enterprise and share in the good fortunes or bad fortunes of the company. The offering was to acquire stock for $8 per share, which is the price paid for stock in the early formation of the group that undertook to build the pipe line, and if the stock proves to be worth more than $8 per share over the years there will be a profit. If the enterprise is as unsuccessful as my hon. friend predicted in the early debates, it may result in a loss to the man who exercised the option. In any case these men now have a share in the enterprise.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister inform the house if the management of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have been successful in their efforts to finance the project?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the project is now fully financed. I am also informed that all moneys advanced by the government to Trans-Canada to build the western leg of the pipe line will be repaid in full with interest before the end of this month.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there are three hon. members who wish to ask supplementary questions. The hon. member for Nanaimo.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question. Was the government aware that these gentlemen had options on blocks of stock at the time the government undertook the agreements to help to finance the company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of it and I doubt if the options were outstanding at that time. This is an internal matter within the management of a private company. I assume the directors took the responsibility for making the arrangement. There was nothing underhanded about the arrangement because it is fully explained in the prospectus governing the sale of stock. It is not an unusual provision for companies engaged in such a business as Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.


John Borden Hamilton: I
have a further supplementary question. Would the minister say that the gentleman was still taking a chance if the minister knew that he only exercised his option in February of this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, is my hon. friend prepared to say the pipe line is now a profitable venture and there is no risk in the building of the eastern section of the pipe fine? Anyway, whether there is or is not a risk, two or three of the top officers of the company now have a substantial stake in the well-being of the enterprise and I would think that might very well prove to be to the benefit of the shareholders.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: I also
have a supplementary question. In view of the great response of Canadian investors to the offering of shares of Trans-Canada, does the minister still feel it was necessary to involve public funds to the extent which he felt was necessary last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, to
go back to the beginning of the debate, it was necessary to get the project started. I notice in the Queen's Quarterly that my hon. friend still says that it did not matter whether or not the bill went through last year. I can tell him that the completion of the line will be one year earlier than would have been the case had the battle of the pipe line not turned out as it did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am of the
opinion that the steps which were taken were necessary steps, that the line could not have been financed unless contracts for the purchase of gas had been signed in the volume at which they were signed, and

that those contracts could not have been signed until the construction of the pipe line had actually been started.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I think perhaps I should direct this one to the Minister of Finance. In view of the enormous profits that are made on Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, Trans Mountain Pipe Line and so on, does the minister not consider that it is time we should be considering a capital gains tax?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, it has always been the policy of this government and, so far as I know, it is at this moment, that we would not impose a capital gains tax. As far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to recommend it to my colleagues.
[Later:!


Mr. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce supplementary to questions which were asked previously. Does the minister not believe the existence of these options or the intention to allow such options to exist should have been indicated to the house at the time the house was asked to assist financing the company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge these options were not in existence at the time the matter was being discussed in the house. It is my understanding that they were authorized quite recently to the top officers concerned.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked a question to which I promised a reply as soon as possible. He asked if I would make a statement regarding the unemployment situation in the country generally this winter.
I find that the latest information available and summarized in the regular monthly joint release of the dominion bureau of statistics and the economics and research branch of my department just went out yesterday reporting the situation as at January 19 last. This release goes into the matter at some length and I shall attempt to see that the hon. member for Kamloops or any other member in this house who may wish it receives a copy. In the meantime here are the highlights for Canada as a whole.

At January 19, 1957, the number of persons with jobs was estimated at 5,393,000, some
162,000	lower than at mid-December but still about 162,000 higher than in January a year ago. Persons without jobs and seeking work, according to the dominion bureau of statistics survey, rose to an estimated
303,000,	which was some 17,000 more than in January, 1956, and about 60,000 less than in January, 1955.
The increase this January over last comes primarily from such seasonal industries as construction, lumbering, logging and transportation. Bad weather and the effects of the C.P.R. strike all contributed to the lay-offs.
In this connection I think I should acknowledge and commend the vigorous and co-ordinated efforts now under way in many localities across Canada to increase winter employment opportunities. These steps are making a definite contribution to the maintenance of employment. Without them, unemployment this winter would be much higher than it is.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, on February 6 the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) asked me a question concerning the working hours of civilian cleaners and helpers employed by the Department of National Defence. This matter was carefully reviewed about a year ago and the conclusion at that time was that our position conformed generally with that in industry. However, toward the end of last year we started a new review of this matter in conjunction with the civil service commission and treasury board but it will be some weeks yet before this review can be completed. Until it is completed there is little more that I can say except to assure the hon. member that, when the review is completed and considered by the department, if any changes are to be made they will be made known in the usual way.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: May I ask a supplementary question arising out of the statement just made by the minister. The minister has said that a study is being made with respect to the status of cleaners and helpers as a result of the question asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. Will this study include these categories all across Canada or only in Manitoba?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is my understanding that it is general.
82715-90i
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL VISIT



REPORTED VISIT OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would make a statement upon the report that Canada is to have the privilege of receiving a visit from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh this fall?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make any more positive statement than that which has been made to the newspapers which made inquiry about the report at Buckingham Palace and Downing street. No decision has been reached in that regard.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has his department recently received from the South African war veterans association of Montreal a request asking for a general increase in rates of veterans pensions and allowances as well as a raising of the ceiling on permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act? If so, what action, if any, is being taken by the federal government or the Department of Veterans Affairs on this request as well as the recent brief of the dominion executive of the Canadian Legion on the same subject?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I am afraid I would have to make inquiries. I did read the news item in the newspaper, I think it was this morning, that the South African veterans had made such representations to the federal government. I am not aware that they have been received as yet. However, I shall make inquiries and if those representations have been received they will be considered together with the other representations received from other veterans organizations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the minister give us a reply tomorrow?


Hugues Lapointe: If it has come in, I shall tell you tomorrow and if it has not I will tell you the next day.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The brief from the Legion has been in for some time.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH INSURANCE



INQUIRY AS TO PARTICIPATION BY NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the provincial government of Nova Scotia as yet signified its intention of becoming a partner in the national hospital insurance plan?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have no information in the affirmative as yet.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: When does the Minister of Justice expect that the report of the inquiry made into the prices paid to farmers and settlers for pulpwood shall be made public?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. Ordinarily it is not the practice to discuss a particular inquiry at all unless and until a report has been made and published. In this case, however, by reason of representations that were made in this house, I did say that an inquiry would be conducted. As to when a report will be published I can only say it will be published, if possible in the two official languages, within 30 days after it has been made to me, and it has not yet been made to me. As the hon. member is aware, such inquiries are time consuming because they involve an extensive investigation of all the relevant facts. In accordance with the practice, that is all I can and should say at the present time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour having regard to the plans for unemployment insurance coverage for fishermen as announced by the minister on February 5. Will the minister give consideration to allowing contribution's to be made on a seasonal rather than a monthly or weekly basis, as I understand that procedure would be more acceptable both to the industry and the fishermen on the west coast?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Representations have been received from both those employed on the west coast as fishermen and those who were members of

the fisheries council, who were here the other day. All I can say is to assure my hon. friend their representations are being carefully considered by the officials who are working out the regulations covering unemployment insurance for the fishing industry.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I wish
to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs arid National Resources if he has received a joint request from the Canadian Rockies tourist association and the Alberta motor association for the early construction of suitably located buildings in the three Rocky Mountain national parks, so these associations might continue to carry ori their services to the parks and to tourists visiting them? If so, can the minister say what reply the government has made to these requests?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I have received such requests, Mr. Speaker, and I have replied that it was not the responsibility of this government to build facilities for motor associations even in national parks or for the accommodation owners to help them sell accommodation to tourists. I replied that it was their responsibility. Moreover, in 1954 while in Banff I had made arrangements with a Mr. Blake, who is the manager of the Alberta motor association, under which we would provide a lot in Jasper so that they could build the accommodation necessary for the purposes the hon. member has mentioned. As far as Banff is concerned, we provide accommodation for the Alberta motor association in our information building.



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the extensive surveys being carried out in northern British Columbia and the development which is envisaged, would the Prime Minister report to the house the position of this government concerning the possibility of further construction grants for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question is not quite in the terms of the notice which he sent my office this morning

Inquiries of the Ministry
but to answer it in the form in which it is put I do not know what connection there can be between the extensive surveys that are going on at the present time in the northern part of British Columbia and the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. What I do know is that we had an interview with the premier of British Columbia, I think on November 19 last, in which many matters of joint interest to this government and the government of the province were discussed. Among other things we discussed the possible extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and whether or not there could be grants made for that further extension and other matters dealing with the financing of the project. The matter was noted and instructions were given to secure all the information that we thought could be made available to us from the various government departments and from the Canadian National Railways and the matter is still under consideration.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the representation made by the interprovincial farm union council, is the minister in a position to announce the appointment of a transport controller? If not, will he indicate when the appointment is to be made?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second question is that I am unable to state when such an appointment will be made.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is there any official of his department now doing the work formerly done by the transport controller?


George Carlyle Marler: No.


George Hugh Castleden: What is being done by the minister's department to equalize delivery quotas as much as possible as between various delivery points in the west?


George Carlyle Marler: Nothing.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of
Finance. In view of the many representations made to the government by trade union groups and construction workers in Canada, what action has been taken by the government, with respect to the cancellation of bulletin No. 10, of the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, dated July 10, 1956, regarding non-deduction from income tax of living expenses and transportation costs for construction workers working on jobs away from their ordinary place of residence?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we have received representations and we have been giving consideration to them in the course of the normal budgetary meetings we have had.
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short answer supplementary to the one already given by the Minister of Finance. I would call the attention of the house to Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, February 14. A return was made by the Secretary of State to question No. 76 of February 13. The question reads as follows:
1.	Have representations been received regarding the taxation of per diem and other allowances since the issuing of information bulletin No. 10, dated July 10, 1956, by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, urging that all workers in the construction and other industries be allowed income tax deductibility with respect to transportation and living allowances where such allowances are provided to cover expenditures necessary to the earning of an income?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
3.	Has consideration been given to such representations?
4.	If so, has it been decided to take any action on this matter?
The answer to the first question is yes. With regard to the other matters as to whether consideration is being given to the representation and the decision that has been made, these are questions for the Minister of Finance because they relate to a matter of policy.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister advise the house if there have been any serious after-effects resulting from the breakdown of the Chalk River reactor which necessitated the temporary evacuation of the plant a few days ago?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, one of the construction workers at the plant turned a

Inquiries of the Ministry wrong valve-or something of the sort and there was some little contamination in the reactor building. The building was evacuated accordingly. I am told that the contamination was removed within 12 hours and the plant was put back in operation. It was a minor upset and fortunately no damage was done to persons or property.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister which reactor broke down?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it was the smaller reactor.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the government giving consideration to raising the floor price on butter and eggs as suggested in recent briefs of Canadian farm organizations?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are always giving consideration to these matters and to any suggestions which are made to us and we will of course continue to do so.


William Earl Rowe: Not until next month.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the government increase the floor prices on butter and eggs?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will give consideration to it.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister direct his good offices to making representations to the president of the Canadian National Railways for the improvement of the commuter service between Hamilton and Toronto, as was held out when permission was given to increase the commuter fares.
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the circumstances is that the representations made by the railway at the time of the 

hearing of the case to which the hon. gentleman has just referred have been carried out by the railway.


Mr. Palletl:: A supplementary question.
Would the minister make a re-examination and perhaps come to a different conclusion?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall be glad to draw to the attention of the management of the Canadian National Railways the implied suggestion in the last question but I will not guarantee to change my own point of view in regard to it.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Battlefords):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister inform me when I may expect an answer to my question of January 10, which is No. 18 on the order paper?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as soon as it is possible to assemble the information.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) asked the following question:
Will the minister say what housing provision is being made for the civilian employees of ordnance who will be transferred from the depot at Saint John to Camp Gagetown in the near future?
As I understand the situation, the majority of the civilians formerly employed at the ordnance depot at Saint John are now working at the new depot at Camp Gagetown and pending satisfactory accommodation in the new town of Oromocto they are in receipt of an allowance to cover their travelling expenses between Saint John and Camp Gagetown.
I might add that while the Department of National Defence is not directly concerned with arrangements for supplying civilian housing at Oromocto we are, as the largest employer in the area, co-operating with the new town in meeting this problem. In this regard, I am informed that tenders will be called shortly by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction of 100 houses and apartments to be built under

section 36 of the National Housing Act in partnership with the province of New Brunswick and the municipality of Oromocto.



DISABLED PERSONS


[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. Is the minister aware of the fact that the Manitoba legislature-the minister knows there is a Liberal government in that province-recently passed unanimously a resolution which was introduced by Mr. Lloyd Stinson, the Manitoba C.C.F. leader, calling for improvements in the federal-provincial plan with regard to allowances for disabled persons? Can the minister say whether we may soon expect an announcement of a revision of the definition of total and permanent disability so that more persons may be able to qualify for this allowance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". I have already answered the second part of the question in my answer to the question put by the alert member for Cape Breton South.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the alert minister if he will tell us when we may expect that announcement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend would know if he were alert, that is a matter that depends on the action taken by the provinces which now have before them the proposal put forward by the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) has communicated with me, and in view of the assurances he has given me, I welcome him back at question time.


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but before doing so I would like to make very clear my desire and intention to follow the rules of this house at all times, as I am desirous of fulfilling my duties to my constituents.
Is the minister now in a position to tell the house if the changes have been completed to enlarge and improve the definition of total and permanent disability in regard to invalid pensions?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me the same question a moment ago. I told him the answer was to be found in the reply I gave several days ago to the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: So no changes have been made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest the hon. member read the answer I made four or five days ago, and then, if he is not satisfied, I will be glad to discuss it further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us which provinces have replied to the proposal and which have not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have had replies from no province as yet.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Speaker, unless I missed his answer, the Minister of National Revenue has not yet given a further reply to a question which arose out of an inquiry as to the control of importations of salacious and obscene literature which was asked on the 18th of January. Would the minister tell the house the number of prosecutions that have been instituted and the results of such prosecutions?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: There have been no prosecutions.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if it is correct, as reported in the press a few days ago, that he intends to bring down his budget on Tuesday, March 19?


Walter Edward Harris: Who knows, Mr. Speaker?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to increase the awards and the levy authorized by the act.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the resolution which has just been read to the committee is on the order paper as a result of recommendations which have been made from time to time for amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I think it is correct to say that the first representations made in the house in recent years to this effect were made from both sides of the house in the session of 1955, and the recommendations then made were acted upon at that time but not to the full extent of those recommendations.
I would like to say, before discussing the intention of the amendments which were then made, that this act was placed on the statute books back in 1939 as a result of experiences which we had gone through in Canada for seven or eight years preceding that time. And I may say, too, that for 30 or 40 years before that time there had been strong recommendations by farm organizations in different parts of Canada to the effect that some form of crop insurance should be provided. But so far as I have been able to ascertain, no person or group of persons has been able to evolve a scheme of crop insurance which would cover all crops effectively. In addition, it was fairly well established in the earlier days, and established, I think, in the courts as well as otherwise, that insurance is a matter which can be dealt with by legislation only in the provinces. In order to strengthen that opinion I would call attention to the fact that when this measure was sent to the Senate in 1939 I was asked to attend before a committee of the other place. At that time there was a very well known and well qualified legal authority there in the person of Mr. Arthur Meighen. When the bill was brought before that committee he asked me the direct question: Is this crop insurance or is it insurance? I said, "My legal advisers tell me it is not." He said that if it were it would not be possible for the federal parliament to pass the legislation but he wanted it to be understood that, if the legislation were within the powers of the federal parliament, he thought it was the kind of legislation which under the circumstances was greatly needed.
But he indicated that he was not prepared to accept just the opinion of the legal advisers of my department and he asked for the opinion of the then legal adviser of the other place who was also a very well known and very well qualified legal authority. The then legal adviser to the Senate indicated to the committee that in his opinion this measure

was not insurance. On the strength of that Mr. Meighen advised that he would favour the legislation and so did the other members of the Senate committee. Therefore the legislation went on the statute books on the definite understanding that it was not insurance, was not intended to be insurance and did not have the effect of giving insurance. I wanted to make that plain at the beginning.
The legislation was then placed on the statute books and we operated under it for some time. I think I should state in a few words what the objective was in bringing it before the house at that time. We had gone through one of the most difficult drought periods ever experienced in western Canada. We had had seven years of continuous drought, two complete crop failures in that seven years and partial crop failures in the other years. This affected a very considerable part of the prairie provinces, a comparatively small part of Manitoba, a very large part of the province of Saskatchewan and a considerable part of the province of Alberta, and during the period preceding the coming into office of a Liberal government in 1935 and as far back as 1931 assistance had been given to that whole area because of the poor crops that had been experienced during that period.
I think it is correct to say that the total assistance given by the federal government, first under Mr. Bennett and later under Mr. King, was not all given to farmers but was given in part to people living in the villages and towns in the area, who were doing business with farmers, and it amounted to approximately $186 million. That, of course, was a very considerable amount of money. In addition, church organizations across Canada, in the eastern part of Canada particularly and even in some sections of western Canada, gathered together food and clothing and distributed it in these areas so that there was quite a considerable amount of money spent and a great deal of work involved in taking care of that area under those circumstances.
But those of us who lived in that section of the country at that time had an idea that there was something much more important, so far as the difficulties were concerned, than the amount of money expended, and that was the effect that living under conditions of that kind had on a great number of people and more particularly on the young people. Having, as has been suggested several times in the house this session, a feeling that it is important to encourage young people born and raised on farms to remain on the farms, we brought in t'nis particular legislation in the hope that in the future it would not be necessary for relief to be sent to that area and

distributed in the way in which it had been and that if there were difficulties in connection with maintaining people in the area, assistance would be rendered by reason of the fact that home builders, heads of families, at least would have some funds with which to pay accounts that had been run for the purpose of maintaining the population through the years when there was drought or when for some other reason crops were destroyed.
Therefore we brought in this legislation and at first it was suggested that the whole cost of a measure of this kind be met from the same source as was the $186 million that had been spent in the preceding years, that is, that it should be taken out of the treasury of Canada and paid as an indication that all Canadians were most desirous of having the population remain in that section of western Canada to produce the very considerable amounts of wealth that come from time to time in the form of cereal grains and livestock of one kind or another.
The legislation was passed and I think it is correct to say it was passed by the house almost unanimously, if not unanimously. I do not remember that any votes were polled against the legislation at any time. There were opinions expressed with regard to details of the legislation and changes that might be made but the legislation had the almost unanimous, if not unanimous, support of the house at that time. The legislation has been on the statute books from then until now and there have been certain results. Before going further, I should say that while the legislation was going through the house a suggestion was made that the cost should not all be met out of the treasury because after all there are quite a number of people in western Canada who do not have crop failures. I happen to be fortunate enough to live in an area where there is very seldom a crop failure. I think we had two during the drought period, one in 1931 and another in 1937, but outside of those two years we have never had a total crop failure, and in the township in which I happen to farm we have never drawn anything under the act since the legislation came into force.
But those who lived in such areas made representations through the farm organizations that it might render the legislation more permanent and result in there being less criticism of it elsewhere if the farmers themselves would agree to make some payment. Therefore it was decided finally to impose a one per cent levy on all grain delivered to the elevators, the amount to be collected at the elevators and turned over to the fund.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act I repeat that the levy was never intended at any time to be a premium paid for insurance, nor was it intended that its payment should give any particular rights to any particular person. As a matter of fact, it was done to emphasize the fact that, while the people of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver were paying through taxes towards the fund, the farmers who lived in the areas desired to pay something in addition to what was taken out of the treasury for the fund in order to make payments possible. The result has been that over the years from the time the fund was first set up down to the present $94,990,566 has been paid into the fund under the one per cent levy. There has been paid out of the same fund $183,576,041. In other words there has been paid out almost twice as much as has been paid in by the farmers. In short, no attempt has been made to make this an insurance plan where premiums are paid for the right to draw from the fund. Of course, as I said a moment ago, there are some areas in which the drought has not been so serious as it has been in other areas. There are some areas, even in the middle of the province of Saskatchewan, that have never drawn out of this fund and there are other areas that have drawn under it in all but two years since the fund was set up. Not everybody in those areas has done so but some people in those areas have drawn in all but two years.
It was natural that some of those in the areas who pay in as much per bushel as any one else pays in but who have drawn out little as compared with what others have drawn, have been raising some criticism with regard to the fund and have been making studies from time to time as to whether or not some better system could be evolved or whether some system of crop insurance might be set up. There have been set up three different commissions, two in Manitoba and one in Saskatchewan, which have studied the question. I have here the report of the second commission set up in Manitoba. That report was made on December 1, 1954. I am going to read only that section of it which deals with prairie farm assistance:
The terms of reference do not empower the commission to make recommendations and none have been made. The commission was directed to consider three questions (set out in the preamble to this report) and to propose answers. As a result of the investigations made and the consideration that has been given to these questions the commission has reached the following conclusions.
I am going to read only the first one because it is the conclusion that refers to prairie farm assistance. The question submitted to the commission was to the effect

Prairie Farm Assistance Act that they wanted to know whether the levy which was made in Manitoba would raise sufficient funds to establish and maintain a crop insurance plan. Their conclusion was this:
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been in operation during a period of relatively high average yields; for that reason the record of collections and indemnities on which the Manitoba farmers relied to support their claim that they have been subsidizing Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers, does not present an accurate picture of the operation of the act on a long-term basis.
Next:
If the act had come into operation in 1926 the amount paid to Manitoba farmers in indemnities would now have exceeded the amount produced by the levy by some millions of dollars.
I should say that in the document it is stated that it would be about $13 million.
If the act is continued in force for a long period of time and the present levy of 1 per cent is maintained, all evidence indicates that the indemnities paid will exceed the sum collected by a substantial amount.
In other words, that means that a collection of the one per cent levy would not maintain an insurance plan, even on the basis as set out in prairie farm assistance. Then the report goes on to say this:
If Manitoba did not come under the act and the one per cent levy now paid by Manitoba farmers was maintained, with the intention of using the money collected to reduce the impact of crop hazards, the sum available would be quite inadequate to provide any form of all-risk crop insurance.
Then next:
If, over a period of time, Manitoba farmers received indemnities amounting to more than a dollar for each dollar collected, there can be little doubt that Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers will receive more for each dollar collected than they have received up to this time.
Then last:
The claim made by farmers who appeared before the commission that the method provided in the act for determining which farmers shall be paid is unjust might well receive the consideration of those responsible for the act.
In other words, they suggest that the amount of money which is paid in could not be utilized successfully for the setting up of all-risk crop insurance.


Mr. Bryce:: Does the report give any
figures as to how much money would be needed, such as another cent or another two cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: They go into the whole
plan in this report. I do not want to go into it at this stage. I was going to make this suggestion to the committee. I was going to suggest that when this bill is brought in, it be referred to the committee on agriculture and that all these questions such as those that are covered in reports like this might

be brought out during discussion'. I think it would be better to have that done than to try to cover them all here.
But the outcome of this report is to the effect that prairie farm assistance is doing a certain work which it was set up to do but that it could not be made the basis, in so far as collections are concerned, of a crop insurance plan. They think, of course, that if a crop insurance plan could be set up, it would be most helpful to the farmers of Manitoba.
I have here the ninth report of the province of Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life made just last fall and this is the issue on crop insurance. If we are going to have a full discussion on this question, I would recommend to hon. members that they get a copy of this document and read it. It is most helpful because it goes into the whole question of insurance in the United States. It indicates that the crop insurance schemes that are in existence there are set up with $100 million, I think, in support put into the fund by the federal government. Then they have set up a system under which they actually write crop insurance much in the same way as our hail insurance is written in this country -agents go out and write the insurance- after having determined-I think it is clear from this report that this is correct-that there are some areas that could not carry crop insurance because they do not produce endugh to be able to carry crop insurance.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister this
question? Does the United States system apply to crops other than wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it does. It is intended to cover and it does cover those kinds of crops grown in those areas. There are in some sections plans that are confined more to wheat and cereal than to the other crops. But generally speaking it is an insurance plan that might cover any crop. But the important feature of it as related to prairie farm assistance is that they feel that they cannot carry on crop insurance with the idea of paying back the money which they obtained from the federal government. They cannot carry it on in areas of low crop production. It can only be carried on in areas of high crop production. It therefore does not attack the problem which prairie farm assistance attacks in this country.
After having gone into all these matters they deal with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act at page 102. After having stated one or two views which they hold they say this:
Recommendation No. 28. That whatever developments take place in crop insurance, P.F.A.A. be

continued in order to assure a minimum level of crop loss protection in all the agricultural areas of the prairie provinces.
That is all I wish to read at the moment. After referring to the two commission reports I just wish to say that they both find that P.F.A.A. serves a purpose, and one which it should continue to serve, and that some consideration ought to be given to whether or not some form of crop insurance can be set up.
Then, too, it is pretty well decided that, constitutionally, crop insurance can only be set up by the provinces. I think it is agreed that, if that be the case, it would be almost impossible to set it up. They say, therefore, that perhaps some experimental plan might be carried on with the idea of determining just what assistance would have to be given.
I only say that in order to suggest to the committee that I think it is important this legislation should remain on the statute books and that it should be dealt with in the light of the experiences we have had with it. One of the experiences which we had with it during those years was that the farmers of the area consisting of Manitoba and extending over the east side of Saskatchewan covering about one third of the province, pay more money into the fund than they get out of it. Then, you have an area which extends across the west side of Saskatchewan, the central part of Saskatchewan and into the province of Alberta, where payments have been high. I think the hon. member for Acadia will agree with me when I say that his constituency covers an area which received the highest payments in the province of Alberta. This high payment area extends from there east across the province of Saskatchewan down to the Soo line in the south and the Regina-Prince Albert line in the central part of the province.
Now, I have examined these figures very carefully, and I have read what the reports say about them. The Manitoba report indicates that, at the time the report was written, out of every dollar the farmers paid in they only got about 62 cents out. I have a later report than that which includes the last two years and this report indicates they received 79 cents out of each dollar. I call your attention to the fact that the last two years cover the period since we amended this act. We amended the act in 1955 and made the amendments apply to the 1954 crop, so payments on the 1954 and 1955 crops are on a different basis from what they were before. The difference is that we brought in the flooded areas and those which, partly because of excessive moisture, were affected by rust. We made payments in the areas on the east side of Saskatchewan and right through Manitoba on a much higher level than had been 82715-91i
Prairie Farm Assistance Act done before. The result was that during those two years there was considerably more taken out of the fund than was paid in.
I have the exact figures here, both for what was paid in and what was taken out. They are contained in a return which was requested by the hon. member for Lisgar. In 1954-55, just using the round figures, there was paid in $748,000 in Manitoba, and in the same year there was paid out in Manitoba, $5,259,000. The next year there was paid in about the same amount, $731,000, and there was paid out $2,150,000, in Manitoba.
Now, in commenting upon what the report says with regard to the relationship of these payments in Saskatchewan and Alberta, I would point out that those figures indicate there was five times as much paid to the farmers in Manitoba in those two years as was paid by them into the fund. They also indicate that there was three and a half times as much paid out in Saskatchewan as was paid in, and in Alberta it was two and a half times. The commission's report indicated that even if you left the levy at 1 per cent and kept the other payments the same as they had been, eventually Manitoba would be getting more out than they paid in. However, the amendments which were made two years ago resulted in considerably more being paid out in the Manitoba area and the eastern part of Saskatchewan than was paid in the earlier years. I think the same thing would apply to the Peace River district of Alberta and the area down between Edmonton and Calgary but in the area through Acadia it would be as I indicated a few minutes ago.
This has been the situation up until now. The proposals made two years ago were to the effect that we had put this act on the statute books in 1939; that at that time farmers were getting 56 cents a bushel for their wheat and later on, in the period we were discussing it, the figure used was about $1.56 or somewhere in that neighbourhood. It was suggested, I think by me as minister at the time, that that possibility was calculated back in 1939, and that as the price of wheat went up there would be less and less necessity for payments in the categories where wheat was delivered for sale. If you get into the category from five bushels up, as it was then, to eight, then there is a possibility that anywhere from three to six bushels to the acre might be sold. Of course, then, the farmer got a better return, along with what was paid out of prairie farm assistance, when he sold that much wheat at the price it was in 1955 as compared with the earlier price.
But there was another argument put up at that time which I realized was a strong argument, namely that when the farmer was down into the lower category, from four

Prairie Farm Assistance Act bushels down, he had a crop failure. Even at four bushels one could not possibly have more than two bushels of wheat to sell and there was very little chance of having that much to sell. It was said then that a man did not get the return from his wheat; his costs were very much higher and his store bills were very much higher than they were before. Even if you were just trying to assist the person to pay his store bills so he could go on living in that area without relief, there should be more paid in the lower categories. It is in connection with that point that we are considering amending the act at the present time, in order to see to it that recognition is given to both of these claims, that is the fact that where you have more wheat to sell there is not as much required by way of assistance and the fact that where you have no wheat to sell considerably more is required in the way of assistance.
In the bill, as I intend to introduce it, provision will be made for an increase in payments. Under section 6 we have tried out two different systems which we have administered by adding to or taking away from the areas. Hon. members who come from that section of the country will know that we have a great block of prairie country which is subject to drought from time to time. In the year 1954, for example, there were more than
150,000	farmers-I will just use the round figures of 150,000-in that area who drew assistance under this plan. I know that whenever anyone goes out to hold meetings across the country there are a great many complaints. However, when you have 150,000 being paid without getting complaints from probably more than a thousand-that may seem quite a lot if you get complaints from a thousand-but it is not quite as big a problem from the point of view of administration as some would make it appear.
But at the same time there is the problem of the areas just on the edge of qualification. Fortunately, probably, Manitoba is very nearly all on the edge and the north-eastern part of Saskatchewan is on the edge. Most of the troubles you have are in the areas where there have not previously been crop failures, but there is a limited number that do complain in areas where there have been failures. The amendments of two years ago took care of that to a certain extent and the amendments which are being brought in now will take care of it to an even greater extent. That being the case I would like to have the resolution passed. I do not think it is necessary to go into any greater detail at this time. I simply wanted to outline what the intention was in the beginning and what the intention still is and I think I might indicate that if we can pass the

resolution in order to base a bill upon it I will be in a position to bring the bill before the committee at an early time. I could not do so today because the bill is not yet in print but I could bring it in within 24 or 48 hours. We could then submit the bill to the committee on agriculture and allow all the details of it to be discussed and bring it back here for further discussion. If this meets with the consent of the committee I should like to proceed in that way. If the committee desires to discuss it at greater length at this time of course I cannot raise any objection to that because that is within the rules of the house and may be done.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the minister a question. Could the minister tell us briefly in the different categories of payments he contemplates whether or not the levy will be increased so that we will know the main purpose of the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: As it now stands the act contains four categories, (a), (b), (c) and
(d). In the proposed bill categories (a), (b) and (c) will remain and a new (d) category will be inserted. The category (d), will remain lettered (e), and it relates to flood areas. I do not think there is any reason why I should not give you the exact figures and therefore I might say that category (d) will cover from nothing up to three bushels. Category (c) will cover from three up to five bushels inclusive and the top level will be from six up to eight bushels; that is, above five and not more than eight, and (c) will be above three and not more than five. Category (d) will cover from nothing up to three bushels and the flooded areas are covered by category (e).
Those are the different categories. The flooded area is of course a complete failure and the amount paid on the flooded area is the same as contained in category (c) which was $2.50 an acre. The amount paid under the new bill will be raised considerably in the crop failure category. There will be smaller raises in other categories.


Mr. Quelch:: Will category (a) still be based upon the price of wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Category A has not operated for some years and it will still remain unchanged.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the payments then be $4, $3 and $2 per acre for the various categories?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would not be far away from it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the levy going to be increased?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill is going to be discussed in committee and I do not want to be too definite in what I am saying here but I think that is about right.


Hazen Robert Argue: We will not hold the minister to it as long as we can get it improved, that is for sure. Can the minister tell us what is the intention as far as the levy is concerned? Is it to go up to 14? I have heard rumours to that effect.


James Garfield Gardiner: The intention is based on this. There is still some question as to whether Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan will ever be able to draw out as much as they pay in. There is a feeling that there ought to be an increase, if the increase in payment in the eastern area is as much as is anticipated; in other words, the increase will be considerable in the payments that are made but with only two years' experience with the amendments made two years ago we have some doubt as to whether any change should be made this year. We will probably go along on that basis but again I say it is a matter to be discussed when the bill is introduced.


Mr. MacKenzie:: The Prairie Farm Assistance Act became effective in 1939. Up to and including the crop year 1956 how much was paid under the P.F.A.A. and how much was collected from farmers and what percentage was collected from the shippers?


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave that a moment ago. I do not have the final figures for 1956 but I have the total figures down to the end of the fiscal year 1955-56. Final payments are made in March of each year and the final payments for 1956 will not be made until March, 1957. Forty per cent is paid in March. Bearing in mind what I have said, $183 million has been paid out and approximately $95 million has been collected from the farmers.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: About 50 per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, a little over at the moment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, as a member coming from western Canada I welcome the announcement of the amendments to this important piece of legislation. In presenting his review the minister suggested that we limit the discussion as much as possible so that we might proceed at the earliest possible moment to consideration of the bill. However, there has been such continuing discussion on this subject of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in my own province of Manitoba that I think I should take a few moments of the committee's time to present some aspects of this legislation which were not emphasized by the minister in his remarks.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to interrupt. I was about to continue my remarks and possibly cover what the hon. member has in mind but I paused to answer some questions which were directed to me and I got away from the subject.
I said that two things had been tried out. In the first place we took the rectangular blocks when we were adding to that big block of townships. It was my intention to amplify my comments when I was distracted by some questions. We operated under rectangular blocks for ten years and under contiguous blocks for four or five years or so. For two years we tried it again on the basis of rectangular blocks and we are now proposing an amendment to the act to put it back on the basis of contiguous blocks. I just wanted to complete my remarks on that subject before the hon. member proceeded.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am glad to have that clarification, Mr. Chairman, because I was going to raise that particular point in my remarks. However, I wish to return to a basic problem arising from the remarks the minister has made. It is quite true that this piece of legislation was established in 1939 as a measure to substitute for the program of relief that had been carried out in the prairies during the drought period of the 1930's. I think the fact that the minister has emphasized again today that this is a substitute for a relief measure and not a crop insurance program serves to underline the criticism that arises concerning the P.F.A.A. program in the province of Manitoba. The year 1939 is almost 20 years ago. Actually the legislation placed on the statute books in 1939 came about after the real problem of drought had already disappeared.
The critical years of the dry period were in the mid thirties and by 1939 we were returning to a more normal pattern of moisture in the prairie region. The peak of the problem with which this particular legislation attempts to deal had been passed by the time it arrived on the statute books. This is the reason for the criticism which arises in growing intensity in the province of Manitoba. A great many resolutions have been presented in the provincial legislature, by private members who normally support the party at Ottawa, severely criticizing the P.F.A.A.
I maintain that in re-emphasizing the relief aspects of the legislation the minister fails completely to take into consideration the tremendous changes that have taken place in our agricultural economy generally since 1939. These changes have been referred to in the house time and time again from this

Prairie Farm Assistance Act side of the chamber. I have made reference to them many times myself. They have placed an entirely different complexion upon our agricultural economy.
In western Canada today we do not need a relief measure, we need something which will provide strong underlying income stability. The minister pointed out that during the thirties relief payments became necessary so that the farm housewife could meet her grocery bills. That is just one part of the cash problem facing the prairie farmer today. His whole activity has become deeply involved financially. He is now operating on a cash basis rather than under a subsistence economy. He needs cash for much more than the paying of grocery bills or even to meet the first call on his income, his municipal taxes. He needs a stable cash income in order to carry on the process of farming. Most of our farms are mechanized. Formerly the farmer could produce his fuel in the form of feed and fodder for his horses, but today he cannot move unless he has the necessary cash wherewithal to keep his machinery rolling and to pay for the gas and other things required in the mechanized process of farming.
While we welcome the amendments to the act which have been outlined by the Minister of Agriculture, while these amendments are improvements, they are simply stop-gap measures until such time as we can deal with the whole problem of income stability and cash stability in our prairie economy. Increased payments to the farmer under the P.F.A.A. are at least a step in the right direction.
The suggestions and comments offered from time to time by members of the opposition, and even by government members from western Canada, concerning the fundamental changes taking place in our prairie agricultural economy, have been recently reinforced by the independent viewpoint of the members of the Gordon commission. We have farmers moving away from the farm and we have farms becoming larger. This trend is going to continue for the next 25 years. Certainly a measure devised in 1939 to deal with a problem which existed in the mid thirties is not adequate to deal with the problem of agricultural stability in 1957.
Manitoba has been especially interested in the shortcomings of this legislation because that province has been particularly affected. In his survey the minister pointed out that it is doubtful if Manitoba will ever receive compensation equal to what has been contributed in the form of the universal levy because that province is not affected to such a great extent as Saskatchewan or Alberta
[Mr. Dlnsdale.l

by marginal land. This is one point upon which the farmers of Manitoba continually harp. If that situation is to continue it means continuing discrimination against one province.
As the minister pointed out, several attempts have been made in the Manitoba legislature to devise a crop insurance program that would serve more efficiently and effectively the particular needs of Manitoba. The committee of 1955 is the most recent attempt of this kind. While it did not make any specific recommendations concerning the possibility of introducing a crop insurance plan in Manitoba it certainly indicated that such a program was greatly to be desired.
Not only is there general discrimination against the province of Manitoba in the operation of this act, there is discrimination on an individual basis too. This causes the greatest protest on the part of the individual farmer. It is only infrequently that large areas of Manitoba become qualified for benefits under the act and invariably when that has happened in my constituency there has been a storm of protest from the farmers in the areas affected. During the time these farmers were contributing their 1 per cent levy they were under the impression that should they suffer a crop failure as a result of one of the numerous acts of nature to which the agricultural economy is subject they would be adequately covered by P.F.A.A. Almost without exception they become sadly disillusioned when the actual payments are made. They find that under the block system of payments there is discrimination as between neighbours. You are either "in" or you are "out" and if you are "out", and just across the fence from the block area there is, of course, a very strong feeling of injustice which arises when you see your neighbour, who might not have been so severely affected as yourself, receiving the benefits of the P.F.A. payments while you do not, even though you might have suffered an almost 100 per cent crop loss.
This situation was again brought forcibly to my attention last summer, and fall. We had a very severe hail storm which swept right over the heart of my constituency and the damage resulting from the storm amounted to some $20 million. I was called to attend protest meetings all over the area. Once the P.F.A. payments were forthcoming it was suddenly realized that this legislation was totally inadequate to meet the problem, raised by this particular kind of damage.
Incidentally, with regard to that point, I received from the municipality of Oakland an excellent presentation with regard to this particular matter. This submission has, I think, already been received by the Minister

of Agriculture, so he will be aware of its contents. It has been very carefully drawn up. I do not want to take up the time of the committee by reading the recommendations it contains. I do not know whether or not it would be possible to get them on the record. The document does, Mr. Chairman, make some specific recommendations for suitable amendments, and as I do not wish to take up the time of the committee by reading it into the record I am wondering if, perhaps, I could have permission to put it on Hansard for today. It is a carefully prepared document and hon. members might like to have the opportunity of seeing it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I have no objection. I have read the document. I would just like to say, though, that it does set out one of the real objections to depending on crop insurance, because you can insure against hail. Many of these people did not, though some, no doubt, did. That is one of the weaknesses of any crop insurance plan which has ever been set up. If you go out to sell insurance you quite often sell to people who will not be in any trouble anyway, and you would not sell to the other people. This bill helps them automatically.
The Depuiy Chairman: Would the hon. member indicate the source of the document to which he refers?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is a representation from the council of the rural municipality of Oakland.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member is seeking the unanimous consent of the committee for this to be printed in Hansard without being read. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Depuiy Chairman: Unanimous consent having been obtained, might I suggest to the committee that I think it is, perhaps, not too wise a precedent to include an unofficial, unread document as part of an hon. member's speech; and I suggest that this document, if the committee agrees, should be printed as an appendix to Hansard. It will, of course, have been referred to in part of the hon. member's speech.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, sir. Having
received that permission I can dispense with any further reference to this, document at this time.
(For text of document referred to, see appendix, pages 1460-61.)
I do not want to take up the committee's time with regard to all the complaints which
Prairie Farm Assistance Act have repeatedly been made concerning the inadequacies of prairie farm assistance legislation. Some of them are quite obvious; a few are more obscure.1 The obvious deficiencies have, of course, included the relatively low levels of payment which have prevailed since 1939, notwithstanding rising costs of living. According to the minister, the legislation to be brought before the house will deal with this situation to a certain extent.
A particular difficulty which has arisen in recent days in my area-and I think this is a general condition throughout western Canada-from the cost-price squeeze to which agriculture has been subjected as the result of the very drastic changes which are taking place in the Canadian economy, is that a good many of our farmers have found it necessary, in order to maintain solvency of their farms, to take up temporary employment off the farm. But if such farmers become affected by a crop failure of some kind and apply for prairie farm assistance they are disqualified because they were not fully occupied on their farms during the previous year. That is one matter which could possibly be dealt with when the minister brings his bill before the house.
There is another obvious problem which might be remedied without too drastic a change in the administration of the act. It might be possible to devise a scheme whereby zoning could be undertaken-the zoning of compensation and the zoning of levies-in order to make more equitable the distribution of compensation among the areas affected.
As I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, so far as Manitoba is concerned we shall not be dealing adequately with the farm cash situation until we have taken a comprehensive look at the whole of the agricultural problems which have emerged, particularly in the late post-war years. It is only a stop-gap measure to amend legislation which was first placed on the statute book in 1939. We have similar problems today in all areas of agriculture. We have the problem of the extension of credit facilities to our farmers; we have the problem of price supports related to the changed situation of our agricultural economy. The minister makes the point that as far as crop insurance is concerned only the provincial governments can take the necessary legislative action. In turn, our provincial legislators in the province of Manitoba are informed, particularly by the commission which made a report in Manitoba in 1955, that Manitoba alone cannot handle the cost of a comprehensive crop insurance program, and it is implied that

Prairie Farm Assistance Act any action in this regard would require initiative on the part of the federal government.
It is a case of "passing the buck" between the two levels of government-something which happens far too frequently for the good of our farmers in Canada today. Recommendations have been made in the house with regard to these matters; the underlying need is there. The minister himself emphasized in his remarks that this is a relief measure, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that under today's agricultural conditions a relief measure is not adequate enough. The farmers do not want relief. They want a fair share in the booming prosperity of the Canadian economy today.


Mr. Zapliiny:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make only a few brief comments at the resolution stage. First of all, I want to say that I am glad to see the resolution before the committee. It so happens that I have a resolution standing in my name on the order paper dealing with the same act which asks that the house consider the advisability of amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act so as to increase the maximum amount per acre payable under the act to $5 and the maximum amount payable to any individual farmer to $1,000.
As the committee knows, on many occasions my colleagues and I have recommended amendments to the act in order to make it more effective and of greater assistance to farmers in times of crop failure. The resolution of the minister now before the committee simply proposes to amend the act so as to increase the awards and the levy authorized by the act.
First of all, may I say that the chief difficulties we have encountered in the province of Manitoba are very much along the lines of those already described by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). The chief complaint about the act is not the levy but the fact that, having paid the levy over a period of years, the farmers find it very difficult to qualify in times of crop failure. The minister gave some figures indicating what has been paid into the fund and paid out of the fund over a period of years. I hope that at some appropriate time he will give a break-down of those figures to show the picture by provinces in order that it will be clear so far as Manitoba is concerned. He made repeated references to the situation in Manitoba and he may have been right when he said that over a period of time-it depends quite a bit upon which period you choose-Manitoba farmers could draw more by way of awards from the fund than they have paid into it.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to make it clear that it was the Manitoba commission which said that. I repeat that it was the Manitoba commission. I do not want those figures to be taken as mine. That was the Manitoba commission.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I thought that the minister, after having quoted the commission, expressed his own opinion along the same line. However, I am not going to argue on that point.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the commission is right.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Well, that puts the minister on the same side of the fence. But despite what is contained in the commission's report and despite what the minister has said the fact still remains that from the time the legislation went into effect in 1939 up to the present the picture in Manitoba has been that the farmers have paid through the one per cent levy a great deal more money than they have taken out of the fund. I do not know the exact figures, but I understand we will have them on the record later. In any event, it is my information that up to the present time Manitoba farmers have received approximately 64 cents out of every dollar they have paid into the fund.
In these circumstances it is to be expected that there will be a considerable number of complaints and discontent with respect to the operation of the legislation. But I want to say quite clearly that I take the same attitude with respect to the act on this occasion as I have taken consistently since entering the house, that until something better comes along, until we get a system like crop insurance that will operate on an individual basis I am one of those who advocate that no province should withdraw from the operations of the act, if that were possible. With all its faults and weaknesses, I believe that the act is the only thing available at the present time which provides some compensation in case of a serious crop failure in our province, and in my opinion it would not be wise at this time to get rid of the modest coverage we do have and have nothing in its place. Therefore my efforts and those, I believe, of most members from Manitoba, will be directed towards the improvement of the act at every opportunity until something better comes along.
Some of the difficulties in qualifying were described by the member for Brandon-Souris, but there are one or two other points that should be mentioned. One difficulty arises from the fact that the qualifying clause in the act or the yardstick which decides who qualifies and who does not is based on the production of wheat. In many parts of our province wheat is not the chief crop and it is

quite possible that if another crop were used for the yardstick, barley, for example, the results would be quite different from the results obtained by using wheat. That is one reason we often find areas which ordinarily could be considered crop failure areas in the sense that there is sometimes a total crop failure of barley or oats but where there happen to be a few patches of wheat here and there in the township which bring the average over 8 bushels per acre, thus automatically ruling out the whole area as far as prairie farm assistance is concerned.
There is another matter I should like to put forward for the minister's consideration. Perhaps sooner or later, if the trend in Manitoba continues with respect to the amounts paid in and the amounts paid out of the fund and the farmers of Manitoba continue to pay in more than they receive from the fund, the time will come when the minister will have to consider a zoning system because the cost of production and the yield experience is not the same throughout the three prairie provinces. In other words, it costs more to maintain the land in some parts of the prairie provinces and of course the average yield is greater. In other parts it costs less to maintain the land and the average yield is lower. Therefore it is not always possible to put them all in the same category and achieve fairness. I think the time may be coming when, as the result of experience, we may have to work out a zoning system whereby in those areas where, generally speaking, the cost of production and average yield are higher over a period of years the qualifying yield will also be higher whereas in those areas where the cost of production and the average yield are generally lower the qualifying yield will also be lower. That would be one way of bringing about greater fairness in the payment of compensation under the act.
I think that the idea of crop insurance should not be abandoned altogether. The minister has set out some of the difficulties and he maintains that if there is to be crop insurance then it is a provincial responsibility under our constitution. Even if that is so, I do not think there is anything to prevent the federal government from taking a hand with respect to crop insurance by underwriting the provinces should they be able to set up some sort of plan amongst themselves. I think the minister will agree, after having read the reports of the committees and commissions that have studied crop insurance in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, that none of these committees or commissions has recommended at any time against crop insurance as such.
But they came to the conclusion that crop insurance on a premium basis would not be able to sustain itself. The time may come
Prairie Farm Assistance Act when the prairie provinces, or for that matter any number of provinces, may wish to evolve a crop insurance plan and to ask the federal government to underwrite that plan at least for a period of years in order to take care of any unusual or disastrous experience. In those circumstances if the federal government were willing to act as the underwriter for a crop insurance plan which is set up on a provincial basis or co-operatively among a group of provinces, I think it may have some chance of success.
The minister has given us a rough idea of what the increases are to be in the various categories in the awards under this act. Although they do not go as far as does the resolution which I have on the order paper,
I am glad to support the resolution because it is an improvement over what we now have. The minister expressed some doubt as to what may be done about the levy. It is at that point particularly that I want to bring to his attention this argument. In effect since the act came into force in 1939 the levy has been increasing, although in the act it is still one per cent. But if it was one per cent of the price of a bushel of wheat in 1939, which price at that time was somewhere about 70 cents, the price of wheat is now more than double that and the levy is still one per cent of the price. In effect, the amount that the farmer is paying into the fund has just about doubled since 1939. Although the percentage figure is still the same, the amount per bushel that he is paying on his grain under this levy has just about doubled. So all during that period of years, when the effective amount that he was paying per bushel has been increased along with the price of the grain, the awards under the act remained the same. There was no increase in them. Now that we have finally come around to providing for an increase in the awards, I think that if we were to maintain even the same position as that which obtained in 1939, in effect the farmers have already paid the extra levy for this increase. I would strongly recommend at this time that the levy be not increased, particularly with respect to the farmers in Manitoba.
As I have already said, there has been a great deal of discontent and criticism and, as time passes, there probably will be more. But if at the same time, as the figures show, the Manitoba farmers are drawing only about 64 cents for every dollar they put in and if [DOT] they are asked to put more in, I am afraid it will not be a very popular move in my province. I therefore hope that the minister and the government will come to the conclusion that at least for a period of years, as a trial period, we carry on with the one per
1434	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm. Assistance Act cent levy, try out this new system of award and see what the experience may be.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just while the hon. member is dealing with that point may I say that it is the intention to continue with the 1 per cent levy.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am glad to hear that it
is the intention to leave it at one per cent. It will be good news in Manitoba, I can assure the minister.
I was about to point out that the chances of crop failure, unless we consider something extremely unusual, iri my opinion are on the decline. The production per farm and the production per man on the farm have been increasing in western Canada. With new methods of farming new fertilizer, new types of machinery and so on, I think that the farmers themselves are doing a great deal to minimize the danger of crop failure. Of course there are some circumstances which are completely beyond the control of any farmer such as a severe drought, a severe flood, an early frost or things of that kind. But ordinarily speaking-and I think the report of the Gordon commission bears this out-farming methods and the approach of the farmer to technological methods are working towards greater stability of production in western Canada and towards minimizing the chances of crop failure. If that trend continues it should mean that there will be less and less call upon this fund under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from time to time. I am therefore fairly sure that it would be wiser to leave the levy as it is at the present time and try out the increases in the awards.
These increases are sorely needed. Of course I should like to have seen them greater than they are. According to the latest statistics, even last year, in 1956, the cost of production on the farm increased by 6.5 per cent. That trend has been going on for a number of years. The cost of production has been coming up year after year since about 1946. That means that when there is a crop failure the farmer stands to lose to a much greater extent today than was the case ten years ago because he has invested, in terms of operating expenses, more in the attempt to produce than was the case previously.
Having made those general comments I wish to express my support for the resolution and my appreciation of the fact that the government has decided to leave the levy as it is. However, I want to raise one more question. In doing so I want to make it clear that I am not raising this question because of any undue suspicion in my own mind but rather because there have come to my attention-as I am 
COMMONS	.
sure have come to the attention of many hon. members from the prairies-accusations and charges of political interference in the administration of this act. I want to make it quite clear'

and I emphasize this point-that I am one of those who have never in this house or outside of it charged with or accused the government or those who administer this act of political interference. But because an increasing number of farmers are writing to me and in conversations are telling me that they are becoming convinced that there is political interference, I feel that it is my duty at this time to bring the matter to the attention of the minister and of the committee. If there is anything that will destroy the effectiveness of an act of this kind, it is a conviction on the part of the farmers that it is being used for political purposes. It is my hope that the minister, sometime during this discussion, will make a categorical statement before this committee in order to assure it and to assure the country and the farmers

because, after all, it is to a large extent their money that is involved-that this act is being administered impartially and fairly and is not being used under any circumstances for political purposes.
Particularly in the province of Manitoba the implication is rather serious because, as I have already pointed out, the farmers in Manitoba have paid into that fund a considerable amount of money more than they have taken out of it over the period from 1939 to 1956. If they become convinced that their own money-and may I again emphasize the fact that it is their own money; there has not been one cent of government money going to the farmers of Manitoba over this period- that is coming back to them in the form of prairie farm assistance is being used in this way, and if somebody is attempting to play politics with their own money-in other words to try to bribe them with their own money to vote in a certain way-then that is adding insult to injury.
I also want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that it is my belief that the suspicions and distrust with regard to the administration of this act and the charges of political interference arise out of the activities of the Liberal candidates, ex-candidates or ex-members as the case may be in my province.
As I have said, I have not at any time- nor do I know of any other member from our province who has done so-charged political interference. But there have been Liberal candidates who have gone around and apparently have successfully persuaded a number of farmers that they are in a position to interfere politically in order to bring benefits to certain farmers as a return for their political support.

Xu should not be my function here to defend the Liberal candidates in my province, or to defend the government against charges of political interference. I do this because I think it should be made clear that this act, which is being financed partly by the farmers themselves and partly out of the public treasury, should be kept free from political interference that might destroy its effectiveness.
I hope the minister will make a statement to the effect that so far as his department is concerned there is no political interference that he knows of, and that no attempt has ever been made to use the act for purposes of political partisanship. If he does not do so, then more and more farmers are going to be persuaded that the Liberal candidates who are running around the country claiming to be the distributors of the largesse under this act are right. If that conviction gains ground in Manitoba he is going to have a minor revolution on his hands. This is said as a suggestion for the minister's own benefit and for the benefit of the administration of this act. I hope he will make that statement, because I think it is long overdue. I shall reserve any further comments I have to make until the bill is before us.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to say this in connection with the last suggestion. This act
has been in existence now since 1939, and as I said a few minutes ago there was one year in which there were 150,000 farmers paid under the act. In other years there were fewer in number-but there was a considerable number in every year. I do not suppose I have heard of a dozen farmers during that time who said they were paid or were not paid because of their politics.
I quite agree that there are people who will go around saying these things. I go around a lot myself. I want to say that I do not think even the hon. member will say the Liberal party does not deserve some congratulations upon having brought this legislation into existence, when nobody else ever thought anything could be done. This is the result of Liberal thinking, and to that extent of course we may get some votes for it. But as for going out and saying a man is put on-that is the very reason hon. members opposite complain about what is in the act. They say it is based on straight lines, and if I had my way it would always be on straight lines. If you draw a straight line across the country and say the fellow on one side of the line is in and the fellow on the other side of the line is out because of the crop conditions, they cannot say individuals were put on or off. That is the way we made it. However, there are others who
Prairie Farm Assistance Act think there should be some zigzagging around to make payments where they should be made, even if some say it results in political favours.
Since the act was brought in it has always been my contention that every provincial government should provide crop insurance legislation to look after the edge areas. You will find statements to that effect in every speech recorded in Hansard in those days. If they did not desire to do that, which they had the opportunity to do and the authority to do, then they could pay money into this fund in order to have P.F.A.A. take care of the marginal people. However, no provincial government, even the Liberal government that was in Saskatchewan in those days, has done that. I would still say that these edges can be taken care of better under provincial legislation that would work in co-operation with this legislation.


Victor Quelch: I think possibly some of the men to whom the hon. member for Dauphin referred must be running around my constituency, because I heard from a farmer today that the Liberals are telling the people in Acadia if a Liberal candidate is elected they will pay a bonus on the amount hit by hail, and we know it is very hard to do that. The minister might perhaps just drop a word there some time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will just drop a word now. This Social Credit government of Alberta which is talking about doing something to prevent hail is asking us to help them.


Victor Quelch: Oh, yes; you mean to prevent the fall of hail. I was always a bit sceptical about that, but having heard so much about the success of it perhaps there is more in it than I visualized.
I might say that I welcome this resolution to increase the amount of payment under P.F.A.A. I am not quite sure what the situation is with regard to the levy, but I will leave that until we have the bill. The minister has assured us that the bill is to be referred to the agriculture committee, and I am glad also to hear that. I hope it will be possible to formulate a more equitable system of providing for protection. I have in mind especially section 6 (a) and also (b), but 6 (a) is the one that gives me the headache. I hear more about the six sections taken out than I hear about the six sections put in. It was for that reason I was not too much concerned about the irregular shape or the rectangular shape. I think the ideal solution would be to make section 6 (a) into a rectangle and 6 (b) into an irregular block. This would help the situation. Most farmers would like to see it put on an individual basis.

Private Bills
The act has been in operation for 18 years, and whilst the majority of farmers appreciate the help that has been received, I would say all farmers agree that the time has come for a system of all-risk crop insurance which should operate in addition to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The one should be supplementary to the other. I think the pools and farm organizations are stressing the need for crop insurance and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act being kept in operation supplementary to that crop insurance. It does seem to me that with the experience we have gained with prairie farm assistance during the past 18 years and the experience that has been gained in the United States with crop insurance over the past 19 years, it should be possible to evolve a satisfactory crop insurance scheme. I shall say something more about that later, and perhaps before I get going with regard to certain areas in tny constituency we might call it five o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being five
o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 18, intituled: "An act for the relief of Dorothy Frances Auger Delacobis". -Mr. Henderson.
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: May I
ask that the bills standing in my name as orders No. 27 to 76 inclusive stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Shall orders No. 27 to 76, being divorce bills in the name of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Henderson) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 71, to incorporate Oblate Fathers of Assumption Province.-Mr. Hunter.

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 72, for the relief of Leonard Bloom.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, once again we face the rather unpleasant task of dealing with one of these divorce bills. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that our objections are not based on any particular prejudice or ill-feeling with regard to either of the parties to the divorce case that is now before us.
[Mr. Quelch.I
On Friday last when we were discussing another divorce case the hon. member for Vancouver South made a contribution that I think was worthy of some note, and I should like to say that I appreciated very much the contribution he made. At that time he proposed that the rules be changed in such a way that this parliament would not be required to consider any case until the family aspects of it had been settled by means of a legal separation in a court of the province in which the parties reside. That is the greatest contribution with regard to a possible improvement that I have heard from the government side of the house in a period of several years. I would welcome such an improvement, although I would much prefer if ways and means could be found whereby we could be relieved of this task altogether.
I also noted with a great deal of pleasure the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, as reported at page 1361 of Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I think the rule is fairly well known, 246(a) of Beauchesne, which reads as follows:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 41, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(a) refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion . . .
I know hon. members may feel the question of divorce is under discussion. The position I take is that if because it does not seem very important in these similar bills we permit quotations from one debate in a debate on another bill, we are then establishing a precedent which may be used against us in cases where the quotation from one debate in another would be far less desirable. Therefore I think the hon. member will agree with me that his quotation should not be followed up.


Erhart Regier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since you have made a ruling on that point it leaves me with no alternative but to speak on the bill before us, the petition of Leonard Bloom for a bill of divorce from Marie Madeleine Jeanne Plante Bloom. I do not want to do that but I have no alternative. I would much rather have discussed some of the arguments that were brought forward by the hon. members for Vancouver South and Kingston the other day.
In this particular bill the evidence was heard by a subcommittee of the other place. The age of the applicant Leonard Bloom, is 30, and that I submit is a rather young age for a man to be petitioning the parliament of Canada for release from his marriage vows. He was asked when he was married

and he replied on December 14, 1950. At one point he claimed that he lived with his wife until 1951 but he later amended that to February, 1952.
Mr. Speaker, from December 14, 1950 to February 1952 is barely 15 months. Certainly this young man did not give his marriage much of a chance to succeed, when after such a relatively short period of time he decided he could no longer tolerate being married to his wife.
The evidence indicated that his wife left him in February, 1952. He then produced a photograph of his wife and was asked the following questions as reported at page 8 of the evidence:
Q. Is it a good likeness of your wife?
A. It is.
Q. Do you remember when it was taken?
A. I couldn't say offhand.
Q. Approximately?
A. I would say within the last year or two.
It seems very odd indeed that a woman who left her husband in 1952 would supply him with a photograph of herself for use on January 22, 1957. They had not lived together for a five-year period, yet she kindly obliged him by supplying an up-to-date photograph of herself. I observe that the young man came to Canada in 1948. In a growing number of these cases where people are petitioning for divorce it is brought out in evidence that they arrived in Canada from other countries within recent years, and I think this is something worthy of some note. In this case there is a family involved; the couple have a son age five. The father claims to be looking after the youngster who is boarded out, but we have no way of knowing whether this is true or what care is being given to the child.
The hon. members of the other place, as they usually do, sought to get some idea why the marriage had gone on the rocks. The following question was asked by the attorney:
You told us you lived together with your wife until February 1952. Will you tell us what happened in February 1952?
The only answer the applicant was able to give was:
Well, she left, saying that she was going on a holiday and she told me where she was going. I phoned her up where she was supposed to go and she had not arrived there.
This is a very flimsy cause for the break-up of a marriage. Later he discovered through being told by his wife that she was living with another man. He was asked:
Q. Did she mention the man's name?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the name that she mentioned?
A. Albert Martin.
The evidence continued:
Q. Do you know under what name she is living there?
Private Bills-Divorce
A. Under the name of Mrs. Albert Martin.
Q. When did you find that out?
A. I found out earlier in 1956.
I am putting these details on the record because some of the evidence that came out later causes the year to have some importance. He hired some detectives and they set about finding his wife. He called on his wife and the most amazing thing happened. The man with whom she was alleged to be living opened the door and the applicant could see his wife with nothing on except a brassiere.


An hon. Member:: What is that?


Erhart Regier: I cannot imagine a man opening a door when a woman is in the same room with him and although she is not in bed she is wearing only a brassiere. This seems simply unbelievable; yet this august body which is supposed to deal with the problems of the nation is expected to endorse the principle of granting to this young man relief from his marriage vows.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: If it is so bad
why talk about it?


Erhart Regier: I talk about it because I am
forced to talk about it. The Liberal party of Canada are trying to see how long they can get away with having us deal with these matters in this slipshod fashion. If the hon. member and his colleagues from his province were a little more sincere in meeting their responsibilities they could very well remove from us this responsibility.


Pierre Gauthier: That is one word we will not forget, what you just said.


Erhart Regier: I will have to wait until I
know what the word is.


Pierre Gauthier: You will be hearing about it.


Erhart Regier: The private investigator was
asked to testify, and he said he was given a picture of the woman and told where she was living; but her husband, Mr. Bloom, did not know where she was living. That was on October 25, 1956. As I read this it seemed to me that the detective was emphasizing the point that the husband did not know where she was living, but he said he was told where she was living.
He then attempted to do his work and observe the activities of this woman. He did not go to the place where he said he knew she was living; he went to the place where she worked. She was a manicurist and when she had completed her work about 6.10 p.m. she took a taxi home. On the following Saturday he again went to her place of work and saw her take a taxi home. It is possible but rather improbable that a working woman would make a habit of riding

Private Bills-Divorce
home in a taxi. It is a little hard to understand that when he knew her home address he would bother going to her place of employment. It is also a bit difficult to understand why she apparently was in the habit of riding home in a taxi.
Then the investigator made an amazing statement; he said that he called Mr. Bloom and told him he had located his wife. Previously he had said that he had been told, either by the attorney or by Mr. Bloom, where this woman lived. After following her he called Mr. Bloom and told him that he had located his wife. The other investigator was called in and he substantiated that this woman had been found, that the door had been opened voluntarily and she was discovered in a state of undress.
Because I feel that it is a misuse of the functions of the parliament of Canada to ask us to even consider the principle of a bill such as this I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill No. 72 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 73, for the relief of Helen Mary McEachran Cole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the motion for second reading of this bill will be very brief. Despite the opinion that members seem to have regarding the way we deal with bills such as this, it is our thought that we should consider seriously the whole situation. Even as in the other place, as we were told the other day by the hon. member for Kingston, changes are being made in their rules and practices regarding divorce, so we suggest that until such time as some other way of handling divorces is found the House of Commons should at least have the subject matter of these bills studied before the house is asked to give approval on second reading.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise merely for the purpose of moving the same amendment with respect to the second reading of this bill as was moved with respect to Bill No. 72.
Argue
Barnett
Blackmore
Bryce
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Castleden
Coldwell
Ellis
Fleming
Gagnon
Gillis
Girard
Hahn
Hansell
Herridge
Holowach
Johnson (Kindersley)
Aitken, Miss
Anderson
Applewhaite
Ashbourne
Balcom
Batten
Bell
Bennett
Blair
Brooks
Brown (Essex West) Buchanan
Cameron (High Park)
Carter
Cavers

Private Bills-Divorce
I doubt if any members of the house, certainly not more than a handful, have read this bill or the evidence that has come from the other place. Surely we are not in a position to say whether or not approval should be given to the bill, which is what is involved in the motion for second reading.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because we feel that the committee on miscellaneous private bills should study the subject matter of this bill before we are asked to approve it in principle, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
That Bill No. 73 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Robertson
Robinson (Bruce)
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Rowe
Schneider
Smith (York North)
Stanton
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Tucker
Tustin
Weaver
Weir
White (Waterloo South)-89.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Argue	Johnston (Bow River)
Barnett	Jones
Blackmore	Knight
Bryce	Knowles
Cameron (Nanaimo)	Low
Campbell	McLeod
Castleden	Patterson
Coldwell	Poulin
Ellis	Quelch
Gagnon	Regier
Gillis	Shaw
Girard	Thomas
Hahn	Van Horne
Hansell	Winch
Herridge	Yuill
Johnson (Kindersley)	Zaplitny-32.
 NAYS Messrs:
Aitken, Miss	Harkness
Anderson	Harris
Applewhaite	Harrison
Ashbourne	Hees
Balcom	Hellyer
Batten	Henderson
Bell	Hodgson
Bennett	Hollingworth
Blair	Houck
Brown (Essex West)	Howe (Port Arthur)
Buchanan	Howe (Wellington-
Cameron (High Park)	Huron)
Cardiff	Huffman
Carter	Hunter
Casselman	James
Cavers	Kirk (Antigonish-
Charlton	Guysborough)
Churchill	Kirk (Shelburne-
Crestohl	Yarmouth-Clare)
Decore	Lennard
Enfield	Lusby
Eyre	MacKenzie
Fairclough, Mrs.	MacLean
Fairey	MacNaught
Fleming	Macnaughton
Gardiner	McCann
Garson	McCubbin
Green	McCulloch (Pictou)
Gregg	McGregor
Hamilton (York West)	Mcllraith
Hanna	Mclvor


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 74, for the relief of Frances May Cousins Stone.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, first of all, before I make my remarks in connection with this bill, I want to assure the hon. member for Portneuf that I do not love to talk about these things, but that I recognize my responsibility and that, unlike him, when a vote is called I am here for that vote. This bill deals with the petition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In what he has just said the hon. member is perhaps forgetting that an hon. member is not obliged to vote when a vote is called. Therefore for one hon. member who has chosen to vote on a certain division to say that another member is not fulfilling his responsibility because he has not chosen to vote is, in my opinion, to misconstrue the duty of a member. To say the least it is acting unkindly toward the hon. member for Portneuf.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I accept your correction. I wish only to point out that I do not believe you were in the chair when some rather unkind remarks were made about me and my rights by the hon. member for Portneuf. I realize full well that he may believe quite honestly that he has met his obligation by not voting on the amendment that was before us. I quite appreciate

Private Bills-Divorce
the fact that we all have the privilege of refraining from voting. However, I find it a little bit difficult to note that the rest of us, or at least some of us, are obligated to deal with these matters when they appear on the order paper. The whole contention of our argument is that we believe these things should be removed from the order paper.
This particular case deals with the petition of Frances May Cousins Stone for a divorce from Harry Walter Stone. The case is unique in that the petitioner herself does not appear. She is apparently a resident elsewhere. In the evidence as we have it, as taken on January 22, 1957, before the subcommittee of the other house, the chairman explains this when he states as follows:
We are proceeding with this case, Mr. Gaboury, and I understand that we are to hear two witnesses. We may require you to give further evidence with regard to this woman who is living in British Columbia and says that she cannot come to attend this hearing, because I was not satisfied with the affidavit you submitted. It is only because these witnesses are here at considerable expense, and that some confusion has arisen, that we are taking this unusual course. It is not a precedent at all that we are hearing this case without the applicant being present.
Then Mr. Gaboury says this:
I have a Mrs. McCall, whom I wish to call. I subpoenaed the respondent, and I know he is here Perhaps he may be called?
The petitioner is then called but does not appear. The respondent is called, appears and remains in the room. Mr. Gaboury then says:
Mrs. McCall is my only witness, Mr. Chairman, unless the respondent wants to testify; I do not know yet.
So here, Mr. Speaker, we have a divorce being recommended with the petitioner absent, a most unusual case. Instead of the customary several independent witnesses, we have only one witness and the husband who may also testify. Who is this witness? I quote from the report:
Q. What is your full name?
A. Blanche McCall.
Q. What is your age?
A. Seventy.
Q. Where do you live?
ft- Seventy-two Oxford street, Guelph, Ontario.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Housewife.
Here is another oddity in that the petitioner lives in British Columbia, as I have said before, and the only independent witness lives in Guelph, in the province of Ontario. She is then shown a photograph which has been annexed to the petition of the petitioner and she is asked to identify it:
Q. Do you see him here today?
A. Yes, I see him.
Q. That is Mr. Stone here?
A. Yes.

Q. I beg your pardon, what is his name?
A. Harry Stone.
Q. Do you know him as Harry Stone?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you had occasion to meet him anywhere else before today?
A. Yes, he was living at a room in my home.
Q. That was where?
A. In Guelph, Ontario.
Q. How long did he live there with you?
A. He came in May, 1955 and lived until, I think, the middle of March 1956.
Her acquaintance therefore, with this man, is limited to the province of Ontario. Then she is asked if he came there alone, and I quote:
Q. How did he go there alone, was he alone as a tenant of yours or was he accompanied by anyone?
A. He came alone, he told me that his wife was living in Toronto and expected to be confined in six weeks time, and after that six weeks expired he brought a woman I call Mrs. Stone to the house.
Q. Now, this woman that he designated as Mrs. Stone-I hereby show you a photograph which has been annexed to the petitioner's affidavit as exhibit B; would that be the lady who accompanied him?
A. No.
Q. There is no doubt in your mind that it is not the lady?
A. No.
Q. How did they live there at your place during that period from May 1955 until March 1956?
A. She came six weeks after he came there; they occupied the same room.
The witness then says there was only one bed in the room and they occupied the same room. He had referred to her as his wife. The witness did not know, I presume, that this was not the man's wife. However, she does know that the woman who lived with him as Mrs. Stone is not the same woman as the woman whose picture she is being shown by Mr. Gaboury, the attorney.
The chairman of the committee investigates a bit further by asking:
Q. Was Mr. Stone there when she told you that?
He is referring to the fact she was expecting a baby.
A. Mr. Stone brought her to my house.
Q. That is true, but you are telling of a conversation now and I want to know whether Mr. Stone was present when she made the statement that you are now going to tell us about?
A. As near as I can remember I was surprised when they came and he did not have the baby and I asked what about the baby?
Q. They were both there at the time?
A. They were both there at the time, and Mrs. Stone said because Harry had never worked too much the children's aid society were taking the baby to look after it.
This all happened in the province of Ontario. I am not sure how this petition comes to us here, except that the lady is no longer living with him, and I imagine he is now living in a province whose rules make it compulsory for her to go to live there to obtain a divorce or else come to this parliament in order to be granted relief.

Then the chairman very carefully points out to Mr. Stone, before he testifies, the position of affairs with regard to him:
You are here present and therefore you are interested. You are not under any obligation at all to give evidence which might tend to prove your own adultery though you are privileged to do so if you want to do so. If you wish to do so you can go into the witness box and you can answer any questions you like or you can make a statement to us if you wish to do so, and if you do not wish to do so you do not need to. You just make your own choice.
Then Mr. Stone takes the witness stand and admits that he is living in Guelph temporarily. Of course no one knows how long "temporarily" may be in actual fact. If we endorse the principle of this case then we are also automatically saying to people in all parts of Canada that they have a right to petition this parliament for relief from their marriage vows. I think it is as simple as that.
I should like to pose to the house the problem that would arise if this became known throughout the length and breadth of Canada. Apparently this man is not satisfied with the divorce arrangements obtaining in the province of Ontario or, rather, I should say the woman is not satisfied with the arrangements obtaining in the province of Ontario, where I believe she might have to go if she wishes to win a divorce from him. At any rate, she would have to take action in either the courts of British Columbia or the courts of Ontario. He lived in Montreal before that, and says he lived there all his life. The previous witness said he had lived at her home in Guelph for some time, about a year and a half. Logically, I do not think anyone can say he is living there temporarily. I believe it may well be the case that people are finding out how relatively easy it is to get their petition for relief through this house. They are choosing this avenue rather than the proper court procedures that are set up for people in British Columbia and Ontario.
May I call it six o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Regier the debate was adjourned.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to increase the awards and the levy authorized by the act.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, just before the hour for private bills the Minister of Agriculture got me sidetracked on to the question of hail suppression, but I will now come back to the general operation of the act.
Certainly there are areas in western Canada that have consistently received more under the act than they have paid out, and it is equally true there are areas that have received less than they have paid out. Therefore the attitude of farmers to the resolution before us is bound to be affected at least in part by the area in which they live. The greater part of the Acadia constituency, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Agriculture, has been a heavy beneficiary under the act, and naturally they will be in support of the resolution that is before us. They will argue, and I think rightly so, that in view of the fact that costs have more than doubled since the act was first passed, payments should also be substantially increased.
In view of the fact that heavy payments have been made in the Acadia constituency we have heard it argued that these lands should be taken out of production. People have said that the area is too dry. Others have said that the land in that area is submarginal and therefore should be taken out of production.
That may have been true many years ago, but about 27 years ago that whole area was reorganized. Most of the land was sold for tax arrears and taken over as special areas, and then leased back to the farmers in units sufficiently large for them to make a fair living; but they have not been allowed to cultivate submarginal land. We find today that the majority of the land that is farmed in the special areas is good land.
During the past six or seven years that area has had more than normal rainfall; consequently the crops have been quite good. But if we are to judge by the record of the past there is every reason to believe that the area will become dry again. If it does become dry again then there is no doubt that heavy payments will once again be made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
I was quite interested in a statement made by the Gordon commission on this point. I shall read it, because I want to stress the fact that what is said in the report does not apply to the Acadia constituency and I shall explain why. If we turn to page 27 of the preliminary report of the Gordon commission we find these words:
Assistance has been provided also under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to farmers who live in areas where crop failures have occurred from time

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
to time. This also has been a useful program. However, there might be merit in imposing some limit upon the number of years in which payments could be made under this act to people who persist in farming lands which have a high record of crop failures over a term of years. If this were done, assistance should be offered to those people who might be willing to re-establish themselves elsewhere.
As I say, that does not apply to the Acadia constituency for the simple reason that such reorganization has already taken place. Sixty per cent of the farmers who used to live there have moved out. The submarginal land is no longer cultivated. When they talk about assistance being given to move farmers, I would point out that in Acadia assistance is not needed for the purpose of moving farmers out but is needed in the form of irrigation in that area.
For many years there has been discussion about the Red Deer diversion irrigation project. The original survey was made in 1922 and was known as the William Pearson project. Under this project half a million acres of land would be irrigated. The idea would be to provide feed lots to the people farming in that area so they would have sufficient feed to carry their stocks over the winter. If dry years come back, what will happen is that farmers will have to cut down their herds, because they will not be able to raise enough feed to carry their stocks through the winter; and if they do that they will no longer be self-supporting.
For this reason I hope the federal government will be able to work out an agreement with the provincial government under which irrigation can be undertaken in that area. If that is done I am satisfied that this will be one of the most prosperous districts to be found in western Canada. As I say, the land is good and the only thing we are short of is rain. That is the picture in an area where more is received under the act than is paid in levies.
Let us now take the other side of the picture. In the western part of the constituency-and I would say from the constituency northwest-we find the opposite to be the truth. Farmers pay out far more in levies than they receive back in the form of compensation. It is very seldom that those farmers receive any benefit under the act. A farmer can pay to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act fund hundreds of dollars, as they have done; yet if they lose the total crop through hail there is very little chance of their receiving any benefit, the reason being of course that the hail comes in an irregular shape. They cannot qualify because you have to have at least half a township with a yield of less than eight bushels per acre before any benefits can be paid out. The


farmers say they would not mind paying the levy under the act, and they would not mind having the levy increased, if it were guaranteed that in the event of a loss they would receive some form of compensation. In other words they want it to be either on an individual basis or to have a scheme of crop insurance.
In 1955 I spoke at some length in this house on the question of crop insurance, and especially with regard to the operation of crop insurance in the United States. It seems to me that the time is long overdue for a national scheme of all-risk crop insurance in this country. I am not suggesting that this act should be made into a crop insurance scheme. The Minister of Agriculture points out that if we tried to make the Prairie Farm Assistance Act into a crop insurance scheme it would be unconstitutional, and he has suggested that if the provinces want crop insurance the best way would be for a province to put it in.
If there is one thing the federal crop insurance corporation made clear in its report it is this. If you want crop insurance to be successful you have to have it on the widest possible basis. There is very little chance of it succeeding on less than a national basis, and I do not think there would be any chance of it succeeding on a provincial basis. As a matter of fact when Mr. R. E. Motherwell made his report entitled "A Study of Crop Insurance" in 1944 he made this quite clear. On page 35 of the report it is stated:
Since the three prairie provinces are so closely associated in agricultural production, any attempt at crop Insurance could best be handled by federal administration affecting the area now affected by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Admittedly, insurance is not a federal matter but this problem clearly seems one requiring a broader scope than just one province.
I think the experience in the United States fully justifies Mr. Motherwell's statement.
While it might be unconstitutional to turn the Prairie Farm Assistance Act into a crop insurance scheme, I submit there would be nothing unconstitutional about putting in effect a voluntary scheme of crop insurance right across Canada. There are very strong reasons why it should be done on a national basis. In this house we hear continually from eastern Canada and the maritimes to the effect that we are always doing things for western Canada, and no doubt the people in those parts of Canada feel the same way about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. If we could bring in a national crop insurance scheme that would operate from the maritimes to British Columbia, that criticism would no longer be made. Judging by what has happened in the United States there would be a far better chance of a crop

insurance scheme succeeding on that basis than there would if we put it in merely in one province, or even in western Canada.
In the United States crop insurance covers all crops like tobacco, cotton, corn and grain, and there is no reason why we could not have an all-embracing crop insurance scheme to cover all provinces both east and west. If it was decided to have a crop insurance scheme the country could be zoned into districts, where the coverage and premium would be adjusted on the basis of crop conditions which had existed over a period of time. Probably it would be necessary to leave out certain areas where crop failures were occurring continuously. If you tried to put a crop insurance scheme into effect in areas where the risk was high the rates would have to be prohibitive. Such areas could continue to be protected under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In the United States similar areas are covered by a form of relief legislation.
A vote could be taken in each zone to decide whether or not the farmers wanted to continue under the P.F.A.A. or would prefer to come under a crop insurance scheme. Where crop insurance was instituted the Prairie Farm Assistance Act could be discontinued and the levy no longer collected. Any losses to be paid under the P.F.A.A. could be met by the levy in the areas where that act was continued in force, and from the consolidated revenue fund.
I know some hon. members and some people will argue that crop insurance is not feasible, but I think instead of trying to discuss this question on a theoretical basis it would be far better to discuss it in the light of actual experience. The experience of the federal crop insurance corporation of the United States is available to us. Crop insurance has been in operation in the United States since 1938. There was no private crop insurance written in those days except hail insurance. When the act first came into operation the only crop insured was wheat, and then it was extended to cover cotton, flax, tobacco, corn and practically every major crop.
Under that act insurance was written up to 50 per cent or 75 per cent of the average long-term yield. Contracts for one year were signed, requiring renewal each year. Loss adjustments were originally in the hands of local committees. During the first four years of the operation of that act there were heavy losses; from 1938 to 1942 the corporation lost $71 million, $7 million on wheat alone.
The act was suspended in 1944 and it is interesting to note that the report written
Prairie Farm Assistance Act by Mr. Motherwell on federal crop insurance in the United States was based upon the experience of those years. After 1944 the crop insurance act was thoroughly overhauled and a number of adjustments made, and after that it operated successfully.
The changes that were made and which are still applicable were, first, that insurance could be written only up to 75 per cent of the average yield over a long period of time or the actual cash investment in the crop, whichever was the lesser. The coverage and premium rates were to be set by areas instead of on an individual basis as formerly, but adjustment of losses was to be made on an individual basis. Local agents were appointed instead of having local committees, and losses were reported directly to the state director instead of to a local authority.
Largely as a result of these changes there was a considerable improvement in the operation of the act and from 1948 to 1954 the premiums and indemnities were practically in balance, whereas before that there had been heavy losses. It is interesting to remember that from 1948 to 1954 there were some very heavy crop failures in the United States but, as I say, the act weathered the storm and the premiums pretty well balanced the indemnities.
The cost of crop insurance in the United States has been considerably less than the cost of hail insurance in the west. The crop insurance in the United States is all-risk insurance. I think a fair comparison could be made between crop losses in the United States and those in Canada, though probably they do not have the degree of frost we have. On the other hand they have far greater losses in the dust bowl. On the whole I think it is a fair comparison to make.
We find that in the United States the cost of insurance to cover all crops worked out at 6.2 per cent of the protection, and the amount needed to cover the actual loss was 6.7 per cent. Taking wheat alone, the cost was 8.5 per cent of protection and the amount needed to meet the loss was 8.7 per cent. In both cases the premiums kept slightly below the actual cost. I think the report shows quite clearly that all-risk crop insurance can be provided at a reasonable cost so long as you exclude the heavy risk areas. In the United States those areas are kept under certain relief legislation, and in Canada they could be retained under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
I am convinced that in western Canada we should have crop insurance, and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act could be supplementary to that scheme. I do hope the minister will try to get the provinces to
1444	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act agree to putting in a crop insurance plan. I should like to see the federal government give leadership by passing a federal crop insurance act, and then telling the provinces that any province that agreed to pass enabling legislation would be able to obtain the benefits of the act. I am satisfied that if that were done a majority of the provinces would come in.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to enter into a long discussion of the merits of this act. I think all Canada realizes that it is a splendid act and has served a very useful purpose. I hope the minister will see to it that the scope of the act is enlarged in the near future.
I would suggest to him that the time has arrived when the benefits of the act should be applied to the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada as well. I know the plight of some of the growers. If they had been able to take advantage of this act they would have been materially helped. Let me point out that here is a group of farmers in Canada who are just as worthy of assistance as the prairie wheat farmers, and who should be given assistance in the same way.
Perhaps the minister has already given this question some thought, but I would again draw to his attention the serious losses which have been incurred by these people over the last few years and in respect of which no assistance has so far been received from the federal government. I seriously think this act should be made an all-Canadian act, one which would be fair to all producers and growers, which would reach out and cover all farmers and, in particular, those of my own district, who need the services this measure provides to rescue them from the depression which now confronts them.
I earnestly ask the minister to give this question his consideration. I know it cannot be done at this time, and I know, also, that he is fully aware of the bad situation which now exists, particularly in my riding. But I do ask him to give consideration to enlarging the scope of the act to extend it more liberally to all the farmers in Canada, and not to confine it to one preferred group. The taxes that are used to pay these benefits are raised from all over Canada. The benefits should also be general, and no farmer should be left out.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, there are some remarks I should like to make, and one or two questions I would like to put to the minister. I wonder if the minister would inform the committee whether or not it is the intention of the government that the provisions of the new bill should apply to


any crop failure areas on account of the 1956 crop. This is the same fiscal year as that in which the crop failure has taken place, and I wonder if the benefits of the act are to be made retroactive to cover last year's crop failures or whether they are to come into effect only with respect to any crop failure that may take place in 1957.


James Garfield Gardiner: The policy being followed
is the same as has been followed previously when amendments have been made to the act. The amendments will be put into effect on the 1st day of August, 1957.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, there has been a good deal of discussion today on the question of crop insurance, and as many hon. members have pointed out, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is not, generally speaking, considered to be a crop insurance act in the ordinary sense of the word. However, the act that is presently in force, even with the amendments proposed by the minister, will not be adequate to meet the very high cost of farming at the present time. I believe a good case can be made out for a crop insurance plan that would apply to specialized crop areas in this country. I agree with those who have said that the time has arrived when the government should consider legislation to help fruit producers, tobacco growers and other farmers engaged in the production of specialized crops whenever they experience crop failure.
The United States has had a great deal of experience with regard to crop insurance, and I believe there is much we could gain from a study of that experience. In order to provide a crop insurance scheme the United States first of all set up a crown corporation. The history of this country shows that private enterprise finds it impossible to engage in crop insurance, the main reason being that agricultural producers are unable to pay the very high premiums that would be necessary to make such projects actuarially sound and provide profits from such an undertaking. Nevertheless, I feel that the benefits which would flow from such an act should influence the government to provide a crop insurance scheme.
The minister said this afternoon that when he had the bill before a Senate committee- I believe he said it was in 1939-Senator Arthur Meighen expressed certain opinions as to the legality or otherwise of crop insurance if such a measure were enacted by the federal government. I sent for the minutes of that committee meeting because I was interested in finding out what the senator had said as to the constitutionality of the

matter, but the word I got back from the parliamentary library was that there were no minutes of that committee.
So the minister is relying on his memory as to what Senator Arthur Meighen said. I have read the reports made in connection with crop insurance by R. E. Motherwell and by the Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life, and I have not seen any suggestion that the constitution stands in the way of the federal government embarking on a system of crop insurance.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that this question was discussed in the Quebec legislature within, I think, the last month, and the opinion was expressed very definitely there that cases had been decided on the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: In spite of any comments the minister may make at this time I am not convinced that crop insurance schemes are not perfectly within the jurisdiction of the federal government if it should wish to undertake such a program. With regard to many other things the government has done in the past we have heard the same old excuse used many times, the excuse that, after all, certain matters were the responsibility of the provincial governments, and the federal government could not undertake them. We have heard this excuse given in the past with regard to unemployment insurance, with regard to old age pensions, with regard to family allowances, with regard to the Canada Council, with regard to federal aid to university education, and so on. Every year the list grows longer of things the government has said in the past to be unconstitutional but which at some later stage the government has found to be constitutional.
Only last year, in this connection, we were given an opinion by a deputy minister that it was within federal competence to legislate on and control the interest rates and charges made by companies carrying on instalment credit business. The same thing will apply to this question of crop insurance. In the past the government has always said that it was not within federal competence to enact such measures. However, I believe that if the minister and his colleagues wished to set up a system of crop insurance the chances are that they would be able to find eminent constitutional authorities, probably within the government's own service, who would furnish written opinions that such a program was, in fact, constitutional.
Certainly I can see no reason why a federal crown corporation could not engage in crop insurance if the government provided for
Prairie Farm Assistance Act such a corporation to be set up and, in addition, as the hon. member for Acadia has suggested, provided some federal money to enable such a corporation to undertake what is, in fact, a very risky business.
In this connection, the Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life, to which the minister applied the term "an excellent report" this afternoon, states on page 20 that the minister himself, back in 1939, suggested that within the Prairie Farm Assistance Act there was a very definite measure of insurance. They report him, from page 20 of Hansard, as follows:
They say that in the whole history of the organizations they have been advocating crop insurance and have insisted at all times that the farmer himself should make some payment toward it. I believe it would be a mistake to do away with this feature of the legislation. It establishes one of the main features of what will be in the future an insurance plan.
So the minister, I take it from that quotation made in 1939, was stating it as his opinion that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would, in the years ahead, develop an insurance feature and would in fact become an insurance plan.


James Garfield Gardiner: We were only discussing the levy at that time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes. The Saskatchewan royal commission points out that there is no experience in this field and no sufficiently detailed records in this country to decide whether or not a crop insurance scheme would in fact be practical. They point out that in some of the very high risk areas the chances are that the premium would be so high that a crop insurance plan would never in fact be practical. They do say there are large areas of western Canada where in all probability crop insurance can be made a practical thing. I imagine that large areas of the province of Manitoba and the whole northeastern section of Saskatchewan would constitute areas in which a crop insurance plan might in fact be operative on a paying basis.
The main recommendation of the Saskatchewan royal commission is that a crop insurance experiment should be conducted within a limited area, and they say the people who should be involved in such an experiment are the federal government. Recommendation No. 1 on page 99 of their report reads as follows:
That an experimental crop insurance program be launched in Saskatchewan as a program complementary to, but separate from, the present Prairie Farm Assistance Act program; and that an intensive effort be made to find means to extend the experimental program to representative areas in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
If the minister were to follow the recommendation of the Saskatchewan royal commission in this regard, a federal crown corporation would perhaps be set up as the best administrative body to set aside certain areas in western Canada within which crop insurance would be undertaken. The royal commission is very strongly of the opinion that such an experiment should be conducted in a limited way in order to gain firsthand information with respect to whether a crop insurance scheme can be made practical, and they believe that with the information so obtained the chances are that over the greater part of the prairie area crop insurance could in fact be made operative.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been in effect since 1939, and there is no question but that it has brought great benefit to the prairie producers. It is an act they all support. It is something they hope the government will continue and expand, but many of them wonder in what direction the government is in fact travelling. Back in 1939 when the legislation was introduced there was a maximum payment of $500 and a minimum comparable payment of $300, plus an additional category that does not apply at this time. Since 1939 there have been tremendous increases in the farmer's cost of production. The minister's own department has published an index in the Economic Annalist based on 1935-39 costs equalling 100. According to the index the cost of production has increased two and a half times since 1939. As a matter of fact, in 1939 the index stood at 99.3 and the latest cost of production index figure is 254.3. Therefore the farmer's cost of production has increased two and a half times within that period.
Anyone who is acquainted at all with the costs of the things farmers have to buy can understand now how this situation has been brought about. One could buy a new one-ton truck in 1939 for $1,000, but a similar truck today would cost approximately $3,000. The best combine that could be purchased in 1939 could be obtained for approximately $2,000. The best combine today costs some $7,000. Therefore the value of the legislation in relation to the farmer's cost of production has gone down very substantially since 1939.
When the suggested amendments become law, if the government does not increase the payments beyond the forecast made this afternoon the value of the new schedule of prairie farm assistance payments for 1957 will be substantially less in purchasing power than the payments of 1939. Notwithstanding the fact that the government has waited 18 years to increase the dollar value of prairie farm assistance payments, the government is


not increasing them by an amount that will restore their value. The government has allowed inflation to chisel away a great part of the purchasing power of prairie farm assistance payments.
I have some figures here on the increased cost of production and the way the value of prairie farm assistance has gone down almost every year since 1939. The government's bill had scarcely been passed in 1939 when the increasing cost of production began to eat away the value of the payments. In 1940, the first year following the passing of the act, the cost of production index rose from 99.3 to 106.8 and the value of the maximum payment under prairie farm assistance dropped in that one year by $35. The next year the cost of production index went up another 10 points and the value of prairie farm assistance dropped $37. The next year the purchasing power went down another $51, and the next year it dropped a further $31. In 1944 it dropped another $11 and in 1945 another $9. In 1946 the value went down $10. In 1947 the cost of production again increased and the purchasing power of this assistance went down another $25. In 1948 it dropped $39, in 1949 another $9, in 1950 a further $7, in 1951 another $20, and in 1952 a further $12. In 1953 there was a small gain of $3 and in 1954 a gain of $1. In 1955 there was a drop of $1, and in 1956, with inflation running wild again, there was a drop of an additional $19.
On the basis of the minister's own cost of production index, in terms of 1939 dollars the $500 maximum prairie farm assistance payment has dropped to $188. What do the government propose to do? They propose to increase the maximum payment per acre from $2.50 to $4 and the maximum total payment from $500 to $800. But $800 today in terms of 1939 purchasing power is only worth $312. Therefore on the basis of the minister's increased payments the new value today is substantially less than it was in 1939. If the minister merely restored the 1939 purchasing power to the maximum prairie farm assistance payment, then according to his own cost of production index the payment would have to be increased from $500 to $1,280, not merely to $800.
So the minister would need to add another $480 to the amount he has presented to the house for prairie farm assistance in 1957 to be worth as much as it was worth in 1939.
With regard to the smaller category, the $300 payment would have to be increased to $760, but the minister is increasing the payment to only $400. Therefore on the basis of his announcement the new rate of payment in the zero to three bushel category will be $360 short of its purchasing power in 1939.

I hope the government will reconsider its proposals. Certainly the very least the government should do is restore the value of prairie farm assistance so the act will be as valuable to the producer as it was in 1939. As a matter of fact, if equity were to be brought to the agricultural industry there should be a much larger increase.
The other day in this house the Prime Minister told us that in order to give to a group of teachers today a salary sufficiently large to take care of the increased cost of living since 1938, and to allow teachers to share in the general increase in production in this country, their salaries would have to be at a level 3i times that of 1938. I suggest to the government that if they were to restore the value of prairie farm assistance and, in addition, were to allow the farmers to gain by the general increase in wealth production in this country, prairie farm assistance should be increased by 3J times over the 1939 level. Instead of introducing a bill to bring about a maximum payment of $800, on that basis it should be $1,750. For the lower payment, instead of being $400 it should be increased to $1,050.
The prairie producers have waited 18 years in order to get from the minister an announcement that, as far as prairie farm assistance is concerned, even with these improvements their position will be worse than it was in 1939. Even with these amendments the purchasing power of the new prairie farm assistance payment will be down about 40 per cent from that of 1939. If this country should have the misfortune of having this government in power for a great many years to come, if they stayed as a government for another 18 years and did with prairie farm assistance what they have done with it in the last 18 years, the producers would then find that the value of the maximum $500 payment of 1939 had become only $193; and if the government should be able to last an additional 18 years, then on the basis of their past 18-year record the $500 value of the 1939 prairie farm assistance payment would be $120.
Is that progress? Is that the best this government can do? Even with the suggestions the minister has made-even when they become law-after prairie farm assistance has been increased the purchasing power will be almost 40 per cent less than it was in 1939. I suggest that as far as prairie farm assistance is concerned the farmer's position in 1939 was not good, and that the $500 payment in 1939 was not enough. I cannot understand why an administration that keeps referring to the great production of the country, the increasing gross national product, should
Prairie Farm Assistance Act say to almost 200,000 producers on the prairies, "As far as prairie farm assistance is concerned we are not going to allow you to have even the same low standard you had in 1939." What they are saying is that after 18 years in office, after bringing forth all the amendments they could consider within an 18-year period, the producers will have to take 40 per cent less in terms of purchasing power than the 1939 prairie farm assistance.
There are other reasons why the assistance should be increased. The price of a bushel of wheat has gone up about 2J times since 1939. I refer to the farm price of high-grade wheat. Therefore the 1 per cent levy has gone up by a similar amount. Hence there are more dollars coming into the fund. There are more dollars coming in because the production has been higher.
In addition to that-and this is something the government has apparently overlooked and I do not believe any other hon. member has yet referred to it-there are fewer farmers on the prairies now than there were in 1939. Hence in any time of widespread crop failure the number of producers who might obtain payments is going down substantially. The 1941 census, which was taken two years after the act went into effect, showed approximately 316,000 producers on the prairies. By 1951 the number of producers had fallen to 248,000, a drop of almost 25 per cent. So now when there is a crop failure there are 25 per cent fewer producers who can obtain prairie farm assistance.
It is true that farms are increasing in size and that fact, to some extent, will compensate for the reduced numbers. But the net effect of the dwindling farm population is to reduce the amount of money paid out in any crop failure year. If figures were available as to the number of producers on the prairies I imagine one would find that since this act first went into effect the number of producers has dropped by at least one-third.
So because of the decreasing value of the payment through the decreasing purchasing power of the dollar; because of the increased contribution by the producers resulting from the increased price of wheat; because there are fewer producers on the prairies than there were in 1939, for all these reasons I suggest that the minister should have further consultation with the cabinet between now and the time the bill is printed and distributed, in order that he may bring in a bill that will restore the value of prairie farm assistance and allow the farmers to share in the growing production of this country.
I placed on the order paper this session a resolution asking that prairie farm assistance be doubled. In that resolution I did not

Prairie Farm Assistance Act go as far as I have gone this evening. In looking over the statements I have made on prairie farm assistance over the years I find that in 1945 I advocated that the payment be $6 per acre. After the government said no to such a proposal year after year I felt that perhaps I should reduce my demand in the hope that the government would move in that direction. So this year I placed on the order paper a resolution asking that prairie farm assistance be doubled. If that were done it would not fully restore the value of prairie farm assistance, it would not in any way allow the farmers to obtain any share of the growing wealth production of this country, but it would certainly be a vast improvement over the suggestions the government has made.
In addition to asking that greater payments be made, I believe there are some other amendments the government should consider. The minister knows very well that under the definitions certain people who paid into the prairie farm assistance fund are unable to obtain awards. The government says that unless a person who is farming has that as his major occupation he is unable to participate in the prairie farm assistance fund. I fully realize the thinking of the government behind that provision, namely that they do not want the public treasury to bonus people who are not full-time farmers and who, perhaps, do not need this additional money.
But it seems to me that with certain changes in farming taking place over the years, the government should take a look at that policy today. I am sure the minister knows, as I know, that there are a great many farmers today who have had to accept some other occupations. They carry on two occupations at the same time, and on the basis of the income they receive farming is a minor occupation, even though the total income they receive from both occupations may not be high. Such a person, even though he contributes to the fund, is not allowed to receive payments.
I know many people in this category, but I have in mind a school teacher by the name of Zach Geib who lived in my little hamlet of Kayville, Sask. and who has quite a large family. He decided to rent a half section of land. He was unfortunate enough to have a crop failure so naturally he applied for prairie farm assistance. He was turned down on the ground that his main occupation was that of school teacher. He paid into the fund, but he was not able to receive any benefits from it. He has decided, therefore, that he cannot afford to stay on the farm and he cannot afford to remain in the teaching


profession, because he is unable to maintain his family on this relatively small income.
Basically I do not think there is anything wrong with having quite a large number of persons on the prairies who engage in farming, but not as their full-time occupation. As I have thought of this problem over the years, it has seemed to me to be basically unjust, basically undemocratic, that you should force a group of people, year after year, to pay into a fund from which, by law, you prevent them receiving any benefit. Some farmers have been paying into the fund for many years, but by law they are prevented from receiving any payments from the fund at a time of crop failure.
I suggest to the minister he might have a look at that regulation, to see whether or not it might be liberalized so that a larger number of persons who are actually farming, who are doing the work themselves, who are paying all their expenses and contributing to the fund, may have an opportunity in time of crop failure of receiving payments from that fund.
I am very pleased that the minister has announced that the bill will be referred to the agriculture committee. A few years ago the minister announced in this house the provisions of a bill under which very substantial areas of crown land on the prairies were to be taken out of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act so far as payments were concerned. This bill went to the agriculture committee and, because of the opinions expressed in that committee, the bill was redrafted and large sections of crown land which had been removed from the application of the act were replaced under it.
I believe the minister now should go the whole way and return to the act all crown land, particularly crown lands that have been sold since 1940; land that is good arable land and which no one says should not be in the production of crops. I think people who farm that kind of land or land that was obtained that way are in the same category as the school teacher I have described. They are forced by law to pay into the fund and therefore should be allowed, in certain circumstances, to receive benefits in the same way any other farmer may.
The people on the prairies believe the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is a good act. They think it is helpful, and they are hopeful that the government may be able to further amend the proposed bill so the value of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in 1957 may be raised at least to the level of 1939.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I think the resolution under discussion is particularly important, because it could form the nucleus of

much-needed crop insurance legislation. I say this because the farm organizations in Canada have envisaged the adoption by a government of this country of an agricultural policy. We in this group have pressed for the adoption of an agricultural policy, but the government has continuously ignored our requests. I bring this point out to keep the matter in its proper perspective because after all, Mr. Chairman, the P.F.A.A. is intended as a relief measure to help those who are unable to make a livelihood as the result of a disaster of nature. We call it the dried out bonus in my area of Saskatchewan, but it has been extended to cover other things such as hail or flood or other causes of crop losses.
I do not think we want to look on this P.F.A.A. as a measure to make up for the shortcomings of the government in not introducing an agricultural policy. It has been pointed out by members in this debate that the amount paid under P.F.A.A. is really very small indeed. In introducing the measure the Minister of Agriculture stated that its function was to allow the farmer to pay for groceries. I do not know at what store the minister is buying his groceries, nor do I know the size of his family, but the $500 which the act presently provides would not buy many groceries, nor would the $800 that the amendment will provide. I would relate this to the position of the old age pensioner who, as has been pointed out in the house, cannot possibly survive on a pension of $40 per month or $480 per year. Then how could we expect a man with a family to pay for groceries and pay some of his other expenses with $800 a year?
As the hon. member for Assiniboia has pointed out, the inflationary trend which this government has nurtured has robbed the farmer of the benefits he would get under the act. Coming back to my point of relating it to agricultural policy, I think if we get to the stage where we have a government in power that is dedicated to the welfare of the people of Canada, one that will introduce a comprehensive agricultural policy based on the recommendations of farm organizations, an agricultural policy that will guarantee a reasonable standard of living and will give the family farm a parity of income with other occupations, our need for P.F.A.A. as such will be diminished.
I say it will be diminished, because under an agricultural program which would give security to the livestock man, the poultry producer and the fruit grower, as my friend the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary pointed out, there would be less necessity for him to depend on the one-crop basis. The 82715-92
Prairie Farm Assistance Act areas in western Canada that have received the crop failure bonus are those areas which in all probability should be devoted to ranching or diversified farming.
If this is true, and if the government introduced the kind of agricultural policy it should introduce, a farmer would not be trying to grow wheat on land which is really suited for ranching or some other function. As it presently is, with the guarantee of price under the Canadian wheat board, we find that the farmer has some security for his produce. He knows what he is going to receive in the crop year. The same cannot be said of many aspects of the agricultural industry.
The minister might point out that there are floor prices under eggs and hogs, but those floor prices have no relationship to the cost of production. They are put on an ad hoc basis, just slipped in under the market price, and I suspect that if the market prices slipped down the floor prices would slip down right on top of them. We do not really have the security which would allow a farmer to organize an enterprise on an efficient basis.
The minister has stated that he has been a very strong advocate of the South Saskatchewan river irrigation project. I would point out that an irrigation project such as this, which has been requested for the last 30 years by the farmers of Saskatchewan, would do a great deal to reduce the expenditures of the prairie farm assistance administration, because it would remove a vast area of land from the risky business of wheat production and transform it into an irrigated area.
The same is certainly true in other areas, as the hon. member for Acadia pointed out, areas which should be diversified and should have their production base broadened so they can be taken out of the risky field of grain production. The purpose of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be to provide a nucleus for this over-all system of crop insurance which should accompany an agricultural policy. If you have an agricultural policy on a nation-wide basis the one factor that will be missing will be security in case of crop failure or disaster. The P.F.A.A. could certainly provide the nucleus for legislation which would complement an agricultural policy. It should be extended to all areas, so that if through disaster a farmer suffered financial hardship he would be buttressed by the crop insurance program, which would provide him with a reasonable standard of living or at least allow him to meet expenses during such trying times. I am certain that such a scheme would be readily acceptable to all parts of the economy.
Certain objections which have been voiced to the P.F.A.A. are based on the participation
145Q

Prairie Farm, Assistance Act of farmers through the contributions they make, with a limited opportunity of receiving any benefit from it. A nation-wide crop insurance program would certainly remove this criticism. Until the government sees fit to introduce an over-all agricultural policy which would take advantage of the survey of land use that is currently being made in the other place, we have to content ourselves with the legislation that is presently on the books. It is good legislation and well meaning, but as I have pointed out we should not try to have the P.F.A.A. take the place of an agricultural policy. The P.F.A.A. is emergency assistance. Let us therefore try to expand the P.F.A.A. so it will play an effective role in providing crop insurance. Let us follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, who said we should make certain that the payments made under P.F.A.A. are sufficient to meet the needs.
In view of the extremely low quotas in certain points of western Canada I sometimes think P.F.A.A. payments should be made to farmers who are unable to market their quotas. I say that in a rather jocular vein because that is not the purpose of the act, but it is based on the principle of providing stop-gap assistance to those who are not in a position to assist themselves. Consideration should be given to enlarging the application of the act, which should be on an individual basis.
I realize the administrative difficulties involved in that but if we are going to look to the P.F.A.A. as a means of providing assistance to unfortunate farmers who are suffering crop failure or disaster through no fault of their own, the act must be extended on an individual basis. It is small comfort to a man to be living just outside of a township that qualifies, when he has been wiped out by the same hail storm that enabled the township to qualify. It is small comfort indeed for him to have his crop completely wiped out, when he realizes that there are some individuals in the township who reap some benefit and who qualified by virtue of the whole township qualifying. Those are the factors that will create dissension among farmers in the operation of the act, and these problems will be resolved only when the act is put on an individual basis which will take care of such situations.
I do not think I need to say anything more. The government should be well aware of the need for an agricultural policy. We in this group have certainly expressed that view on many occasions, and farm organizations in presenting their briefs to the government have stated a similar opinion on numerous occasions. The government should be convinced

of the need for an over-all agricultural policy, but perhaps it is because they lack the ability to plan and arrange our economy for the benefit of all-


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have been wondering for some time how long my hon. friend was going to speak about agricultural policy. The P.F.A.A. is only a small part of the agricultural policy we have in Canada, and I do not think this is the place to discuss our general agricultural policy. We have spent over $1 billion over the years on agriculture, and at this time we are talking about only a relatively small aspect of that policy.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I notice that the minister is only too anxious with your assistance to divert my remarks from a discussion of the agricultural policy followed by this government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do they have one?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of my attempting to divert the hon. gentleman from a discussion of the agricultural policy of this government. It is a question of whether he is in order under the rules in discussing agricultural policies in general at this time. At this moment we should be discussing the P.F.A.A., not our agricultural policy in general.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out in my introductory remarks, crop insurance and the P.F.A.A. are part and parcel of an agricultural policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: But we are not even discussing crop insurance. We are discussing the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I realize that the minister likes to describe this as something to pay the grocery bill, but I am trying to impress upon him the need for making this into legislation that will take care of the factor mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia, who said that when you pay out money you should pay enough to be of some value. As we progress we have to set our eyes on the future. We have to think in terms of expanding the provisions of the P.F.A.A. to include a crop insurance program which will fit in with a comprehensive agricultural program, not a piecemeal one such as the government has with a little crop assistance here and a small support price there which they remove at will.
It should be a real agricultural program intended to provide security for the family farm. We have only to look at the statistics to see that the number of people employed in agriculture is declining, and that for the

past few years agricultural income has been in jeopardy. That is admitted by the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, in a very short time, probably within a few days, we will be discussing my estimates and the whole agricultural policy will be up for discussion. My hon, friend is putting himself in the position where under a ruling given today by Mr. Speaker he will be entirely out of order when he starts to discuss this question on another occasion during this session. I do not think we should go on with a discussion of this kind and take up the time of the committee.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I have listened to both hon. members, and I confess I have some sympathy with the hon. member for Kinder-sley, who has the floor. I do not think he is going beyond the rules of the house when he indicates that a measure proposed by the government does not go as far as he thinks it should. I take it that would be a perfectly fair argument. But if he uses that statement on which to hang criticism of the whole agricultural policy of the government, then the government would have the right to reply to his accusations and that would take the debate far beyond the scope of the short resolution now before us. I think with that in mind the hon. member for Kindersley should carry on.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have tried to keep within the confines of the resolution, and I was quite convinced that all along I was correct. I am glad to hear you substantiate my claim in spite of the assertions of the Minister of Agriculture. I have nearly completed my remarks, in fact I probably would have completed them if it had not been for the interruption by the minister. Since the minister insists, I want to go into some details of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and bring to mind a few instances which have occurred and which should be brought to the attention of the minister.
The instances I have in mind are similar to the one referred to by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I refer to farmers who have other occupations and who are denied even a small token payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act because it is ruled by officials of the P.F.A.A. that they are not in fact farmers. If we were to take the definition of "farmer" in the trade and commerce statistics we would have a very good base with which the minister could not argue. Perhaps I am being a bit facetious, because the interpretation of "farmer" should be one who applies himself to farming and
Prairie Farm Assistance Act who gets a significant portion of his income from farming. But I do not think we should be so rigid as to disqualify a man because he finds it necessary to have another occupation in order to augment his income because of the low agricultural prices and the price-cost squeeze.
I think we should get on with this resolution in order to give the minister lots of time to bring in his estimates, when I can assure him this whole matter will be brought up again for discussion in the event that it is not fully discussed during the stages of the bill. In conclusion may I say that the government is to be commended to some extent for finally having taken this step to bring the P.F.A.A. in line with the increasing costs we are experiencing. Other recommendations have been made by my colleagues to which I would like the government to give consideration. I should like the government to give consideration to the complementary nature of the P.F.A.A. and the Canadian agricultural policy.


Mr. Sluder:: Mr. Chairman, if the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is of interest to other parts of the country, it is certainly of great interest to the constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek. The statistics with regard to what has been paid out under the P.F.A.A. since 1939-incidentally this was the same year that crop insurance became operative in the United States-indicate that a total of $128,212,000 was paid out in Saskatchewan, and of that amount $24,912,000 was paid to the farmers of Swift Current-Maple Creek. That was more than the amount paid out to any other constituency or area in Saskatchewan. That constituency is in the southwestern part of the province.
Before I make any further comments may I say that I sympathize with the plight of the teacher referred to by the hon. member for Assiniboia. It was suggested that such persons should be eligible for crop failure payments because they contribute to the act. It just occurs to me that teachers in Saskatchewan must be in a real plight when they have no other recourse than to go into farming in order to augment the remuneration they receive from the province for practising their profession. If they are in a plight in that profession and go into farming they automatically face more difficulty, because as the hon. member has said time and time again we also go broke in farming. So that particular teacher and others would certainly be in a bad way if they endeavoured to correct their condition by going into farming,


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the hon. member permit a question?	\

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Irvin William Studer: Two or three or half a dozen.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the hon. member in favour of continuing the provision which prevents school teachers, storekeepers, garage operators or anyone else from obtaining prairie farm assistance?


Irvin William Studer: I think the answer will be found in the hon. member's own words. He said these individuals are compelled to make these payments, but I would like to remind him that they are not compelled to come under that system. If they have one profession they are not compelled to go into another. I suggest to the hon. member that he have a heart to heart talk with the department of education in Saskatchewan and have them pay their teachers sufficient so they will not need to enter another occupation where they are subject to deductions.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Since when
has the department of education in Saskatchewan paid the salaries of teachers?


Irvin William Studer: Formerly the Liberal government of Saskatchewan was blamed for the plight of the teacher, and I hope the situation has been corrected; but in any event the present government are responsible for the situation and if they are calling for federal assistance to help education they should take some of the federal assistance provided under the dominion-provincial agreement and pay it to the school boards so they in turn can pay it to their teachers.
We are talking about the P.F.A.A. and its value to the country. I know of no government that has taken the initiative to the extent this government has to provide for those years when assistance is required. There are areas in Saskatchewan and other provinces where the amount of rainfall is limited. The figures show that from 1885 to 1955, a period of 70 years, the average rainfall during the autumn and growing season in Saskatchewan was 11.33 inches. While the over-all picture shows 11.33 inches of rainfall in southwestern Saskatchewan it is considerably lower than that, and the seasonal rainfall is just enough to keep the grass alive, just enough to sustain life in the soil, or about 7 inches. So the growth has to be produced with the help of this rainfall of 7 inches and whatever additional rainfall is supplied.
In the light of the experiences of the 1930's, the government decided to introduce the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, having in mind that during that period of years not only the federal government but the provincial governments and the municipalities were having to expend large sums in relief. Since the P.F.A.A. was originated I think
fMr. Argue.]
very little relief has been paid out by any of the provinces which have received this form of aid. And when we discuss the deduction of 1 per cent, or whatever it will be, as the farmers' contribution thereto, I think the provinces should give consideration to what it formerly cost them, and what it would be costing them throughout the years if the P.F.A.A. were not in existence.
All of us remember those years on relief. Crop insurance and P.F.A.A. and crop failure assistance are very much in the minds of every one of us in the southwestern portions of the province. Thus we are naturally interested in crop insurance in the United States or wherever else it may be in operation. Even to this day, however, if my figures are correct, only between 20 and 25 per cent of the people who are eligible for coverage in the United States are, in fact, protected by this crop insurance policy.
In practice there are limitations to the effectiveness of such a scheme. Where the need is greatest, people are not in a position to pay the premiums required. An eligible farmer who is in a position to take advantage of crop insurance can benefit thereby, it is true, but there are too many situations in which farmers are not eligible because they live in areas where the risks are too great. Their applications are rejected because high risks are not eligible for participation.
Below me, in Montana, the scheme operates on a basis of 12 counties in the way such a scheme might be operated on the basis of municipalities in Canada. Counties which have a low yield are eliminated. Applications for coverage are screened in two operations. First of all the land in respect of which an application is made is classified. If the land is very poor and has a record of crop failure, the application is rejected. Second, the record of the individual farmer is examined. Those who are considered to be poor risks are declared ineligible for participation. The result is that over 5 per cent of the farmers in 810 counties in the U. S. are not eligible for insurance.
There is no eligibility qualification under the P.F.A.A. There is no distinction as between farmers, and there is no distinction as between land. So it would appear to me that though a crop insurance program would be more favourable, no method has yet been devised whereby it could be made applicable to as great a number of farmers as P.F.A.A.
Again, crop insurance operates in the United States not by way of ensuring a profit to an individual farmer but merely on a sustaining basis with regard to the crop

that is necessary to maintain him. That is the amount for which he can insure. As I say, the system has its limitations. It requires investigation and study, and in the meantime we have the best system here that has yet been devised in any country in the world to sustain us until such time as a better system, or a real system of crop insurance, can be instituted.
There has been some question in the minds of some of the provinces-perhaps Manitoba can be mentioned-as to whether they are satisfied with the situation, inasmuch as some people claim that they are paying more toward the P.F.A.A. than they have received in crop failure payments. I would remind them that they have other compensations to which they should give a little consideration. They should remember that the bulk of our wheat is sold on the markets of the world and commands a premium because it has a high protein content.
In the United States, farmers who grow high protein wheat receive benefits for doing so. If they have more than 16 per cent of protein in their wheat they are eligible for a 40 cent premium in the mills of Minneapolis and elsewhere. In the southwestern part of our province and in other areas of Saskatchewan we grow a wheat with a high protein content. We normally do that, and that affects the price which all farmers in western Canada receive for their wheat, because an individual who grows a wheat of high protein content receives no greater benefit from it than an individual who grows a wheat of lower protein content. I think that latter situation is more prevalent in Manitoba than elsewhere, so the farmers in Manitoba receive some benefit which would not be theirs if, as a result of the elimination of the P.F.A.A., the farmers who grow high protein content wheat demanded that they should receive compensation in respect of the higher quality wheat which they produce.
As I say, factors like this enter into the situation. I think it should also be taken into consideration that relief payments by the provinces have been practically eliminated as a result of the payment of millions of dollars into those areas through the P.F.A.A. There has been some discussion today with regard to government insurance and the extent to which it is applicable to the provinces, and some have advocated that the P.F.A.A. be on an individual basis.
I agree we could originate a policy along these lines and yet not interfere with the situation, and I would suggest that if the province of Saskatchewan, which has had the burden of relief lifted from it for so many years, would contribute an additional dollar an acre
Prairie Farm Assistance Act on land in the lower category of P.F.A.A. payments and a smaller amount in the other categories, that would automatically put them into the crop insurance business.
Perhaps, as a result, a method could be devised more suitable to the situation, something which would be more acceptable to the people in that area. For example, payments would not be in the form of compensation as relief but, rather, in the form of a subvention which would enable them to extend or continue their operations without having to offset the expenses of one year against the hope of a crop in the following year.
We know the value of the dollar is not the same as it was in 1939. We have heard it said by hon. members on my left time and time again that the present-day value is only 60 cents, or 40 cents, or whatever value they may choose to place on it. I have here the minutes of a meeting which was held in southwestern Saskatchewan on November 28, 1949. That was a year of crop failure, and the farmers held mass meetings at that time. Many hon. members will remember them. The preamble to one of the resolutions moved to urge an increase in crop failure payments reads:
Whereas the purchasing power of the dollar is only one-third of what it was in 1939-
If that preamble is right; if it is correct that in 1949 the dollar was only worth one-third of what it was worth in 1939, then the value of the dollar must be increasing, because I have not heard anyone in these later days say that the dollar is only worth one-third of what it was in 1939. It has been pointed out that the purchasing power of the dollar is not so great and that crop failure payments should increase with the growth in wealth of the people of Canada.
Having regard to the financial position of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the fact that they are now receiving $30 million to $33 million under dominion-provincial agreements and other benefits from the federal government that are increasing each year, I think those provinces could give some consideration to the farmers and contribute that one additional dollar or more if they wished. I believe they would be opening the door or putting the foot in the door to further association under agreements between the federal and provincial governments, and would be contributing to a more stable situation and a better method of keeping the farmers operating, because that is all this assistance does at the present time, if it goes that far. They would be contributing to a more beneficial situation in southwestern Saskatchewan and all the other areas where the farmers from time to time have to fall

Prairie Farm Assistance Act back upon the federal government and other governments to assist them in periods of adversity.
Together with other hon. members I should like to commend the government for this great step forward. I hope we will never lessen our initiative and our efforts to place the farmers of western Canada in a position so that when difficulties surround them they will know their governments are ready and willing to come to their rescue.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed fortunate that this legislation should come before the house at a time when so many representatives of the prairie farmers happen to be in the capital. While recognizing the drawbacks that are inherent in any such scheme, I should merely like to draw the attention of the minister to certain things and ask him to comment on what steps the government may intend to take to provide a similar plan of assistance for the farmers of the maritime provinces.
Our farmers have to compete with United States products. United States turkeys, for instance, are selling in Campbellton, New Brunswick, much cheaper than Canadian turkeys can be produced and sold. United States potatoes are being brought into New Brunswick under a protective tariff system and being shipped to Montreal with the benefit of preferred freight rates for a much lower cost than in the case of our own potatoes. While our farmers cannot sell their milk, we are importing into New Brunswick 1,500 carloads of milk a year.
I wish to draw the attention of the minister to these problems, and I will have occasion to do so more particularly in the future. I request in all sincerity that steps be taken by the government to provide for the maritime farmer the same advantages the government provides for farmers in the western provinces. I realize that in the past the agricultural policy of the government has been in many cases to favour the prairie farmer. I have always felt that under all these schemes the maritime farmer has been neglected. I feel that the minister will be more than anxious to see that steps are taken to put the maritime farmer in the same trading position as the government is placing the western wheat farmer.
It is most discouraging to visit our farms in northern New Brunswick and see that the farmers are unable to sell their potatoes at a price which will compensate them for the cost of growing them. It is most unfortunate and distressing to visit our farms in northern New Brunswick and find the farmers in a position where they cannot sell their dairy products. I think all members from the
[Mr. Studer.l
maritime provinces, regardless of party politics, whether they be Liberal or Conservative, are in agreement and will all agree that the maritime farmer is the forgotten farmer of Canada.
This is an anomaly which should not exist in a country such as Canada. Possibly the reasons for the plight of the maritime farmers go far beyond the limitations the government has set with regard to the measures it may take to help the farmers of the maritime provinces. Nevertheless I believe the minister will agree that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and if in one section of the country we have farmers who are unable to make a living in whatever type of farming they are engaged-and that is the case in northern New Brunswick-I am sure the minister is prepared to take steps to alleviate the condition of the farmers of the maritime provinces.
It is discouraging to see our potato farmers up against a wall for three years in a row and unable to sell their potatoes at a price that will permit them to buy seed for the following year. They must sell at a price which does not permit them to repay their bank loans, and they are having more and more difficulty making such loans, obtained in order to buy seed for the next year's crop. It is discouraging to see our farmers having to kill their cows because they cannot sell the milk. It is discouraging to see how United States farmers just across the border are placed by this very government in a more advantageous position than our own Canadian farmers in northern New Brunswick and the maritime provinces.
I feel that the minister will recognize these problems. They are too serious to joke about. I believe it is not too late for steps to be taken to make sure that the farmer of the maritime provinces is put in the same trading position as the farmer of the west. I realize that the minister may get up and cite chapter and verse going back over many years of history, but the stark fact is that years ago 75 to 100 carloads of potatoes were shipped to Cuba each year; then merely because we put an embargo on their sugar Cuba retaliated by cancelling practically all their orders for New Brunswick potatoes, and now they take from New Brunswick farmers less than one carload of potatoes a year.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My remarks are almost completed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I have the Prairie Farm Assistance Act before me. I am of the

opinion that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska is perfectly justified in asking that the provisions of that act be extended to his province, but I think I should point out to him that as I read the act it is a crop failure assistance remedy and not a marketing act. Therefore I think he will be going too far if he starts a discussion under this legislation of the marketing policies of the country, duties and so forth, because the act is primarily intended to take care of the farmer who finds himself in difficulties due to crop failure.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you very much. Our problem involves both the reasons you mentioned. We not only have trouble in marketing but we have a great deal of trouble in growing, because our farmers cannot afford to buy the necessary fertilizer with which to grow their crops. I bring these problems to the attention of the minister. I feel that the minister will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves, will give the farmers in the maritime provinces a break, and will treat them with the justice and consideration they merit. If this is done I feel that we can look forward to a better day for the farmers of this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I think you said a few moments ago that I should be permitted to answer some of the things that have been said even if I get out of order in doing so. There are one or two things to which I think I should refer.
In the first place, I quite agree with my hon. friend from the maritimes that he may be a little bit discouraged in listening to what has been said in criticism of the many dollars we are spending in some places, and maybe he is feeling that probably he should raise some criticism because there has not been that much spent in some other direction. But I would call attention to the fact that the amount spent on freight assistance on grain shipped from the prairies east and west-and most of it is east-is almost exactly the same as is spent for prairie farm assistance. That is entirely assistance to persons who are living east of Fort William and west of the mountains. If you want to calculate one thing against the other, I think a very good case can be made out in connection with that kind of thing.
Then I have said in this house on one or two occasions previously-and I repeat it now, and I do not say it by way of criticism of those who received it-that those who have received the highest returns of any farmers in Canada throughout the years are the apple growers of the maritimes. I refer to the return per farmer. No one boasts about that fact. I think it is their due that
Prairie Farm Assistance Act we should assist to take care of their difficulties. The last time we had occasion to do so was when they had 85 per cent of their apples blown off the trees. We assisted them in disposing of the apples or in otherwise getting rid of them.
On one or two occasions I have said that this was the first time I have done anything since I came to Ottawa, or had a part in doing anything since I came to Ottawa, that nobody criticized. The apple growers down in Nova Scotia indicated that they had a very good deal, that they obtained more out of their apple crop than they had expected. Of course one appreciates that kind of comment upon anything that is done. Therefore we have a desire to go to the maritimes whenever we can be of help to them and whenever we are in a position where it is possible for us to be of help; and we go there from time to time.
I refer again to the fact that my estimates will eventually be before the house. I should like to take the question up at that time and indicate that during the 21 years I have been here we have about equally divided the money spent 'among the farmers in the different parts of Canada, whether it is in the maritimes, in the central part of Canada, in western Canada on the prairies or over the mountains in the extreme west. That fact can be very well shown when the occasion presents itself to do so. But I did not think the occasion to do that was on this particular act that we are amending. I shall therefore discontinue doing so.
A moment ago my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia was becoming extremely enthusiastic about an argument he had developed in connection with the fact that the population of Saskatchewan had gone down under a C.C.F. government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: The population of the three prairie provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and that because it has gone down there were not so many people to pay under prairie farm assistance; that there were not so many to pay in or not so many to pay out to. I happen to have the figures before me. I do not think I will divide them up into provinces, because I would be obliged to give three columns. The same thing applies pretty much no matter which province you are dealing with. The total number of farmers who received payments in the three provinces in 1939, the first year, was 58,000. That is in round figures. In the next years it was 51,000, 84,000, 34,000, 21,000, 62,000,
47,000,	75,000, 61,000, 85,000, 57,000, 25,000, 9,600, 16,300; and then the highest figure of

Prairie Farm Assistance Act all, 154,000 were paid in 1954. Apparently either there are more people-though if you follow the argument of my hon. friend it would mean that you would have fewer and fewer people getting payments if the population was going down-more of those who are there are being paid. That is the highest figure we have ever had, that figure of
154,000.	Then we drop down to 32,000 in the year 1955.
So it is not so much a question of how many people there are out there at the moment as it is of how many payments are being made. The payments are being made largely in the areas where there is drought from time to time; at other times there is hail, and at other times there is rust. Even in the last few years we have been covering losses of crop through flooding. So the figures fairly well indicate that we have been taking care of just as many people over the years in any one group of years, any four or five years, as we have in any other.
Certain suggestions have been made that we should have crop insurance, and an attempt has been made in the Saskatchewan report to indicate that I have always thought this was crop insurance and have always called it crop insurance. My friend the hon. member for Assiniboia has even gone so far as to quote from the record as contained in the provincial royal commission's report to suggest that. But I am sure hon. members of the house recall perfectly well that every time I have discussed this question in the house I have argued that it is not crop insurance. I do not think anyone can quote either from Hansard or anywhere else to indicate that I have ever thought it was crop insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are not misquoted in the royal commission report.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not misquoted at all. But if they quoted what precedes and what follows they would find out that what is suggested is not meant by what I said at all. There is plenty of it here. For example, I was quoting in some cases what the present premier of Saskatchewan said while he was in the house. He was making statements that had to do with insurance. For example, I said:
He-
Mr. Douglas.
-has said he can scarcely see why we should consider this a matter of insurance, when we do not provide for crop failures where there happens to be only a small area suffering. One of the reasons for that is that we still believe that the province has some responsibility in connection with a matter of this kind . . .

In other words, I am saying it is not our responsibility to bring in crop insurance but it is the responsibility of the province. That is in 1939. I have never ceased saying that and have never said anything else than that from 1939 until I introduced this measure this afternoon. It has always been the position that this is not crop insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister say from what document he is quoting?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quoting from Hansard of May 9, 1939, page 3795. I also have the quotation my hon. friend recited a few moments ago, the one taken from Hansard.
I do not know that I need to read it to him in order to indicate that I have not advocated this as crop insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: An element of crop insurance.


James Garfield Gardiner: We were discussing the question of the levy. Some questions were asked in the house, and it was intimated that that was something which indicated that there was an element of insurance in it. I simply go on to answer that question by using the same terms that were used by the individual who was making the criticism. But I do not think it is necessary, either in the house or outside of it, for me to try to prove that I have never at any time maintained that this is crop insurance. I certainly have not. I have always maintained that we did not have authority to bring in crop insurance, and we have never attempted to introduce it.
I quite agree with some hon. members that it would be a good thing for Canada if we had crop insurance, but I do not agree with those who say that we can lead in bringing in crop insurance. Every authority I have ever consulted in connection with the matter says we cannot do that. But I do not know that there is anything in the constitution or anywhere else that prevents us assisting some province that does want to bring in insurance. We may be able to consider giving some assistance in connection with it; but to say that under our constitution we can lead in bringing in insurance is contrary to all the advice I have ever had in connection with it.
I think if we want to discuss that question at some other time it is quite proper to do so, but it is not part of this measure. We are not attempting to bring in crop insurance, and we are not attempting to argue against those who think crop insurance would be a good thing. The only question I would raise in connection with what has been said tonight with regard to it has to do with the United States system. There is no one who has ever argued that the United States system would do for our farmers what prairie

farm assistance does. The farmers of the United States do not argue that. As a matter of fact, when they discuss prairie farm assistance and compare it with their own system they indicate they have nothing to compare with our system to take care of farmers who may be suffering from drought conditions or some other condition.
In the United States they simply set up a fund of $100 million which the farmers are supposed to pay back some day. Then a system is set up under which they think the farmers will be able to pay it back. In order to set up that system they do exactly what has been said here tonight by a number of members, they zone the country and say you can have insurance in this area but you cannot have it in that area. They say that very definitely. In other words they take a section of the country in which the farmers can afford to pay for insurance and say all right, you can have it. You only get it if you write it up. You do not get it automatically, as you get the benefits from this measure. An agent comes out and tries to write up the insurance, just the same as they do in this country for hail insurance, fire insurance, life insurance or any other kind of insurance. It is only the farmers who think they can afford to pay the premium who have the insurance.
As I recall the figures in the Saskatchewan report, they indicate that some 26 per cent of the eligible producers in the United States participated. There is a considerable percentage of them not affected by that legislation at all. Most of those just across the line from North Dakota in Saskatchewan would be the people who benefit from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Some of them may be on land that is not quite as good as other land; some of them may have suffered from serious drought conditions; some of them may have suffered from rust, grasshoppers or any of these afflictions that cause loss to farmers. Under this legislation they draw on the fund automatically. It is not a question of having looked into the future and written up an insurance policy, and therefore drawing money. The money is paid to them automatically.
The hon. member for Kindersley was very eloquent in connection with the matter of paying store bills and so on. I would remind him of the fact that the very area from which he comes draws as heavily from this fund as any section in western Canada. The people are in that position because they have been farming land that is comparatively dry. I have been out in that district. I was out there in 1910 when they were homesteading and when you could see the gophers sitting up in the oat crop. Their heads were 82715-93
Prairie Farm Assistance Act higher than the oat crop when it was headed out. It was certainly dry enough that the people wanted to be helped.
Then I was back there later, in 1915, when I saw 130,000 bushels of wheat piled in one heap waiting for an elevator to be built so it could be put in cars and shipped out. I was back again later when the people were back in debt as deeply as they had been when they completed settling on their farms, and they were asking for help in order to get through that difficult period. I was back again last year and saw the wheat piled in the same areas and on the same farms as I saw it piled away back in 1915. This is an area in which they have their ups and downs. They have a drought in one period and good crops in another period, and they try to average it out over the years. This legislation helps them stay there and do that; it helps people of that kind who are spread over a very considerable section of the prairie country to remain and produce.
This is all the legislation is intended to do. It is not intended that it should be crop insurance or settle all the difficulties of the prairie farmers or the farmers in all parts of Canada. We have other methods whereby we do settle a lot of their difficulties. I only want to say that up to now we have spent 10 times more looking after the farmers of Canada than any other government we have had, Liberal or Tory. This is not a bad record for a government that is not supposed to have an agricultural policy at all. We have a pretty fair agricultural policy. The fact is there is not anyone over the last 21 years who has been able to produce a policy that would persuade the people of Canada that they ought to change from this policy. Our policy is fairly good, and it stands up alongside the policies of others.
The hon. member from New Brunswick was talking about conditions in the United States. The price of butter is higher in this country; the price of eggs is higher in this country, and the price of nearly everything is higher in this country. The one thing that is not higher in this country than it is in the United States is wheat, but our wheat sells for a higher price on the market in Liverpool than United States wheat. The same is true of any of the other markets where wheat is sold. We are not so badly off when compared to other people as my friends would have us believe. I do not mean to intimate that the farmers are as well off as they ought to be. However, this act does not make them any worse off, and I urge that the resolution be passed so we can get the legislation introduced.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister would permit a question arising out of his reference to crop insurance. Could he say whether there have been any discussions with the provinces concerning the possibility of amending the British North America Act to make crop insurance possible, similar to what was done with respect to unemployment insurance?


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been discussions, but there has not been anyone who suggested he was very enthusiastic about it. What is more important is that it would be very simple for this act to be supplemented by either crop insurance legislation or by legislation along similar lines in the provinces. No province has undertaken to introduce such legislation. If they did bring it in there would not be any of the criticism my friends are urging in connection with the passing of this bill. I think we need supplementary provincial legislation. If we had it, it would be very helpful.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been looking up the amount of money that is paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I find that in 1940, when the Unemployment Insurance Act became operative, the maximum weekly payment was $14.40. By 1955 the Unemployment Insurance Act had been amended to increase the maximum payment to $30. I am all for the increase, and I think along with the trade unionists that $30 per week is not high enough. It would seem to me that if
the unemployment insurance provisions should be more than doubled since 1940, the suggestion now being made by the minister is very inadequate so far as prairie farm assistance is concerned. I would ask him why the government has not seen fit to increase the maximum prairie farm assistance payments by at least the same proportion that the unemployment insurance payments have been increased over an almost identical period.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be better if we could get the resolution through tonight and I could explain that when we were on the bill. Could we have the resolution passed, get the bill printed and get it before us so we would all know what we are talking about?


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with this debate and then take the second reading of the Senate bill with respect to the Quebec Savings Banks Act; then the resolution in my name with respect to the Municipal Grants Act and the resolution also in my name with respect to the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


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

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

Mr. Quelch: 1.	How many blocks of land were established
under section 6 (1)	(a) of the P.F.A.A. in (a)
1953; (b) 1954; (c) 1955; (d) 1956?
2.	How many blocks of land were established
under section 6 (1)	(b) of the P.F.A.A. in (a)
1953; (b) 1954; (c) 1955; (d) 1956?
3.	What was the amount of the levy collected in
each of the three western provinces in (a) 1950; (b) 1951;	(c)	1952; (d) 1953;	(e)	1954; (f) 1955;
(g) 1956?
4.	How much was paid out to the farmers in
each of the three western provinces in (a) 1950; (b) 1951;	(c)	1952; (d) 1953;	(e)	1954; (f) 1955;
(g) 1956?
Answer	by:	Right Hon.	J.	G. Gardiner
(Minister of Agriculture):
1.	(a) 210 blocks; (b) 495 blocks; (c) 112 blocks; (d) 123 blocks.
2.	(a) 599 blocks; (b) 1,079 blocks; (c) 353 blocks; (d) 165 blocks.
3.	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta$	$	$(a)	1,442,138.08	3,890,444.68	2,001,322.58(b)	1,331,548.73	5,075,404.05	2,560,006.74(c)	1,423,916.39	6,370,894.35	3,074,384.50(d)	973,258.03	4,939,452.16	2,069,163.48(e)	748,694.05	3,169,787.24	1,614,486.03(f)	731,305.39	3,791,927.03	1,697,305.03(g)	284,422.35*	925,534.41*	426,290.60*4.	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta$	$	$(a)	347,239.00	5,608,926.00	4,314,371.75(b)	207,393.00	2,247,920.25	2,171,140.50(c)	185,691.75	810,803.50	532,101.75(d)	619,863.25	1,143,177.50	1,007,525.25(e)	5,260,631.75	21,888,985.75	5,783,209.75(f)	2,302,712.25	1,286,726.25	1,305,409.75(g)	385,560.75*	484,362.50*	339,537.25*
*to January 24, 1957.
Questions


JOSEPH MARSHALL, OKLA, SASK.
Mr. Bryson: 1.	Is Joseph Marshall of Okla, Saskatchewan, on the staff of P.F.A.A.?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	How much has been paid for salary, sustenance, and other expenses, since his appointment?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):
1 and 2. No. Mr. Marshall was one of many who are called upon as needed to do inspection work on a daily rate basis.
3.	Calendar year 1956:	Wages-$1,300;
expenses-$1,796.85.


FEED GRAIN SHIPMENTS TO ONTARIO
Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron): What was the amount of freight assistance paid on western feed grain coming into Ontario, during the years 1955 and 1956?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):
1955-	$3,856,238.85.
1956-	$4,940,176.50.


AIRCRAFT CARRIER &quot;MAGNIFICENT&quot;
Mr. Van Horne: 1.	Was the aircraft carrier Magnificent partly dismantled at Halifax before leaving for Egypt?
2.	If so, what was the extent of the dismantling?
3.	What was the cost?
Answer by: Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):
1.	Yes, to a limited degree.
2.	Dismantling was limited to the removal of certain armament, together with associated ammunition. This allowed an additional 237 tons of supplies to be carried to the United Nations emergency force.
3.	$3,753.45.
82715-93i

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
In, the matter of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act being Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, Chapter 213,
and
In the matter of an Application to Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of parliament of the Dominion of Canada to submit a bill for an Act to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, being Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, Chapter 213 and the regulations under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act approved by Order in Council P.C. 1954-2023 of the 22nd day of December, 1954.
Whereas the rural municipality of Oakland have been requested by the farmers of the municipality to prepare a brief on certain sections of the said Prairie Farm Assistance Act and regulations thereof outlining certain recommendations and amendments to same and to present to the said council the said brief for endorsement and approval and if approved to present same to the councils of the surrounding municipalities for their consideration.
Now therefore the following are the contents of the brief to be submitted to the said municipality:
1. Section 6(c) of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act being Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. chapter 213, provides,
Where the board has determined that an area is eligible for award and a rectangular block of sections of land outside such area having an area of not less than one-half a township is determined by the board to have an average yield of eight bushels of wheat or less per acre such block of sections of land is eligible for award as though it were a complete township.
The rural municipality of Oakland submits that due to the usual irregularity of the locations of the crop damage and/or failure, this section does not give relief to many farmers who may suffer crop damage and/ or failure but who may not be located in the rectangular block as provided by this section and respectfully request that this subsection be amended to read:
That section 6(c) be amended by striking out the word "rectangular" where it appears in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the word "irregular" and by striking out the words "one-half township"
where they appear in the fourth line thereof and substituting therefor the words "six sections".
2.	Section 3(2B) of the said act provides, If the average yield of wheat in the
township is found by the board to be more than four and not more than eight bushels per acre the award shall be $1.50 per acre and
The municipality respectfully submits that with the increased price of farm machinery and equipment and the increased cost of operating a farm the rate should be increased to bring it in line with the maximum provided in the 1939 act and respectfully request that this subsection be amended to read,
That section 3(2B) be amended by striking out the words "$1.50" where they appear in the fourth line thereof and substituting therefor the words "$3.00".
3.	Section 3(2c) of the said act provides, If the average yield of wheat in the
township is found by the board to be not more than four bushels per acre the award shall be $2.50 per acre.
The municipality respectfully submits that with the increased price of farm machinery and equipment and the increased cost of operating a farm the rate should be increased to bring it in line with the maximum provided in the 1939 act and respectfully request that this subsection be amended to read,
That section 3(2c) be amended by striking out the words "$2.50" where they appear in the third line thereof and substituting therefor the words "$5.00".
4.	Section 3 (3b) of the said act provides, "With respect to more than two hundred
acres of cultivated land of the farm or" The municipality respectfully submits that the present day farmer has become a large land owner and is continually expanding and as such contributes that much more and the municipality respectfully submits that this subsection be amended to read,
That the section 3 (3b) be amended by striking out the word "two" where it appears in the first line thereof and substituting therefor the word "three".
5.	The municipality respectfully submits that there are cases where the farmer is receiving assistance under this act for cultivated land which is not self supporting and for this reason the purpose of the act is being

exploited and respectfully submits that there be a subsection added to section 3 of the said act restricting any award under this act to farmers whose lands affected are not self supporting and to define and classify the type of land which will be eligible for assistance.
6.	The municipality respectfully submits that due to the usual irregularity of the locations of the crop damage by hail that any individual farmer in any area that suffers loss of crop through hail be qualified for assistance under the said act provided he comes within the provisions of section 3 of the said act and respectfully submits that there be a subsection added to section 6 of the said act to provide that if a farmer or a group of farmers lose their crop or a portion thereof by hail then the individual farmers
Prairie Farm Assistance Act in that area should be eligible for assistance under the said act.
7.	The municipality respectfully submits that in determining the assistance to be given to farmers under this act consideration should be given not only to the yield and grade of the grain but also to the loss in expenses to the farmer in salvaging his crop and respectfully submits that there be a subsection added to section 3 of the said act to provide for assistance for such loss.
8.	The municipality respectfully submits that when the department pays the farmer the assistance to which he is entitled to under the said act that the department attach to each cheque a statement showing how the department and/or board arrived at the amount awarded to each farmer.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 20, 1957