1957-02-20

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to inform the house that Mr. Guy Mollet, the prime minister of France, and his minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Christian Pineau, will be flown up to Ottawa from New York on Saturday morning, March 2, and will fly to Quebec on Sunday to return here on Monday morning, after which they will return to Montreal to take off for Paris late Monday afternoon. Mr. Mollet has agreed to address the members of both houses of parliament and it has been arranged that he will do so at 11.30 a.m., Monday, March 4.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


EDUCATION


Mr. Nicholson: How much has been spent by the federal government since 1945 for education under the following headings: (a) veterans; (b) grants to universities; (c) vocational training; (d) Indians and Eskimos; (e) other expenditures?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Pearkes: 1.	At what army, navy and air force stations have single men's barracks been constructed since 1950?
2.	How many such buildings are now under construction?
3.	How many men will each building, at various camps accommodate?



BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES


Mr. Knowles: 1.	With respect to each of the following corporations, (a) Seagrams Limited; (b) Hiram Walker & Sons, Limited; (c) John Labatt Limited; (d) Molson's Brewery Limited; (e) Canadian Breweries Limited, what is the total number of shares of issued stock each year from 1937 to the present?
2.	What was the highest price of such stock, in the case of each of the above corporations, in each year from 1937 to the present?



R.C.A.F., TOFINO-CIVILIAN CARPENTERS

Mr. Barnett: 1.	Are civilian carpenters employed at the Toflno Royal Canadian Air Force establishment, by (a) the Department of National Defence; (b) contractors doing national defence work?
2.	If so, at what rates of pay are these carpenters paid?
3.	Are the wage rates paid those as laid down in the standard agreement of the united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners of America, for British Columbia?
4.	If not, on what basis have these wage rates been established?



PRINTING BUREAU, HULL  COST

Mr. Harkness: What has been the total cost to date, of the new printing bureau in Hull, including cost of land, construction, and installation of machinery?



P.F.A.A., ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN   EMPLOYEES

Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose): 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons employed on either a permanent or temporary basis under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, for the year 1955 and the year 1956, in the province of Alberta, and also in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What sums of money were paid to each of these persons by way of (a) salary or wages; (b) subsistence; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances?



P.F.R.A., ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN   EMPLOYEES

Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose): 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons employed on either a permanent or temporary basis under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, for the year 1955 and for the year 1956, in the province of Alberta, and also in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What sums of money were paid to each of these persons by way of (a) salary or wages; (b) subsistence; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances?



BEAVERLODGE, ALTA.  LAKE SASKATOON MOUNTAIN STATION

Mr. Low: What is the total valuation of all land, buildings, and property on what are known as the Lake Saskatoon mountain radar station and dominion experimental farm near the town of Beaverlodge, Alberta?



ARMED FORCES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT


Mr. Pommer: 1.	How many medical doctors are serving with the armed forces of Canada (a) at home; (b) abroad?
2.	What is the total number of medical doctors employed by the federal government in each province (a) full time; (b) part time?
3.	How many dentists are serving with the armed forces of Canada (a) at home; (b) abroad?
4.	How many dentists are employed by the federal government in each of the provinces?

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Prime Minister. Would he like to comment on the statement made yesterday in Quebec City by Mr. Oscar Barma, secretary of the young Liberals' association of Canada, and the severe criticism levelled at him by this gentleman?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must understand that of whatever interest this question might be to him and to any other members, it does not deal with an administrative matter which concerns a particular department of the government.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Is it the Prime Minister's intention, in keeping with the suggestion made by the young Quebec Liberals, and in view of my own earnest representations over the last four years in this house, to recommend the dredging of the St. Charles river and the sanitation of the waters of the Lairet river before the dissolution of the present legislature?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, since 1941 I have been telling my constituents from Quebec East that I recognize no responsibility on the part of the federal government with regard to improvements to the Lairet river or to that part of the St. Charles river which has been mentioned.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Is it the Prime Minister's intention to inform the young Quebec Liberals of that fact?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have no intention of acquainting the young Liberals of Quebec of this through Mr. Barma.
(Text):



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the radio deficiency suffered by some 5,000 of my constituents for many years, could the Prime Minister inform the house when the royal commission on radio broadcasting and television is expected to report?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know nothing personally about the deficiency which the hon. member alleges has existed in his constituency for a number of years, but I would be quite surprised if
[Mr. Pommer.l
that were something which would determine when the commission on radio broadcasting would report. I cannot say exactly when the report will be made, but I know that the public, the government and the commissioners are anxious to have the report published as soon as it can be made available, and I hope that will be within the next few weeks.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister used the word "published" with reference to the report, could he indicate what is the position of the report itself? Has it been received, or has the government been given any indication by the commission as to when it is likely to be in a position to submit the report?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The report has not been received. I understand that the commissioners themselves will attend to the translation and to the printing of a certain number of copies in order to make the report available to members of parliament and to the public just about as soon as it is made available to the government.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Purdy (Colchesier-Hanis):: I
have a question to ask the Minister of Finance. On what date, for what reasons, and on whose authority was the Canadian National Railways station at Denmark, Colchester county, Nova Scotia, closed?
The second part of my question is this. In considering representations made and to be made for the reopening of this station, would the election of a member opposed to the present administration have beneficial effects?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I gather from the substance of this question that it was intended for me. I would like to answer the second part first by saying that I can see no reason why the electors of Colchester county should wish to change their representative. As for the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I would have to take my hon. friend's question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Can the minister indicate when the report of the tariff board in the matter of the steel tariff will be available for hon. members to study?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I think there was a hidden suggestion in that question that the report was now ready for others. So far as I know, it is not, and it will be some time before it is. However, in accordance with the custom I have always followed, when the report is received it will be tabled in the ordinary way.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can we take it that the report will be tabled before the budget speech, so hon. members can study it in case the minister gives effect to part of it in his budget?


Walter Edward Harris: I have had no suggestion that the report will be ready any time in the immediate future, so I cannot go beyond that.


Mr. Knowles:: Will the budget be ready in the near future?



CREDIT RESTRICTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister agree with the reported statement of the Minister of Fisheries that credit must be held to manageable proportions but that we may soon be able to relax restrictions to about what they were a year ago?


Walter Edward Harris: am sorry, but I could hardly hear any of the words after "Minister of Fisheries".


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The Minister of Fisheries is reported as having said in West Vancouver that credit must be held to manageable proportions but that we may soon be able to relax restrictions to about what they were a year ago. Does the Minister of Finance agree with his statement?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence in the judgment of the Minister of Fisheries. If he made a statement of that kind, it must have been after a careful study of his own.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All by himself? Is he not a member of the cabinet?


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is supplementary to one that was asked. In view of the confidence of the Minister of Finance in the Minister of Fisheries and in view of the interest of many people throughout the country, is it reasonable to anticipate a relaxation of the credit restrictions before an election?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has the utmost confidence that this government will do the right thing on all occasions.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it ethical for members of parliament to purchase stock in a company owing money to the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I should not allow this type of question to be put. The hon. member for Peace River.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs a question concerning a news report that came over the radio this morning, indicating that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had suggested that United Nations naval forces be used to guarantee freedom of shipping through the gulf of Aqaba. Can the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house what naval forces the United Nations has, if any, for such work?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to see the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs before making any comment, and this I will do.
[Later: ]


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER OF GREAT BRITAIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Will he table the letter, or a copy of the letter, which he wrote to the prime minister of Great Britain at the time Great Britain and France went into the Suez canal area?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): No, Mr. Speaker, I will not.

Inquiries of the Ministry
MEAT	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON UNITED STATES IMPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to give me an answer to the question I asked him last week regarding the importation of United States pork into Canada.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there is no indication at present that the situation has changed or is likely to change in the near future as related to the disease among hogs in the United States and, of course, as long as that condition exists there will be no necessity for making any change in any regulations here.


INQUIRY AS TO EXPERIMENT IN MARKETING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Unfortunately I did not give him notice of it. Possibly he would like to take this question as notice and answer it later. Did the Department of Agriculture recently conduct an experiment in which they placed bacon stamped with a government grade on sale in certain localities in order to test public reaction? If so, what were the results of this experiment?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take the question as notice.


BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. What progress has been made on plans to construct a new low level bridge over the Burlington channel?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the mayor of Hamilton is to visit Ottawa shortly, at which time I believe he is scheduled to have a meeting with the Minister of Transport and me to discuss the situation.
iMr. St. Laurent (Quebec East).]


INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF FURTHER LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position now to indicate to the house the general legislative program for the balance of this session and in particular any statutes to be amended or legislation to be introduced additional to those matters that appear on the order paper today?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I had hoped to be able to give the hon. gentleman an answer to that question today but I would prefer to give it tomorrow afternoon because, as usual, we are having a cabinet meeting tomorrow morning and there are two or three items about which I am still uncertain. I expect to be able to give a more precise and positive answer tomorrow afternoon than I could at this moment.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government been following the work of the committee of the Ontario legislature dealing with the serious health problem of air pollution in industrial and urban centres? Has the government considered how it might assist in solving the problem, particularly by measures to reduce air pollution caused by railway locomotives and steamships?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion last year to meet with the chairman, I think, and one or two other members of the committee, at which time we had an opportunity to discuss quite informally the subject matter of the hon. member's question. But I would not wish to give the house the impression that I have been following the activities of the committee although I understand from the newspapers that it brought down a report last week or quite recently. When I receive a copy of the report I shall be glad to look into the matter further, but I was not proposing to initiate any action until I had seen the contents of the report.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the report from Paris that six west European countries have reached agreement for developing atomic power, may I ask the minister if the three representatives of the Euratom group who were in Ottawa last week had discussions with the Canadian government concerning the sale by Canada of uranium or uranium fuel to this group of nations?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government received a visit from three representatives of the countries that make up the European iron and steel community. These are the six countries to which my hon. friend made reference. I had lunch with these men here in Ottawa. They left here to visit Chalk River, and their subsequent conversations were carried on with Mr. Bennett, the president of Atomic Energy of Canada.
As I understand it, the group were interested in several matters. One was the Canadian avenue of approach to the development of atomic power and the other was arrangements for a supply of uranium. However, I am unable to tell my hon. friend of any definite arrangements resulting from their visit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. If any arrangements are made for the sale of uranium to this group, would the minister indicate to what quantity it might run?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, at the moment we are prepared to sell only small quantities of uranium outside our present commitments. However, we believe that is all that these countries will require for the time being. It takes two or three years to build an atomic power plant. We believe that by the time they require larger quantities we shall be able to furnish the required quantities.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister indicate what progress, if any, has
Inquiries of the Ministry been made toward development of plans to build a tunnel at the present site of the Marpole bridge in the greater Vancouver region?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I know of no progress because I am aware of no such plans.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he now in a position to announce whether his government intends to carry out the recommendations of the Gordon commission in regard to the neglected people and economy of the maritime provinces? If so, when?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, in the hon. gentleman's question there are several assertions with which I do not agree. As I have stated on behalf of the government, when decisions in respect of the implementation of the Gordon report have been reached they will be announced in the house. I will make that announcement as soon as any decisions have been reached.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE BY UNITED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether the announcement by United States authorities that they are prepared to sell wheat to Poland has had any effect on Canada's position in this particular market? Is Canada considering any new policies to meet growing United States competition in these other grain markets?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The announcement from the United States has had no effect on our trading position, but whether action by the United States subsequent to the announcement may have an effect I cannot say at the moment. A trade delegation from Poland is in Ottawa at this moment and negotiations are under way which I hope will result in the sale of a considerable quantity of wheat to Poland.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



MADAWASKA COUNTY, N.B.-CONSTRUCTION OF RIFLE RANGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Byron Horner: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house what progress has been made in regard to the building of the Bellefleur rifle range in Madawaska county? I realize I have given him notice a bit late.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I shall have to take the question as notice.



REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY HON. MEMBER FOR CHARLOTTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I
wish to address a question to the hon. member for Charlotte. I do so in the interest of proper usage of terms in this house. In view of the fact that in recent days the hon. member has constantly referred to himself as a member of the government, can the member tell the house if he considers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No question can be
asked of an hon. member unless it is in relation to his position as chairman of a committee or some official position which he occupies on behalf of the house.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I regret that I was-


Mr. Speaker:: Not having allowed the
question, I cannot allow an answer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can I address a question
to the proper persons, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: What is the question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I ask this question in the
interests of the proper usage of terms in this house. In view of the fact that in recent days the hon. member for Charlotte has constantly referred to himself as a member of the government, does the Prime Minister consider that an ordinary M.P. who is not a member of the cabinet is a member of the government or are we to expect an interesting early announcement?


Mr. Speaker:: It goes without saying that
the actions of the hon. member for Charlotte do not, in any shape or form, come under the administration of any government department.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I rise on a question of privilege. This matter arose in a debate the other day between me and the
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).)

hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I should like to say this, that at least I know with which party I am associated. There is no confusion about it.
(Translation):



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great number of unemployed in the city of Quebec and its surroundings, would the Prime Minister consider intervening personally in the negotiations between the Canadian National authorities and those of Quebec city in order to accelerate the building of a new post office terminal in Quebec?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put on Hansard a statement he meant to make to the house today, and he is probably content with that. However I do wish to say to him that, for months, I have personally intervened in discussions between the authorities of the Canadian National and the city of Quebec, and that I am just as disappointed as the hon. member can be to find that those discussions are dragging on.
(Text):



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have a reply from the Minister of Veterans Affairs to the question I asked yesterday concerning veterans pensions and the ceiling on war veterans allowance?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I recall my hon. friend's question, he asked me whether I had received representations from a group of veterans of the South African war. I said I would inquire. Yesterday morning a copy of a resolution passed in Montreal, I believe, arrived at my office and it is being given consideration now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I also asked a question with reference to the brief of the Canadian Legion. What attention has been paid to that?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes; if the hon. member reads Hansard he will see that I answered that question at the time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not to my satisfaction.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When may I expect an answer to question No. 105, which was placed on the order paper on February 4?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say offhand but I will give instructions that the hon. member's question be answered at the earliest possible moment.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[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 in the hope that I may get a different kind of answer from the one given a few minutes ago by the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has had discussions with Premier Frost in an attempt to reach an agreement on a hospital insurance program, would he consider going out to Winnipeg and having similar discussions with Premier Campbell in the hope that he might soon be able to report to the house that he has made agreements with six provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the achievements of modern science it is not always necessary for members of the government to travel that far to achieve their legitimate purposes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a
supplementary question. Has the minister, in the pursuit of his legitimate purposes, yet reached the point where he can make an announcement concerning Manitoba's adherence to this proposal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is in the negative.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 19, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
Prairie Farm Assistance Act 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.
Mr. Castleden:: Mr. Chairman, I must say at the outset that we naturally welcome a resolution which will lead to an amendment of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. For some years we in this group have pointed out to the government some of the very grave injustices and very serious shortcomings in the act in the hope that before this date an amendment would have been brought in. Since 1957 is an election year, I suppose, one of the nice things that the government has presented to the house is this resolution preceding a bill.
Since the purchasing power of the dollar has decreased so seriously under inflation we have constantly advocated an increase in the benefits under the act. We had the minister's assurance yesterday that some increase was contemplated. In so far as there is an increase we will support it. If it turns out to be insufficient I can assure the minister that we shall let him know that we do not think it is sufficient.
The purchasing power of the dollar today in Canada has seriously declined. It has declined to such an extent that you require more than the benefits that you can get from the returns on land which might come under this act to maintain a family or even to get groceries for the family.
I know of actual cases in my own constituency where a young farmer has qualified under the act and then has had his crop completely wiped out through drought. There was certainly nothing coming to him under the P.F.A.A. for some time and he did the best thing he could, he took a job in a neighbouring town and commuted home in the evenings and on weekends to help take care of his farm. But because he did that he was excluded from receiving benefits under the act; he was compelled to do it because the benefits he would have received were so small.
The government can place responsibility for inflation upon nobody else. They were in power ten, years ago when price controls were removed. The spiral of inflation which they assured us would not occur has occurred. Money from such sources as this do not keep men on the farms and therefore the intent of the act is being wiped out.
The bill amending the P.F.A.A. is a minor one and yet we are dealing with an industry in Canada which is sick. Anything short of a real parity price program will not remedy the situation. However that can be discussed under some other resolution or when the minister's estimates are before the house.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act This may be good medicine but I suggest it is like giving aspirin to a man who has had his back broken. Until the basic wrongs of the industry are taken care of agriculture will continue to suffer.
There are some glaring injustices under this act. One section in the act prohibits a person who has purchased crown land to go into farming after a certain date from benefiting under the act if he has a crop failure. It is incredible but it is true that when this person hauls his grain into the elevator he must pay the 1 per cent levy because that is deducted by law, yet that same law prohibits him from benefiting in any way under the act in case he should have a crop failure.
It is quite natural that people in the rest of Canada who would not be eligible for benefits under this act feel that they are paying some kind of subsidy to agriculture, but this man is paying double. He is excluded from the benefits of the act and yet he pays his share of taxation as a Canadian citizen and also pays the 1 per cent levy required by the act whenever he delivers grain. I hope that that injustice will be wiped out.
I have referred to another injustice that exists under the act, that of the person who in order to maintain his livelihood on his farm leaves the farm to earn money elsewhere because the returns are not sufficient for him to maintain himself on his farm. Such a man should not be excluded from receiving benefits when he has a crop failure. The interprovincial farm union recently presented to this government a brief which included reforms and amendments which they felt would improve this act. They suggested an additional section which would give a measure of justice to Indians living on reservations. They asked that Indians be allowed to participate on the same basis as farmers in any other area.
This resolution indicates that the bill to follow does go some little way in wiping out some of the injustices and therefore we will support it. I hope the bill will be in the hands of hon. members shortly. We will be able to discuss it on second reading and therefore I shall reserve any further remarks until the bill is before the house.


Mr. Thaicher:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak only briefly on this resolution. This measure is designed primarily to give a degree of security to the prairie wheat producers. I am sure it will meet with widespread acceptance in Saskatchewan by people of all political affiliations. As you know, the

prairies have always been particularly susceptible to the vagaries of drought, so susceptible in fact that wheat growing is called the greatest gamble in the world.
Hon. members will recall that in the 1930's our farmers on the prairies went through experiences which were almost unbelievable. A terrible drought which lasted for five or six years brought many thousands of farmers to their knees economically. In those days a farmer had to depend completely upon his own resources, and as a consequence a great majority of them were forced to go on direct relief. Most of the residents in these rural areas had to depend on eastern Canada for assistance, even for charity, for their needs in clothing and sometimes in food. The resulting situation robbed the farmers of western Canada in many cases of their dignity, their self-respect and their pride. Many were forced to move to other parts of the country.
These terrible conditions were largely responsible for the growth of the C.C.F. in Saskatchewan. Many people joined the C.C.F., not because they were socialists but rather because they were fed up with the depression conditions which then existed. I recall my own reasoning during that period. I came back to western Canada from university in 1936 when half the population of our province was on relief. I felt that there must be something wrong with a government which would permit conditions of that kind to exist. The C.C.F. was new, its speakers were plausible, and many of us hoped that they had policies which would help the farmer. Unfortunately time and experience have proved us to have been completely wrong.
One of the great virtues of the Liberal party is that it tries to benefit from past experience. It tries not to make the same mistake twice. That is one reason why this legislation is before us today. There are some in the house who have argued that crop insurance is the only answer to the problem of providing security for the western grain farmer. Undoubtedly crop insurance would be an ideal solution. But unfortunately there is not a company in the world, not even Lloyd's of London, which would be willing to assume the risks involved in insuring the western grain crop.
Whether the socialists like it or not, there is no power that the federal government has under our constitution, under which they can introduce crop insurance. That field lies completely within the jurisdiction of our provincial governments. If the socialists feel so strongly that we should have crop insurance, they should appeal to the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan.
So the Liberal party had to look elsewhere for a solution.

In 1939, largely, I think, at the instigation of the Minister of Agriculture, an alternative to crop insurance was found and the original P.F.A.A. was introduced. Its object was simple and straightforward; it sought to guarantee to the western farmer that no matter how severely he was treated by the vagaries of climate or nature, he would have a certain basic income with which to pay for food and clothing and, perhaps, seed. Under the 1939 act, a minimum payment of $2.50 per acre was provided on half the cultivated acreage up to a maximum of 400 acres, with a total payment not exceeding $500.
Mr. Chairman, this particular act has been to the prairie farmer what the Unemployment Insurance Act has been to the working man. The farmer has borne a part of the cost by paying out one cent a bushel on the wheat he sells, but it is interesting to note that payments to farmers under this act have far exceeded what they have contributed.
Between 1939 and July 1956, prairie producers paid into the fund approximately $95 million. In the same period they have received benefits amounting to $184 million. I think the farmers of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre might be interested to know that they have drawn $6,815,000 under this act. I am sure the people of Assiniboia would be interested in knowing that up to December 31, 1955, they had drawn $13,762,000 under this act.
These substantial payments indicate the value of this Liberal legislation. For a number of years prairie Liberals have realized that the benefits under the act should be extended, and they have consistently urged such action on their colleagues from other parts of Canada. I think the reasons for these representations are fairly obvious. Since 1939 the cost of living has gone up and also the cost of production to the farmer, while inflation has depreciated the value of the Canadian dollar. Now the appeals of prairie Liberal members and, particularly, the appeals of the Minister of Agriculture were made on their merits, in a spirit of reasonableness and co-operation, and this legislation which is before us today is a direct result of those representations.
Under this bill when it is brought down, if my understanding is correct, the benefits will be increased over-all by roughly 50 per cent. Yet the cost to the farmer remains constant. I am convinced, as I said a moment ago, that the farmers of Saskatchewan almost without exception will welcome this measure with open arms. This is particularly true, Mr. Chairman, because of the effects of the great North American drought.
I have talked to many Canadians in recent weeks who have travelled through some of
Prairie Farm Assistance Act the states south of Saskatchewan-Texas, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma-and most of them have been shocked by the devastating effects of that drought. They were shocked by the dust that is flying everywhere, and by the ruin and the desolation which have been caused. It is our earnest hope that this drought will not extend northward into Saskatchewan, yet we know from past experience that this is likely to happen. I say that if a drought does come to Saskatchewan this P.F.A.A. legislation which is now before us, will be one of the major weapons which will be used to fight the effects of that disaster.
I was very interested in C.C.F. criticism of this bill. As they so frequently do, when government legislation is introduced, they announced that they would support it. They dare not do anything else. Then, of course, immediately afterwards they said in effect: "It does not go far enough; a 50 per cent increase in payments is not sufficient; the benefits should be doubled."


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Chairman, I say that if this bill doubled the payments, the C.C.F. would immediately say they should be trebled; and if the bill said the benefits should be trebled, the C.C.F. party would contend they should be quadrupled. It is always so easy for a party which has no responsibility of office, and which will never be in power, to promise the moon-to advocate the proverbial "pie in the sky."
I have always been amazed at the complete lack of financial responsibility which so many of the socialists from Saskatchewan seem to possess. For instance, in a speech made a couple of weeks ago, the hon. member for Assiniboia made suggestions which, if the government had adopted them, would have meant additional expenditure this year alone of $2,250 million.


Hazen Robert Argue: The gross national product has gone up by that amount.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They either cannot comprehend economics or they don't want to.
In the years ahead, this bill is going to cost the taxpayers in all parts of Canada a good many millions of dollars, but it is a major step forward in providing the grain growers in the prairie provinces with a basic minimum of security. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that this is one more illustration of what Liberal supporters from the prairies, by working with their colleagues from other parts of Canada, can do for the grain producer. They work as a team. If they use reasonableness, if they use co-operation and a spirit of give and take, they can usually

Prairie Farm Assistance Act persuade their colleagues from elsewhere in the country to bring in legislation which is beneficial to western Canada.
It has been my experience that not only can the socialists do very little for the western farmer, but usually they actually hurt his cause by their persistent nagging with regard to anything the government does, whether good or bad.


Hazen Robert Argue: A lot of it is bad.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They irritate others by their failure to make constructive suggestions. By their continuous prophecies of gloom they have antagonized members from other parts of this country, and, I think, they have injured the prestige and welfare of the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Chairman, the socialists have cried "wolf" so often in this house that when they do get up and advocate anything, hon. members from the rest of Canada are automatically suspicious and immediately hostile. Their initial reaction is to do the opposite of what is advocated by the socialists.
I would respectfully suggest that if there were a few more Liberal members from the prairie provinces we could do a great deal more for the western people.


Hazen Robert Argue: You would reduce the butter price.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wholeheartedly support this resolution. In my opinion it is one more nail in the coffin of Canadian socialism.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take part in the internecine strife which prevails from time to time between the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and his opponent the hon. member for Assiniboia. Certainly, what takes place here has indicated that this contest will be one of the most interesting in the province of Saskatchewan, bringing together two redoubtable champions. If this session were to continue at any great length, however, I doubt whether they would have very much to talk about by the time the election came round.
What I rose to say is, simply, this: the introduction of this amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act does meet certain of the objections which have been raised to the act in recent years, and while, no doubt, there are many other changes which could be made and which ought to be made, what is taking place here is a step in the right direction.
We in the prairies, and particularly in Saskatchewan, find ourselves in a position where drought comes to us in periodic cycles. I have been on the prairies since my boyhood. I have seen those successive droughts over

the years in Saskatchewan, particularly, and in parts of Alberta, and I have seen the great distress which they have brought. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act had its inception through the vision of the Minister of Agriculture and what has been done deserves the appreciation of those who live in drought areas.
It operates in part as a counterpart of the legislation introduced under the Bennett regime, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
It does seem to me as somewhat of a paradox that we have this legislation before us, necessary as it is, at a time when we find it so difficult to market our production of wheat. Indeed, if the present rate of marketing of the farmers' wheat and the finding of markets abroad continues, the position of affairs at the end of this crop year will result in the amount of wheat on hand being some 628 million bushels compared with 540 million bushels at the end of the crop year, July 31, 1956. That is sometimes rather difficult to understand, and the situation has arisen in considerable part because of the loss of our markets abroad and also by reason of the failure of the government to face up to its responsibilities to make known to the United States of America the complete injustice that is being committed to our agricultural machine by the processes of international marketing being indulged in by the United States.
However that may be, this legislation is necessary. Some discussion took place yesterday on the problem of bringing into effect a system of crop insurance. That idea has been with us throughout the years, and it is a problem that is difficult of solution. One province by itself cannot do so. At least, that was the conclusion arrived at in Manitoba by the royal commission that looked into the matter. Their general conclusion was that at least three provinces would have to join together in order to make such a scheme practicable.
Everyone realizes that the amounts payable under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are insufficient and do not provide for the farmer that measure of protection provided by the original allowances under the act as it stood in 1939 and as subsequently amended. However, the problem is one that cannot be solved as easily as the simple increase of the amount because to increase the amount that the farmer receives will inevitably result in a very considerable increase in the levy.
My suggestions as to other amendments that might be made are these. First, while the placing of indemnities on an individual farm basis may be impractical, consideration should be given, as far as possible, to the

amendment of the act to provide for the payment of indemnity on a section basis. The need of doubling the indemnities is perfectly clear for the reason that the purchasing power of the dollar has decreased very considerably. Indeed, under the wheat board act of 1935 a floor was placed on wheat at that time of 87J cents a bushel. In order to have the same floor today, on the basis of the present purchasing power of the dollar the floor would be $2 a bushel. In other words, there has been a continual diminishing of the purchasing power of the dollar and for that reason it is necessary to increase the amount payable on the individual indemnity.
The question of crop insurance is one that requires a great deal of investigation. If one reads the report of the Saskatchewan commission on rural questions and the report of the Manitoba royal commission one has some idea of the immensity of the problem and all the difficulties inherent in introducing in our country legislation analogous to that in the United States. While I realize that this parliament is now rapidly approaching its end and it is only a matter of a few weeks before it will cease to exist, even now the committee on agriculture might be convened in order to hear representations, consider recommendations and come to a general decision on this very important matter, for sooner or later it has to be faced.
Third, I suggest that the regulations now in existence should be revamped to a considerable extent. That work could be done by the committee on agriculture. Many people who should be entitled to payment of the indemnities provided under the legislation are denied payment because of a too narrow interpretation under the regulations and under the review sections of the regulations and the act. People who contribute should be entitled to their share of the compensation allowed when loss is sustained.
Sir, the Regina Leader-Post summed up the situation very well as far as Saskatchewan is concerned in the issue of February 11 when it dealt with the prairie dilemma. In part it had this to say:
Rumours persist that the federal government is bringing down legislation to increase Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments. Levies paid by farmers on cash proceeds of their grain deliveries will be raised from the present 1 per cent, it is predicted.
Then it deals with the objections of the people of the province of Manitoba respecting the degree to which they are denied payment under the act although required to contribute to the fund. The editorial points out there are alternative suggestions and goes on to say:
There is no obvious way out of the dilemma of providing a self-supporting subsistence scheme for prairie agriculture which runs the gamut of
Prairie Farm Assistance Act areas which seldom have a crop failure to those which, over the past three decades at least, have harvested relatively few good crops. .	.	. The
solution of this problem apparently will have to be approached from several directions. One obvious step ... is to experiment with a selfsustaining crop insurance scheme to determine if it is feasible in other than the extremely high risk areas.
I believe that is necessary and I believe that if the committee on agriculture were set up even at this late date suggestions and recommendations could be made by the committee which would lay a foundation for the establishment of a crop insurance plan. When it is said that it is not within the constitutional power of the federal parliament to bring in such a scheme, I do not accept that argument as other than a desirable means of escape from the setting up of a scheme so necessary to the agricultural machine not only in western Canada but throughout the country generally.
Finally, the Regina Leader-Post mentions that old perennial the South Saskatchewan river dam. It states:
Another is to change our agricultural economy so that the problem areas, where grain production is extremely hazardous, place greater reliance on other products such as livestock. This is where the South Saskatchewan river development project would be able to play its part in assuring livestock fodder and feed grown under irrigation and water for livestock consumption. Instead of increasing P.F.A.A. subsidies, the federal government might be farther ahead in the end were it to invest the money in construction of the dam.
Certainly the construction of the dam would ensure new hopes in a large area of Saskatchewan in which ever since the days of the historic journey of Archbishop Tache, there have been successive periods and cycles of drought. That area thereby would be taken out of continuing claims under this act. Indeed, statistics were prepared some years ago which indicated that the building of this dam would in a period of 30 years, in the savings made in payments under this act, liquidate in its entirety the contribution required to be made by the federal government for the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project.
While there is going to be no opportunity at this session to discuss the matter of this project I want to make perfectly clear the stand and the attitude of the Conservative party on it. There has been no deviation since 1945. In each successive election the leaders of this party have advocated the need of this dam which ultimately, by its beneficial effects, would not only obviate the drain on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act fund that today occurs in that area but would assure a diversification of our agricultural economy and would pay dividends beyond
1474	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act the imagination of most of us. We stand where we have always stood. We stand in favour of the immediate construction of this irrigation project.
When my friend the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre says that all we have to do is to send down more Liberal members from the province of Saskatchewan in order to achieve beneficial results for agriculture, I ask him simply to recall this fact. On every occasion on which an opportunity has arisen to vote on this irrigation project the Liberal members from the province of Saskatchewan have one and all joined in voting against it.
As far as this resolution is concerned, as has already been stated by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, we intend to support it. It is a step in the right direction. But we believe that in the larger vista of future potentialities for our province, this type of legislation, helpful as it is, merely touches the fringe of the problem. The problem covering a major portion of our province will not be met until that South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project has been brought to its completion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to enter the discussion further but one or two remarks which have just been made render it necessary for me to say something. In the first place, the statement has been made that there is not going to be any opportunity during this session to discuss the South Saskatchewan river project. If that statement means anything, it simply means that my hon. friends are going to delay things so much that my estimates can never get before the house this session.


Frank Exton Lennard: Fiddlesticks.


James Garfield Gardiner: My estimates were the first which were named. They are on the order paper now to be discussed. In those estimates there is an item providing $500,000 for the South Saskatchewan river project, and upon that item the whole question can be discussed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reveal what has passed between those charged with the responsibility of providing for a regular order of business, but it has been made perfectly clear that the estimates of only one or two departments are going to be discussed before dissolution. One or two departments will be introduced but there is not going to be a complete discussion or indeed anything more than a skeleton discussion. A skeleton discussion does not permit the fullness of consideration that is required.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat a new thing to have the proceedings of the house announced by the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: You are going to get used to it.


The Chairman:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: All I am going to say is that the agricultural estimates are on the order paper and that under those estimates there is a vote of $500,000 for the South Saskatchewan river dam. We are in exactly the same position as we were a year ago when my hon. friend made a similar statement.


An hon. Member:: Five years ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: One year ago, during the session when some people accused me of changing Hansard.


An hon. Member:: You did change Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just listen. Some people accused me of changing Hansard during the session when a similar statement was made. I said there is $500,000 in the estimates and that $500,000 is in an item in which there is virement.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to emphasize the word "virement" for the benefit of the Hansard reporter. If my hon. friend does not know what it means, let him ask some of his compatriots who speak the French language and they will tell him what it means. We can still use French words that have an English meaning in this house. That vote has $7 million in it.


Frank Exton Lennard: I never heard of the word.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then my hon. friends have not been around here very long. Virement means that you can exchange the sub-votes within a total vote from one special vote to another and that the whole $7 million could be made available for expenditure on the South Saskatchewan river dam.


An hon. Member:: It will not, though.


James Garfield Gardiner: When that word appeared in Hansard that evening, the Hansard reporter asked my office what it meant, and where it could be found in an English dictionary. They spent all evening looking for it in an English dictionary and could not find it. They left the whole sentence there is virement out of Hansard. The next morning I had a little discussion with my friend the Minister of Transport and I said to him, "Do you know what virement means?" He said, "Yes. It means the transfer of items within a vote

in the estimates." I said, "Do you know where it can be found?" He said, "Yes; in any French dictionary". Then I said, "Can it be found anywhere else?" He said, "Yes; in any legal dictionary."


Frank Exton Lennard: How do you spell it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I just want to suggest to my friends of Hansard that they put it in Hansard this time.


An hon. Member:: How do you spell it?


James Garfield Gardiner: My French spelling is not too good. I should not like to risk it.


An hon. Member:: Your pronunciation is terrible.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know this, that I first heard it in the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan about 40 years ago.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is when you were a school mam?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not a school mam exactly, but when I had just come out from being a school teacher and student of French.
( Translation):


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that I never heard pronunciation such as that used by the Minister of Agriculture, and that may be the reason why we do not know the meaning of the word he just mentioned.
(Text):


James Garfield Gardiner: I apologize very much for the fact I am not able to understand what my friend said. Nevertheless the word is there. It has an English meaning and the English meaning is the same as the French meaning. I just want it understood that I am not the only one who changes Hansard. The word should have gone into Hansard, and I want it to go in now. No one has the right, simply because they do not know what the word means, not to use it in Hansard.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Does the minister suggest, when he says he is not the only one who has changed Hansard, that he has changed Hansard?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood that on one occasion I did, and I announced it in the house. I had a little difficulty because I announced it in the house. Some people change Hansard without announcing it in the house.
Anyway, that is the first point I wanted to make. Of course, I quite understand that my friends in the opposition may raise some question that will cause the dissolution of this house overnight; I understand that. But, so far as most of us know, there is an opportunity to discuss that question on the estimates that are already before the house.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not answering you just now, I was taking care of the Leader of the Opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister would say under what item of the estimates the Saskatchewan dam could be built?


James Garfield Gardiner: The item is there, and it has been there every year now for some years. My hon. friend can look for it for himself.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister has not been able to find it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, he has been able to find it. He has not said that it is going to be built but that is not the question that is being discussed. My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition says there is going to be no opportunity to discuss it. There is an opportunity on that item in the estimates.
The other question had to do with my hon. friend's idea as to whether an insurance bill could be passed in this house. I have an authority here for which, of course, I am not going to vouch. It is the premier of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Why don't you laugh now? It is the time to laugh.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I will wait until I hear what he has to say.


James Garfield Gardiner: This report is dated Quebec, January 17, and is a report of the proceedings of the house at Quebec appearing in the Gazette. It says this:
Premier Maurice Duplessis today accused the federal government of remaining in the insurance field "in the face of three judgments by the privy council and the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that insurance was under the jurisdiction of the provinces". The premier made the statement before the private bills committee of the legislative assembly during discussion of a bill authorizing the amalgamation of two Quebec insurance companies.
As I said yesterday, I do not claim to be an authority on legal or constitutional questions. I quoted one very prominent Conservative as having held the same opinion I held in the person of Mr. Meighen while he was a member of the other place. Now, I quote another, who is not really a Liberal and I do not know whether or not my hon. friend considers him to be a member of his party. Nevertheless, he is quite a prominent individual in the public affairs of this country. He says that the court has already decided three times that this matter of insurance is under the jurisdiction of the province and not under the jurisdiction of Ottawa. I only repeat that every authority with whom I have ever discussed the matter either in the

147S
Prairie Farm Assistance Act attorney general's department or those who give legal advice on the question of introducing legislation, has maintained that insurance, crop insurance, hail insurance or anything of that kind is a provincial matter. This opinion was given years ago before I entered the legislature of Saskatchewan and resulted in the Saskatchewan government introducing a hail insurance bill. They brought one in in Alberta and in Manitoba, after it had been decided that insurance could not be introduced at Ottawa. I simply say that has always been recognized as a legal decision in connection with the matter. While I acknowledge the very high legal standing of the Leader of the Opposition, I do not think that his opinion could override the courts and others who have given opinions on it.


Mr. Shaw:: A considerable time has elapsed since I last had an opportunity of discussing the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. However, that fact itself would not constitute a sufficiently strong motivating power to cause me to take part now. However, there are some very specific reasons for my wishing to occupy a bit of the time of the house.
An examination of the resolution, Mr. Chairman, indicates the intention to do two things. I am taking the resolution as it reads, and it indicates the intention to do two things, to increase the awards and to increase the levy authorized now under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Considerable doubt exists in the minds of a good many members, and did during yesterday's debate with respect to the government's intention regarding the increasing of the levy. Frankly, there is still a certain amount of doubt in my mind. I take the resolution again, and it states specifically that it is the intention of the government to introduce a measure to do two things, to increase the awards and to increase the levy.
Referring to what might happen with regard to this reference to the levy, yesterday the minister was asked this specific question at page 1428 of Hansard for February 19, 1957:


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.
Now, that was fairly specific. There was another question in respect to rumours regarding one and one-quarter per cent levy, and the minister said:
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.
Then later, at page 1434 of Hansard the minister said:
Just while the hon. member is dealing with the point may I say that it is the intention to continue with the 1 per cent levy.
This is quite a switch in position from the first statement to the last and I will find it quite difficult to reconcile that statement with the terms of the resolution presently before us. Possibly the minister could, at some later point in the debate, indicate exactly why a reference is made in the resolution to the intention to increase the levy.
I listened with a good deal of interest last night to the minister when he recounted the history-


James Garfield Gardiner: Will the hon. member permit me to make an answer now?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the resolution was first put on the order paper it was thought it might be decided to increase the levy. If it had been finally decided to increase the levy and we had not so stated in the resolution, we would have had to come back with a second resolution in order to put it in. It was finally decided not to increase it and the advice we received was that, in view of the fact it was not decided to take more from the people, we did not need to change the resolution. But the intention is, as I said, not to increase the levy.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I take it the bill will be so worded that that will be clearly indicated. I thank the minister for the explanation.
I listened with considerable interest last night. The minister went back to pre-1939 years and discussed conditions which prevailed over a very substantial part of western Canada as a consequence of drought. Many of us do not have to try very hard to recall the situation which existed at that time. Those were particularly grim years. As the minister indicated, there were two complete crop failures during that period.
I also recall hearing him say last night that the heavy relief payments found necessary at that time were destructive of morale. That was undoubtedly true. It resulted in heavy relief expenditures and it certainly discouraged a good many of the farmers and their sons who left the farms. They have not returned. Possibly there are other reasons for it, economic as well as the fact that they have so many memories it has caused them to shy clear of agriculture.

When the act was introduced in 1939, members of the Social Credit party-if the records indicate the true picture, and undoubtedly they do-gave unqualified support to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We do today. We still feel that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, even with some of the weaknesses that appear in it, is certainly a most desirable piece of legislation, and certainly we feel that the awards under the act should be increased as proposed.
I was also interested last night in hearing the minister emphasize the fact that the act was originally designed to compensate those who suffer crop losses as a consequence of drought. Originally, of course, the act was designed for that purpose. Since then the provisions of the act have been expanded to take in such things as hail, rust and blight. The one complaint that I have always found-and I have given voice to this before -is that the regulations which were designed in the beginning primarily to deal with a drought situation have not been changed sufficiently in their application to hailed-out areas to prevent very serious criticism of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act by people who reside in areas where the only claims which are submitted are submitted in consequence of hail losses. I intend to refer to this in just a moment.
The minister indicated-and I think he went to great lengths to establish the fact -that prairie farm assistance is not crop insurance, it was never intended to be crop insurance, and there is no intention of endeavouring to resolve it into a crop insurance scheme. The minister said-these are not his exact words-the levy was never intended at any time to be a premium paid for insurance. We know that no attempt has been made to make prairie farm assistance an insurance plan; no premiums are paid for the right to draw from the fund. He said-and once again I am not presuming to quote the minister's exact words but just the essence of what he said-that legislation on the statute book was not insurance, was not intended to be insurance and did not have the effect of giving insurance. Now, he emphasized the fact also-and he has done it again today-that constitutionally crop insurance can be set up only by the provinces. Of course, constitutionally that is true; but constitutionally crop insurance on a nation-wide basis and purely on a voluntary basis, as pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia last night, would not involve any constitutional problems whatsoever. In fact, I am personally convinced that crop insurance based on anything less than the entire nation would have about two strikes against it before it ever started. Some have suggested
Prairie Farm Assistance Act that if it were applied to the three prairie provinces there might be a reasonably good chance of its succeeding; but, on the other hand, I personally feel rather dubious of that fact.
In the second place, I feel that if we had it on a nation-wide basis it would offset much of the criticism that is directed toward western agriculture by people living in central and eastern Canada who seem to feel, and often say, that this is just one hand-out after another to western Canadian farmers. I certainly trust that, regardless of whether crop insurance is brought in in any form, regardless of whether there is a constitutional problem-probably I should put it in that way at the moment-the federal Department of Agriculture will continue to do everything it possibly can in co-operation with the provinces, and if the responsibility rests there- and I suggest possibly a good deal of the responsibility rests there quite apart from the constitutional aspect of it-they will never give up the study of crop insurance because certainly, while prairie farm assistance has played a great part in the life of this nation and will continue to do so, it is not crop insurance and cannot serve the purpose of crop insurance. Until we do have a scheme of crop insurance we can hardly expect to have a substantial degree of security or stability in our agricultural industry.
I rose primarily to refer in specific terms to the type of area in which I happen to live and the area which I represent. The minister, of course, is quite familiar with the Red Deer area in central Alberta. It is a very fine mixed farming area. I say it is probably one of the very best mixed farming areas in Canada. It is an area that is not subject to drought. In fact-I may not be right-I have personal recollection of only one township in my constituency that ever qualified for prairie farm assistance because of drought. The losses we have are certain crop losses resulting from early frost in some years, but the main losses suffered in that particular area are hail losses. The year 1957, for example, was a particularly bad year. I would say 1951 and 1952 were the years in which very large sections of that constituency were hit very hard. But even though a very large acreage in that constituency was hit quite hard with hail, it was simply amazing how, under the terms of the act, so many of the farmers in the area failed to qualify for any benefits whatsoever. Now, the major difficulty, of course, results from the very nature of hail itself. In contrast to drought, which usually extends over widespread areas, hail can come in the most peculiar patterns. For example, I can recall at the moment the Pen-hold area where in four successive years hail

Prairie Farm Assistance Act extended over a distance of approximately 40 miles. It averaged probably half a mile in width and caused complete devastation where it hit and yet there was not a single, solitary township in the entire area, so far as I am aware, that qualified for prairie farm assistance in any one of those four years. That type of storm seems particularly peculiar to that area.
Tens of thousands of dollars are paid into prairie farm assistance by the farmers of my area. I have never heard them complain about paying prairie farm assistance; in fact,
I	have heard them say that they would be prepared to pay considerably more provided that the terms of the act were amended to deal with a situation such as that created by those recurrent hail storms.
I have already referred to the fact that in most cases it is very difficult for the townships to qualify. This, of course, is because of the rectangular pattern which must be found, or which must appear, before a block can qualify. There again we are precluded from securing the benefits.
I would like to point out one other thing as well. I am thinking of one particular instance where eight or nine sections of the southern part of the township were just cleaned out, to use a well understood expression, 100 per cent.
We run into extreme figures because in an area like the Red Deer district, if you do not get hail you usually have a heavy crop which boosts the average very high.
Once again I am thinking of that same township I mentioned in the house once before, where 12 sections were hailed out 100 per cent. Under the terms of the act sections 1 to 6 and 7 to 11 received the full benefits, but in section No. 12, which was just as badly hailed as any of the other
II	sections, the three farmers operating there received not one single solitary cent. That section had been drawn up in an irregular pattern which someone had found it possible to form. As the hon. member for Acadia said yesterday, his concern is not so much with the blocks that are brought in as it is with those which by some process of manoeuvring are pulled out of what would otherwise be an eligible area.
I have been told by more than one farmer that they would be prepared to have the levy doubled or tripled if the eligibility could be brought down to a smaller unit. I pointed out that I consider it rather doubtful if it would ever be brought down to the point where benefits would be paid on an individual farm basis, but I said that as far as hail was concerned I could see a good deal of merit in having it paid on the basis

of a section unit. On the basis of my experience I still feel that this would be an excellent method.
In 1953 I had reason to believe that something was going to be done. As I have said, in 1951 and 1952 we had a lot of hail, and then came the election in 1953. Feeling was running pretty high, in fact I said at that time in the house that if there was one single solitary thing that was causing discontent it was the administration of the P.F.A.A. In saying that I am not attacking any official of the department, because after all I realize that they must interpret the regulations as they are placed before them and administer them in as fair a manner as possible.
As I say, I assumed that something was going to be done in 1953 because my Liberal opponent came out with some kind of an election package, but he never took the string off it. The people in my constituency were told that the Liberals had found the answer for the problem that existed in Red Deer constituency, that if they would just elect the Liberal candidate the string would be taken off the package after the election and the problem would be solved. As far as I am concerned the string has never been taken off, and that package is still buried under a not very large pile of minority votes. That is rather unfortunate, though that is probably legitimate politics and I am not complaining from that point of view.
I am suggesting, however, that at that time even the Liberals recognized the seriousness of the problem in that area and the unfairness of the act as it operated there. Of course our hail losses have not been as severe in recent years, and we have not had the same reason to bring forward this matter. But even though the damage may have been less, in view of the facts I have set out I am going to press just a bit harder to have them take off the string. I will be interested in knowing just what the Liberal candidate in my riding will have to offer as a solution to this problem.
When the hon. member for Acadia was speaking the minister made a rather interesting interjection, to be found on page 1435 of Hansard of February 19, as follows:
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.
I should like to ask the minister if he has actually had representations from the government of Alberta asking for assistance in provincial hail suppression programs. Experiments are being conducted in that area, and while it is too early to come to any fixed

conclusion it is rather significant to note that in that area which has been blanked out tor years by the line companies as far as hail insurance is concerned, there was a great decrease in the amount of hail which fell during the year. Of course I am prepared to agree that this may be because of the nature of the season itself. However, I am told that an area just outside the area in which the hail suppression program was carried on received the same amount of hail as had been received in the previous year.
As I say, it will probably take several years before they know, but I would say to those who have laughed about this sort of thing that they should reserve their mirth. I rather took from what the minister said last night that in his mind there might be a joke about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to answer now. The hon. member asked whether the province of Alberta had indicated that they would like to have some help. First may I say that I have had no intention at any time of indicating that there is any mirth in this thing or any reason for laughing about it. Strong representations have been made not only by the provincial government but by the organization which has been set up to promote this battle against hail. I do not know enough about the scientific part of it to say whether they will get anywhere, but I know enough about these things to say that anything of that kind is worth trying until you prove that it will not work.
In answer to the direct question as to whether we have been approached by the government of Alberta I would tell the hon. member that the minister of agriculture was at the conference in December and addressed us on that very matter. I do not know whether the record will indicate that he made any suggestion to us, but he did discuss it with me later and suggested that if there was any possibility of receiving some assistance they would like to have it. I would not like to say definitely that I have a letter from him on that point, but I think I have.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am pleased to hear the minister say that, because I have had a number of communications from those who are vitally interested in this hail suppression program. I know they have been particularly interested in securing both provincial and federal help in connection with this project. I know the minister is as interested as I am in anything that might result in less hail falling in any area, particularly in those areas where the damage has been so devastating.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
I should like to ask the minister if any research has been done on hail suppression by any agency of the federal government. I do not know of any research that is being carried on in Alberta, and I do not know whether the government of Alberta is assisting in the financing of such a project. I hope they are; if they are not, I hope they will, and I say the same thing to the minister as federal minister.
I should like to refer to just one other thing in connection with the P.F.A.A., and I do this because of representations that have been made to me from time to time by farmers who have lost their crops. As the minister knows, hail loss is a pretty devastating type of loss because in many cases you are not even left with feed for your livestock. These people have had to go out and seek temporary off the farm employment. In many cases it has been a matter of whether they eat or do not eat. In my province quite a number of younger people, many of them veterans, have settled on land within recent years.
It is not as if these people had been established for a number of years and had the opportunity of building up a reserve against emergencies. In these cases people have had to leave the farms and make some arrangement to carry on. In one case I know of, the man left his wife and children there so he might go elsewhere to earn enough to pay grocery and other necessary bills. Yet, under the provisions of the act as it stands at present, these people have no protection, and I urge the government to take another look at this matter and give it their serious consideration.
If the Department of Agriculture could see its way clear to changing the unit of eligibility, particularly in relation to hail, and to look into this other matter, namely that of persons who are compelled to seek seasonal work, then I am sure most of the complaints which are directed against P.F.A.A. in my part of the country would be removed. I would also tell the minister this. The farmers with whom I have talked have indicated to me that they are prepared to pay considerably more than they are called upon to pay at the present time. That is virtually the unanimous view expressed to me by farmers with whom I have been in contact.
In conclusion, I would say that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been a very wonderful thing for western Canada. We have supported it in the past and we will continue to support it; and even if crop insurance were brought in there would still appear to me to be a need for such legislation as this. With regard to what the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre said, I do not think his

Prairie Farm Assistance Act comparison between the Unemployment Insurance Act and prairie farm assistance was a good one. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act we do not have to wait until 40 or 50 other people are unemployed before qualifying for benefit; under P.F.A.A. that is what it amounts to. I do not think the two things should be compared. We believe that each, in its own field, does a wonderful job.


Mr. MacKenzie:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part in the discussion today. I thought perhaps the resolution stage would have been completed yesterday; we could then have had the bill before us in order to see exactly what it means and what it contemplates doing. But the debate did not conclude last night, and I want to make just a few remarks in connection with this legislation.
I was in the house myself in 1938 when this bill first became effective. I have always had a great deal of sympathy with farmers and their agricultural problems, and I knew that western farmers were in rather dire straits as a result of poor crops, so I certainly supported the measure wholeheartedly. But it does seem to me that the situation today is entirely changed; western farmers are not in the same circumstances at all as they were at that time. Consequently I think I should be permitted to put a few facts on the record to indicate, at least to the house, that this legislation as it applies to the three prairie provinces is not so vital today as it was then.
Since 1935 when I first came into this house western wheat growers have had a great deal of assistance from the government, or the consolidated revenue fund, or the taxpayers, whatever you wish. The first provision for prairie farm assistance was brought down as a temporary measure by the Bennett administration. It provided for the spending of $4,750,000 over a five-year period. This measure was to provide for the rehabilitation of the drought and soil-drifting areas of the prairie provinces; it was amended in 1937 and further amended in 1939, when the five-year limitation was removed. The act has been in force in Canada ever since.
My figures are not quite up to date and do not cover the crop year 1955-56, but from 1935 to 1955 approximately $100 million has been spent in the three prairie provinces on P.F.R.A. P.F.A.A. was brought in in 1939, and from 1939 to March 31, 1955, the total amount paid under this act was $177,397,625, less some $85 million recovered from grain delivered collections, leaving a balance of $91,629,692 which was paid by the government.
The wheat acreage reduction plan operated from 1942 to 1946, during which time the government paid to the farmers, for summer fallowing and so on, approximately $90 million. In addition, in October, 1941, order

in council P.C. 8126 authorized $20 million to be paid to western farmers to make up for their lack of income.
During the debate last year on Bills 82 and 83, several speakers sponsoring the interests of western Canada claimed that the wheat board had paid its own expenses and cost the government nothing. Well, how does this work out? Let me read an item from the Canadian wheat board report of 1935-46, reprinted from the Canada Year Book and headed "Operations of the board":
Purchases from the producers during the crop year amounted to 292,360,030 bushels and there was an unsold carryover of 86.539,554 bushels shown at July 31, 1939. This wheat was sold during the following crop year, 1939-40, but the account for the 1938 crop was not closed out until April 24, 1942, when the final funds were received from the Department of Finance. The deficit resulting from the board's operations in 1938-39 was then placed at $61,525,691.
We all remember, of course, the $65 million that was granted in 1951. And now we come to the provision which was made last year, $32 million for wheat storage.
Let me summarize all this and calculate the cost to the taxpayers of this country. P.F.R.A. between 1935 and 1955 cost $100 million; P.F.A.A. since 1939, including the crop year 1945-1955, cost $91 million; wheat acreage reduction from 1942 to 1945, $90 million; prairie farm income, 1941-42, $20 million; subsidy to the wheat board, 1938-39, $61 million; subsidy to the wheat board in 1951, $65 million; payment last year for storage, approximately $32 million, and this year another payment of $32 million. This list does not include payments on account of P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. for the crop year 1955, and the total will probably amount to well over $500 million in respect of the years between 1935 and 1955, and for the crop year 1956.
Now, that is not bad. I think that is pretty good. This act which we are amending now does not, it should be remembered, affect any of the farm districts outside the three prairie provinces. It is, actually, in the nature of a crop insurance plan. Now, I do not believe there is anyone in this house who knows the problems of agriculture from one end of the country to the other as well as the Minister of Agriculture. The minister said last night, however, that the distribution of subsidies or grants throughout the provinces was approximately even. Well, I hope when the estimates are under discussion he will show me that this is true, because it is hard for me to believe it.
What I want to point out to the committee is that there are other parts of the agricultural economy which are not so prosperous, either.

Take the province of Ontario. Last year the weather was rather wet and cold. The farmers here grow corn in a big way, but with the wet and cold weather last year the crop did not mature very rapidly. Then there was an early frost and much of the corn did not mature. A lot of it was never harvested at all. There were thousands of acres that were of no value at all from a production standpoint.
Then there is the white bean crop that we have in western Ontario. You must have comparatively dry weather to harvest that crop. We lost most of the bean crop in 1955, and we had no recourse of any kind. When I discussed the matter with the officials of the Department of Agriculture-I am not sure whether or not I got a definite statement from the minister-to see if there was any redress at all I was told it was a purely provincial matter and that the province should take care of it. Last year we had a lot of hail and many farmers lost whole crops of tobacco. If they did not have hail insurance they lost everything.
In the light of these facts do you think it is fair to have a crop insurance plan for the prairie provinces only? You can call it a relief measure, if you will, but it is in the nature of a crop insurance plan. Do you think it is fair to have a crop insurance plan, perhaps not adequate but the nucleus of a plan, for the three prairie provinces which have enjoyed a good deal of prosperity in the last few years, and ask farmers engaged in other types of agriculture in other parts of Canada who do not have a very high income to contribute to the plan? I do not think that is quite fair.
I have tried to get figures from the bureau of statistics to show the amount of income tax paid by farmers, because it is said that income tax collections are some indication of their income wherever they may be. In 1952 the income tax paid by farmers across Canada amounted to $27,454,000. The amount paid by Saskatchewan farmers was $13 million and the amount paid by Alberta farmers was something like $8,350,000. This means that Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers paid approximately $21 million out of the $27 million collected in 1952.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Discrimination.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Well, it is all very well for these people to say they pay their income tax, but I cannot be convinced that there is one yardstick for income tax for farmers in Ontario and a different yardstick for farmers in western Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what your whole speech is saying.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I do not believe that at all. If this plan is not going to apply all across the board and cover all farm crops, then I certainly think it is time the matter should be left to the provinces. I believe the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta are well able to take care of the payments made under P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. If they do not do so, then I think the plan should apply across the board and cover all farm districts.
I must say quite frankly that I know most people are going to support the legislation wholeheartedly. I did say that I supported it wholeheartedly in 1939 and 1940, but the situation has changed so greatly that I am certainly not in favour of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act under the present set-up and I will vote against it, work against it and do anything I can to change the present situation unless it applies to all agriculture in Canada.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, my first reaction in listening to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent was, who is crying now? The bean crop is gone, the corn crop is gone and hail is widespread.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I was just giving facts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He dealt with various difficulties, and I was sorry the hon. member for Maple Creek was not here to give one of his great perorations against people crying over things such as we have listened to several times in the house. What point the hon. member for Lambton-Kent was trying to make in the early part of his speech I do not know, but I am quite sure of one thing. Everybody in western Canada running against a Liberal candidate will be most delighted to bring the hon. member's remarks to the attention of all the people possible in western Canada. I am equally sure that his remarks will help to defeat some of the Liberal candidates out there.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I was not looking at the matter from a political angle at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know the hon. member is far above politics. He is a statesman pure and simple.


Hazen Robert Argue: Simple is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I simply wished to draw this point to his attention and the attention of the committee. I suppose every farmer in western Canada will be glad that these improvements in Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments are going to be made. As far as the farmers in the foothills of Alberta around Calgary are concerned, that being the district where I farm, they will be particularly glad

Prairie Farm Assistance Act to hear that there is to be no increase in the amount they will be called upon to pay under the scheme.
In that area, of course, there has been a certain amount of mild grumbling about having to pay for this scheme because of the fact that the farmers are never able to collect anything. A few of them did collect a certain amount three years ago, I believe, when there was very wide hail damage in that area, but apart from hail damage the fact is that in that area, as in quite a number of other areas in Alberta and also in Manitoba, there is no chance of people collecting under the scheme. As I say, there has been a certain amount of mild grumbling, although on the whole the farmers, even though they realize they cannot collect except for hail damage, are agreeable to paying the levy because they look upon the scheme as a good one for the farmers of western Canada as a whole in protecting them against devastating drought conditions or loss of crops otherwise.
The only time any collection was made under the scheme was because of the widespread hail damage I mentioned, and I remember one of my neighbours saying, "Well, it is the most expensive damned hail insurance that anybody could possibly buy." As far as we are concerned that is correct. Having regard to the amount the farmers there have to pay, the amount they can possibly get back by way of return because of hail damage is very small. Nevertheless, in spite of some grumbling the general feeling is that it is a good scheme and there will certainly be no complaint because the payments are being increased. The situation will be the reverse. I think the scheme will be much more acceptable in the part of the country from which I come, and the other areas where the chances of collecting are very small and collection is only made in exceptional circumstances such as hail or flood, because the payments are being increased.
There are some other matters concerning the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in which I am particularly interested, and I wish to refer first of all to the question of lands that are excluded from payment. I would hope that when the act is being amended the minister will take the opportunity to correct some of the injustices as far as payments are concerned. I refer particularly to Indians. In Alberta there are now quite a large number of Indians who are farming on reservations, but they are not eligible for payments under the act. They have to pay into the fund just the same as everybody else, but they cannot collect because they are on a reservation. Some of these Indians cultivate considerable acreages, particularly on the Blood and Blackfoot reserves.


Some of the cultivation carried on by Indians is of a co-operative nature, and co-operatives are definitely included under the scheme. Co-operative farms can collect P.F.A.A. payments, but mission schools for Indians which operate farms are not able to collect. I would hope the minister would amend the act at this time in order to include these people. I can see no reason why Indians should be discriminated against in this way. I was glad to see that in the brief presented to the government by the farm unions, whose representatives are in Ottawa at the present time, one of their recommendations was that Indians on reservations be made eligible for P.F.A.A. payments.
Another group of people whom I can see no reason for excluding are those covered by section 3 of the act, subsection' 3 of which reads as follows:
3. No award under this section shall be made . . .
And this is under paragraph (c) (i).
(i) lands disposed of to a settler or veteran under the Soldier Settlement Act, chapter 188 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, or the Veterans' Land Act . . .
Why people who hold land under the Soldier Settlement Act or under the Veterans' Land Act should be excluded from the benefits of this act I quite fail to understand. It seems to be another case of gross discrimination for which there is no excuse. I would make a very strong plea to the minister that he remove that exclusion from the benefits of this act as far as people holding land under the Veterans' Land Act are concerned. As a matter of fact the amount of land any veteran was able to get under the Veterans' Land Act was a small farm, not sufficient to put him in farming in a very big way. They are among the very group of farmers who on the whole perhaps need the assistance or help they can get under a scheme of this kind more than do farmers generally.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I was not just listening all the way through. Would my hon. friend mind suggesting to me where the veteran is excluded under the terms of the act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under section 3 of the act which is headed "Crop failure assistance". Subsection 3 of that section reads:
No award under this section shall be made-[DOT]
Then there are paragraphs (a) and (b) and paragraph (c) (i), with relation to lands to which it does not apply, refers to lands disposed of to a settler or veteran.


James Garfield Gardiner: That puts them back in. That puts in the veteran in all that area that was excluded, as coming in after 1940. The veterans are brought back in.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act Mr. Harkness; If they are in, well and some consideration has been given to it, but good. However, the Indians are certainly I am not in a position to go any further not in.	at the moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I have had to say about them stands and applies. I am glad to hear that the veterans are in under the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might go just a little bit farther in that matter. What it says is this:
(c) with respect to lands not sold or granted, or not agreed to be sold or granted, by His Majesty prior to the 31st day of December, 1940, and for the purposes of this section such lands shall not be included in computing the cultivated land of a farmer, and the grain grown thereon shall not be included in computing the average yield in a township, but this paragraph does not apply to-
And in that is included the lands of veterans, which means that the lands of veterans stay in under the act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad that is the case. Just before I sit down, I wonder whether the minister would comment on this exclusion of Indians on reserves, and whether he has in mind an amendment to the act in order to include them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think it requires an amendment to the act. It requires an amendment to the regulations. Authority is given to the governor in council to pass regulations. Under them I think the Indians are excluded. I have a copy of the regulations here. At page 2 we find this:
5. The following lands and any grain grown thereon are excluded from the operation of subsections 1 and 2 of section 3 of the act: (a) lands operated as experimental farms; (b) lands operated as market gardens; (c) lands held under a grazing lease; (d) lands operated by Indians within reservations .
And so on. There is a long list of them that runs up to, I would think, about 20 classifications altogether. They are based on the idea that most of these people already have some form of assistance from governments. Those leased lands, for example, that are ranched, and so on, are given at special rentals. All those kinds of lands are excluded. There is a difference between Indian lands and some of the others. I am thinking more particularly now of the Blood Indian reserve down at Cardston, where you cannot tell when you go into the reserve. The lands are farmed just the same by the Indians as they are by white people.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The same thing is true on the Blackfoot reserve.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is true on other reserves. That has given the government some thought in connection with the matter and 82715-94J


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, now that nearly all the trumpets have sounded from the prairie provinces I think it is only fair that I should have the opportunity to blow a few piccolo notes on behalf of the fruit growers of British Columbia. I hope to make some brief and, I trust, appropriate remarks in presenting their views with respect to the question of insuring growers against the hazards of damage to crops. Other members of our group are much more competent than I to deal with the grain aspect of the situation from their personal experience and knowledge. I just want to take the opportunity under this resolution, as others have done, to present the views of a good number of people whom I have the honour to represent.
Like the other members of this group I support the bill in principle as a step in the right direction to assist those who need assistance and to meet what I presume is considered a somewhat particular situation, definitely related to the hazards of growing grain under certain conditions. However, as far as the growers of British Columbia are concerned this type of legislation, while it meets certain situations, does not meet the needs of the farmers generally in Canada, and the question of devising some scheme to meet those needs has been under discussion by the British Columbia fruit growers' association over a good number of years.
In British Columbia, as far as the tree fruit industry is concerned, we are subject to two particular hazards. The first is hail damage to fruit on the trees and the second is frost damage to the trees themselves. The first occurs in some areas possibly to some extent nearly every season. The second happens only over long periods of time. It happened in the winter of 1949 and 1950 when the growers of British Columbia suffered serious loss as a result of frost injury to trees, as a consequence of which they were obliged to pull out a great many of those trees and lost the crop not only for the next year but for a good number of years.
As the minister knows, they made application to this government for assistance, and that assistance was denied. I have never been quite able to understand why there is a different approach to these applications for assistance from various parts of Canada. I think agricultural producers should be treated on the same basis. As a result of the situation that has existed throughout the years the growers of British Columbia

Prairie Farm Assistance Act have come to the conclusion that the problem will not be solved satisfactorily until we have some form of national crop insurance. I can see the minister's interest in the growers of British Columbia when I look at his back.


An hon. Member:: He turned his back.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think it is only fair to the growers, in view of the close study they have given to this question, that I should say this. They have had a committee studying this problem of a national crop insurance scheme for a number of years. It is not a question of just getting up and making off the cuff statements and things of that sort. They have realized all the difficulties. They have realized the need of the farmers generally in this respect and the problems related to it.
This committee, made up of fruit growers, reported to the 1955 convention of the British Columbia fruit growers' association. As a result of that report there was presented to the convention a resolution which was adopted, and I am going to read the resolution into the record because I think it offers a constructive approach to what I admit is an extremely difficult problem that is facing agriculture in Canada at this time.
This is the resolution. It is somewhat lengthy, but in view of the thought given to the matter I think it is worth putting on the record. This resolution was presented toy the executive of the British Columbia fruit growers' association on behalf of the crop hazards committee.
This was the name of the committee that gave a great deal of study to this question, studied all angles of it such as the growing angle, the weather angle, the financial angle, and all the rest of it.
Whereas the crop hazards committee was appointed to report on the feasibility of providing some form of insurance or of setting up reserves against frost and other crop hazards beyond the control of growers, and
Whereas this committee has recommended three methods by which presently un-insurable crop hazards, beyond the control of the growers, could be provided for,
Therefore, be it resolved by this 1955 B.C.F.G.A. convention:
A.	That this association support the principle of a national system of voluntary crop insurance embracing all sections of agriculture, and that we work through the Canadian federation of agriculture to have a scheme to provide such insurance enacted by the federal government at the earliest possible time.
B.	That pending the establishment of a national scheme as outlined in section A, the executive, B.C.F.G.A., be instructed to seek the co-operation and assistance of the provincial and federal governments in establishing a voluntary and contributory crop insurance scheme on an industrywide basis under government supervision and with government financial assistance similar in principle

to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, but with the proviso that before such scheme shall be implemented a plebiscite shall be taken of all growers and a majority of at least two-thirds of those voting shall be required to be in favour before the scheme becomes operative.
C.	That pending the establishment of either of the above schemes, the executive, B.C.F.G.A., be instructed to sponsor and assist in the formation of a separate association for purposes of collecting a crop hazard fund by means of voluntary box deductions under a separate and special contract brought up for that purpose; such association to be administered quite separately from the B.C.F.G.A., with its own officers and a membership consisting of contract holders only and with benefits confined to contract holders, and that with the proviso that until and unless two-thirds of the presently registered growers have agreed to participate in such a scheme and have signed a five-year contract to that effect such scheme shall not become operative.
The result of the resolution was, first of all, that they made representations with respect to sections A and B of the resolution for the establishment of a national voluntary contributory scheme on an agricultural industry basis. Then, as usually happens with the growers in British Columbia, they got to work on their own behalf and organized a hail insurance company. This has been functioning quite well up to the present time. At the same time the growers recognize it is only an expedient that can assist only one group of agricultural producers and deals particularly with one type of damage to crops, hail damage.
The question of crop insurance has also been under consideration in the United States, as the minister knows, for quite a number of years. There is a very successful scheme in operation over there so it is not, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre implied, something that is unsound financially, which cannot be organized on a sound basis. It has been organized on a sound basis and given effect in the United States. It has been organized to a lesser degree by the fruit growers of British Columbia.
I listened with great interest this afternoon to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition when he was making his plea with respect to a crop insurance scheme in Canada. He was of the opinion that such a scheme, when organized by the federal government, was not unconstitutional. I am not an authority on the constitutional aspects of the question, but I do suggest it is up to the federal government to take the initiative in this matter, to give some lead. They have the machinery for doing so. The minister should do that and try bringing this question to the attention of the next dominion-provincial conference on agriculture. I admit the difficulties, and I admit it would take some time to study and establish.

There are a number of things to be considered if the scheme is going to be organized to the satisfaction of the farmers and at the same time on a sound basis.
But I do urge him to give this matter consideration and to take the initiative in bringing it before the next dominion-provincial conference on agriculture. There is no doubt it will require careful study. It will require the co-ordination of agricultural activities across Canada, and it will require the co-operation of all the provinces.
I think it is generally recognized that, while the minister says this is a provincial responsibility from a constitutional point of view-he may be correct on that point-such a scheme cannot be organized on a provincial basis. It is generally understood by those who have studied the scheme closely that it would have to be organized on a national basis if it were to be sound and satisfactory. I do urge the minister to give consideration to taking the initiative in the development of a national crop insurance scheme, and in so doing give the opportunity of bringing the magic law of averages to the rescue of thousands of farmers in this country.


Ray Thomas: Like the other members who have spoken on this resolution, I welcome it. I think it will do a great deal to assist the farmers who come under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. But like the hon. member for Red Deer my constituency is in the position that nearly all the crop failures come about as a result of hail. I have brought this to the minister's attention on several other occasions, and I am not going to dwell on it to any great extent. However, the eligibility clause under the act certainly leaves the way open for discrimination. Many of the farmers in my area are being hailed out, some of them for several years in a row, and they have been unable to get any payment for these losses.
The information I have been able to gather from the farmers is that they do not mind paying the one cent. They have no objection to it at all, and as the hon. member for Red Deer has indicated many of them would be agreeable to paying even more if they could derive some benefit from the fund. However hail does not, under any circumstances, flatten crops in any six-section area. It runs in streaks, and in very uneven paths through the area. As a result many of these farmers have been paying into the fund for years but have been unable to get a cent from it.
I have one other point about which I should like to ask the minister. A year ago I mentioned to him that there was an area within
Prairie Farm Assistance Act my riding that had been excluded from the original act because it was considered to be submarginal. I pointed out also that due to the growing of different crops and improved farming methods, the area in question had increased in productivity to a very great extent. I asked him at that time if it would be possible to have this area investigated to see whether or not it would be possible to reclassify it and bring it under the act. A year ago the minister assured me it would be possible to check into the matter, and if he found things were different from what they were when the act was originally drafted he would certainly take steps to see that something was done in conjunction with the provincial government.
I ask the minister now if he has made any inquiry into that area, and if so what has been decided. I may say that at that time the minister was under the impression that it was in a special area of the province farther north, and I assured him that it was not. It is in a grey wooded soil area and they are raising good crops of clover, alfalfa and other feed grains and are doing very well.
However, their big complaint is this. In spite of the fact that it is now a productive area they are unable to get under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and cannot derive any benefit from it although their neighbours very near to them in an eligible area are able to derive some benefit from prairie farm assistance.


James Garfield Gardiner: Can my hon. friend tell me the central point or the town in the district of which he is speaking?


Ray Thomas: It is south and west of Edmonton, Mr. Chairman, directly west of Wetaskiwin. It is in the area on the east side, bordering on the Saskatchewan river.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I must say in direct answer to the question that I cannot recall at the moment what investigations were made and what results were reported if they were, but I shall examine into that at once and when the bill is brought down I shall give an answer to the question.
While I am on my feet I should like to say that while many hon. members have been discussing hail, hail does not come under this act at all. It purposely does not. It is not mentioned in the act and it does not come under the act, because you can insure against hail.


Hazen Robert Argue: It can qualify.


James Garfield Gardiner: In respect of the fact that it has hailed in an area which comes in anyway.


Hazen Robert Argue: Half a township.
148S

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


James Garfield Gardiner: That is when the hail gets in, but the act is not drafted to take in hail and never was, because at the beginning it was said you cannot get insurance of any kind for drought; it is too widespread and the costs in connection with paying for it are too great. You cannot possibly get the insurance from anybody, from any company, any government or anyone else for drought. But it was said right at the beginning that you can get insurance any place against hail.
I think the arguments which have been used are really arguments against those who are saying that crop insurance would correct the ills of our farming people, because it is very evident that in most of the areas that have been spoken of people have not put on hail insurance. It is easy to put it on if they want to put it on. I think the only member who referred to the cost was the hon. member for Assiniboia. He pointed out that probably some of this insurance might be even cheaper in some places than the hail insurance. But the fact is that hail insurance can be obtained in certain areas such as the one referred to by the hon. member for Red Deer, which is in the neighbourhood of Red Deer. Up in that country hail has been so persistent that the cost of hail insurance is probably prohibitive.
When one speaks about those people being hailed out and not having any hail insurance he is simply emphasizing the fact which has been found out in the United States. They have available crop insurance, but only 26 per cent of the farmers in the United States who are eligible have taken it out. On top of that, a large part of the country is not eligible at all, because they will not sell insurance in areas which are afflicted with drought and other things to the extent we are discussing in connection with this bill. Therefore if they do not insure against hail I doubt very much whether they would have insurance against any other kind of crop failure, and therefore they would not have any protection at all unless they did insure.
Now, this act happens to take care of some people who were hailed out. The act does not provide for hail in any sense, on the ground that any individual can insure against hail losses himself. There is no difficulty about that whatsoever.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say this. I did not indicate that I did not hear anyone else say that the farmers in that area did not insure against hail. What they are complaining about is that if it hails in a large enough area they can qualify.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Ray Thomas: They do.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not the act of hailing in a large enough area that qualifies them. If there is a large enough area that has a crop failure for any reason whatsoever and it consists of a block which forms a township which is six miles square, or if you get into certain other areas or get further out from the solid block it could be half a township, it has to be a rectangular area of that kind in order to get under.
Now, as has been stated, hail does not follow a straight line. Neither does drought or anything else. Grasshoppers do not follow a straight line, either. The whole question involved is as to how you are going to make a selection as to who should be in. What we said was that we would take in the solid block, and then we would depend on the three provincial governments to take in the area outside the solid block.
None of the complaints talked about here come from the solid block. That solid block probably has 150,000 farmers who were paid in 1954, but there are some 4,000 others in addition to the 150,000 who are on the edges, and most of the complaints are in those fringe areas. What I have said is that-my hon. friend smiles-apart from a few people who have stores and things of that kind and think they should be paid also because they have farms, as far as the paid persons are concerned they have not been raising complaints. The only way in which this other matter can be settled is this. In the first instance, back when we had this drought that we talk about, the provinces took the whole cost to start with. Well, I should go back farther than that. The municipalities took it all to start with, then when the claims became too heavy for the municipalities the provinces took it on. Then when about 25 municipalities became involved we undertook to help out, and we went through the whole drought period with a cost to us of $186 million; and offhand I do not know how much it cost the provinces and the municipalities.
Then we said we would bring in this bill and take care of our share of what ought to be paid by the federal authorities. We would take care of it under this act by taking the solid blocks. Then we suggested the provinces might take care of the remainder by crop insurance. It would be very simple when all the other is taken care of. Or they could take care of it by paying some money into this fund and asking us to administer those areas. Up to now nothing has been done.
I would suggest to those who are saying that we ought to say something to the provinces, that we urged the provinces very

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
strongly. I am not now criticizing any particular party. When we started in first the Liberal party was in power in Saskatchewan. I may say it was a government I set up myself and left there when I came here. A Social Credit government was in power in Alberta. They still are in power there. During the greater part of the time a government that was considered to be Liberal has been in power in Manitoba. It is solidly Liberal now. None of them has done anything about it, no matter what party they belonged to. I am simply suggesting that if there are any possibilities of our getting crop insurance, that is where we have to start.
I tried to emphasize last night that no one in this government that I have ever heard of, including myself, has ever said that we are not sympathetic toward crop insurance. We are sympathetic toward crop insurance. We are simply saying that it should be demonstrated to us by the provinces that the provincial governments are interested in crop insurance also, and that they should set up some plan they think will work in those provinces. We have tried to coax them into some plan in the three western provinces, and they have not done anything about it.


Ray Thomas: Just one word, Mr. Chairman. The minister remarked about my smiling. It seems strange to me that he would think it odd that I would smile when he made such a point of the fact that the block which was collecting all the prairie farm assistance, or at least a good part of it, was not complaining whatsoever; whereas the others who were paying into it and getting nothing out of it were doing the complaining.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think we are all pleased that the bill will be referred to the committee on agriculture, where a very thorough study of this problem may be made. I am hopeful that the committee will invite leaders of the farm movement, both in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and in the interprovincial farm union council, to make representations as to how this act may be improved.
In replying to some of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition the minister made it clear that as far as he himself is concerned, he has not fully abandoned the idea of proceeding with the South Saskatchewan river project.
Then we had a long dissertation from the minister to the effect that by manipulating the estimates it would be possible to commence this project if the government so wished. The Minister of Agriculture has one faculty of which we are all well aware;
he never gives up. While the Prime Minister said, "No, no, no, it is not the time to build this project because it is not in the national interest," the Minister of Agriculture, persisting as he does, will be out across western Canada soon, no doubt waving a copy of the estimates in his version of the French language, in an attempt to prove that in some way or other the project is one of the continuing promises of the government and the minister, and that the thing to do is to return government members. This is what the minister has been saying in every election as long as we can remember.
The minister seems to be losing his touch. Some years ago he was able to convince the cabinet that they should do many rather substantial things in the interests of agriculture, but as time has gone on he seems to be less and less effective. Apparently the minister is now having a great deal of trouble within his own party. We heard a speech this afternoon by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent in which I must say I was sincerely disappointed. I can remember speeches made by the hon. member years ago, and I always felt he had a humanitarian outlook and was interested in helping as many people as possible. I had always thought that if there was any member on the* government side who would not take a parochial position it was the hon. member. I do not know with whom he has been associating over the years but in some way or another hjs mind has been changed.
We hear members on the government side of the house say that there are certain people who have to be convinced before the government can do any of these things. I have not heard any opposition to this proposal from any member on the opposition side, but I heard a Liberal member say this afternoon that he intended to spend his time working against this very proposal.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: On a question of privilege, I said I would oppose it in its present form; that if it did not apply all over Canada I would oppose it.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is fair enough; I accept that. The hon. member made his position clear, that unless the minister would accept his ultimatum he was going to vote against this legislation. It would appear that if any conversions need to be made to the adoption of a national policy and to greater national unity and to the setting up of a program that takes into account the welfare of all parts of this nation, they will have to be made among the members on the government side of the house.
As a member coming from western Canada I naturally appreciate any legislation which

Prairie Farm Assistance Act will help the people with whom I am associated, but in discussing the Prairie Farm Assistance Act I have always said-I said it last night before the hon. member spoke- that the principle of this kind of thing should not be confined only to the prairie provinces. We support the legislation as it now stands because we say it has been of help to us. However, we think the government is allowing its value to deteriorate by failing to act. Nevertheless it is still valuable and always has been.
We say also that legislation should be provided on a national basis to help agricultural producers in all parts of Canada when they experience widespread crop failure. I submit that is the kind of attitude to take instead of a dog in the manger attitude, instead of saying that if somebody else is going to get a meal when someone associated with me is hungry and is not fed, then I am going to stop everybody from eating. That is the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.
The hon. member went on to outline what he called the hand-outs and subsidies that have been made on behalf of the people of western Canada in a 20-year period. I thought he was going to arrive at a staggering sum in relation to , the expenditures this government has undertaken. But working on a yearly basis the hon. member came up with a total-he can correct me if I am misrepresenting what he said, because it is not my intention so to do-of about $25 million per year over the last 20 years. I ask him if that is a very large part of the government's estimates which today are running between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. Is it too much to say that the people of one area are getting less than 1 per cent of the total estimates to be passed this year? I do not think so.


Walter Edward Harris: There is more than that in old age pensions to the west.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is another form of subsidy the minister is now talking about.


Walter Edward Harris: That is the point.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister missed the point of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, if I may interrupt long enough, I missed the speech of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, but when my hon. friend says he does not-


An hon. Member:: What is the point of order?


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend says that he is not intending to misrepresent the hon. member, and then he discusses what I take to be the grants under this and similar legislation for the west.


Hazen Robert Argue: For farmers.


Walter Edward Harris: He then relates that to the total spending of the government, but surely he is misrepresenting when he tries to suggest that $25 million annually is all the western farmers get in relation to the $5 billion. He should take into account in the $5 billion all the expenditures made for and on behalf of the people of the west.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think that is a point of order. I am quite happy to listen to the speech of the minister, but I do not think he is raising a point of order.


Walter Edward Harris: I think the point of order is well taken. If my hon. friend will permit me, may I say that if he loves this particular legislation so much why is he talking it to death? Let us get on and pass it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am afraid that was not a very brilliant interjection by the Minister of Finance on a point of order. In this instance I do not think he was up to his usual form. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent was saying that these were substantial grants for agriculture only.


Walter Edward Harris: Then relate it to the specific grants.


Hazen Robert Argue: I related it to the total amount.


Walter Edward Harris: Relate it to the specific grants.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will relate it. Of course the government has not yet been able to deny to the people who farm and who have families the benefits of family allowances and old age pensions. We expect that in any broad program for all the people of Canada they will share, but I was relating my remarks to the statement made by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent who confined his remarks to something special to the agricultural industry. I have the public accounts before me, and I note in section K23 that government contributions toward the unemployment insurance fund for the year ending March 31, 1956, amounted to $33,892,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, how far are we going to go in the discussion of this legislation. We are now into unemployment insurance and have been all over the place.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As far as the Minister of Finance takes us.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was merely replying to the suggestion that farmers on the prairies by some means or other are getting more out of the federal treasury than other people across the country. If one looks at the expenditures made by the government it will be seen that

the farmers on the prairies as well as farmers all across this country are getting the short end of the deal.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is the answer I gave last night-


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I have the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: The expenditures on agriculture were about one and a quarter billion dollars over the period the other three quarters were paid elsewhere.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend calls "order". I would like to speak on a point of order.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I was calling order myself. I think the points of order, and near points of order, arising on both sides of the floor are well taken. This debate is wandering far afield. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, and he incorporated in his argument in connection with whether or not P.F.A.A. should be extended, details of expenditures made for agriculture as a whole. It was, therefore, to be expected that somebody who felt differently on that question would argue that the expenditures made for agriculture as a whole were not greatly out of proportion. But we have now reached the stage, having discussed the South Saskatchewan dam at some length-


Hazen Robert Argue: Blame the minister for that.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: -and having compared the expenditure on agriculture as a whole with the funds which have been spent on unemployment insurance, or something of that sort, when hon. members with a desire not to restrict this discussion completely to the question of whether or not the levy and grant should be raised but whether or not the principle of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be endorsed by proceeding with this resolution. We might now, I think, come to the point where we should not go over other matters about which we cannot finally come to any conclusion under this resolution.
I would say, with deference to a contrary view, that we could only come to a conclusion on those matters by endorsing or not endorsing the minister's departmental estimates.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to remain clearly within the rules at all times. I was merely endeavouring to point out that the principle of this legislation has been threatened by only one hon. member of this house, the Liberal member for Lambton-Kent, who said that unless the government would agree to do certain things for other parts of the country he 82715-95
Prairie Farm Assistance Act would vote against it. I was endeavouring to point out to the minister that he should attempt to convince his supporters in his own party that they should go along with this measure because, so far, we have found the opposition confined to members of the government party.


James Garfield Gardiner: Only the one member.


Hazen Robert Argue: Only one member, so far, in this house. I have a clipping here taken from the Winnipeg Free Press of a few days ago which refers to a discussion in the Manitoba legislature on this very question. A Liberal member, Gildas Molgat, so the report says- the Liberal member for Ste. Rose, Manitoba-was speaking. The report reads in part as follows:
Changes in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act now being considered by the federal government will not help the situation in Manitoba, only "aggravate" it . . .


Walter Edward Harris: Do you agree with it?


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


Walter Edward Harris: Why quote it?


Hazen Robert Argue: This speaker told the provincial house that now is the time the province should make a strongly worded protest against the change which the federal Minister of Agriculture thinks will make the Prairie Farm Assistance Act better suited to Manitoba.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read it all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Once again the only opposition to the bill has come from a Liberal supporter, this time a man of the prominence of a member of the Manitoba legislature.


James Garfield Gardiner: Tell us what they did about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not believe it says what they did. I am interested in what the minister has done.


James Garfield Gardiner: It says they amended the resolution and referred it to a committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: That sounds like good Liberal tactics; duck the issue, avoid the question so you can get around it in the days ahead. I ask the minister this. Why has the government not been able in 1957 to bring in a prairie farm assistance act which, in its various categories of payment, would allow a recipient to buy the same quantity of goods he could have purchased in 1939?


James Garfield Gardiner: When I speak, I will prove that the act does that.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister's own department said the farmer today is working on a 40-cent dollar. Eight hundred dollars today will not buy nearly as much as $500 purchased in
1490	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act 1939 when the act first went into effect. I believe, and I have said this in respect to other acts, that the very least the government could do when it brings in legislation is to see that inflation and increasing cost of living do not over the years substantially destroy the value of the legislation which the government itself has fostered.
I would not be completely happy if we merely held our own in the agricultural industry when I see that the position of everybody else in this country, or at least the position of a good many people, is improving. I think we should share in that improvement, too. Certainly the very least the government should do in 1957 is bring in legislation that will provide for the purchase of the same volume of goods as it did in 1939.
Last night I quoted the minister's own cost of production index, 99.3 in 1939 and 254.3 according to the last available index. The payment would have to be increased two and a half times in order to provide the same purchasing power as in 1939. I suggest to the minister that he should have attempted to persuade his colleagues in the cabinet and his supporters, in spite of the opposition apparent in his own party, to provide an amount in the bill which would make prairie farm assistance in 1957 worth as much in purchasing power as it was in 1939.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, my own intervention will be brief. I also listened to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, but I was not surprised at what he said, because I have heard him make somewhat similar remarks on other occasions. I am not criticizing him for what he said, because after all the hon. member is entitled to his own opinion. Nevertheless I think he displayed a lack of proper understanding of the situation in the west.
I know there are other hon. members in the Liberal party who feel in a similar way about this question as the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, and there are hon. members of the Conservative party from eastern Canada who also feel in a similar manner. Again I am not criticizing them for it. I merely mention this because I think it emphasizes the need for a national crop insurance scheme which would operate right across Canada in order to get away from this type of criticism. As it is, every time legislation is brought in which deals exclusively with western Canada there will always be that type of criticism from a few members and, as we know, a number of hon. members who do not voice that sort of criticism feel it, nevertheless.
The minister has suggested that we should perhaps undertake a crop insurance scheme in one of the provinces in western Canada.


The hon. gentleman has a very high opinion, I know, of the views expressed by the late Mr. Motherwell. The report he made stresses that in his opinion crop insurance should be brought in as a federal scheme, and could not be successfully undertaken by individual provinces.
Therefore again I urge the minister, some time when there is a meeting between the provinces and the federal government, to discuss this matter with the provinces and see whether or not an agreement cannot be reached. Surely the Minister of Agriculture is not going to suggest that we have got ourselves in such a strait jacket in this country that if the provinces want it and the federal government wants it we are not able to bring a nation-wide crop insurance scheme into effect.
I think the minister would agree that if we are to introduce a nation-wide crop insurance scheme it should be done in conjunction with the federal government. It would not be wise just to have the provinces try to do it independently of one another. It has to be done on some basis through the federal government. I think that is the only way we can get away from the kind of criticism we heard from the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.
I remember that there used to be a regular anvil chorus over there at one time. The late Mr. Warren, Mr. Wood and the member for Lambton-Kent all used to sing the same old story. There are not so many members on that side who do so today because the minister apparently has them better trained, but I think those views are still held there.


Hazen Robert Argue: Apparently the minister is not going to answer my question with respect to why the value is not being increased at least to the same point as 1939 purchasing power, but I have another question I should like him to consider. Would it not be possible to amend the regulations so that a man who is farming and has another occupation, but actually goes out on the farm, does the work himself and is in fact in control of the farm and the handling of the crop, might be declared eligible for payment? I can appreciate the attitude of the minister that absentee landlords, people who perhaps own large tracts of land and rent it, should not be eligible for payment; but it does seem to me that some of the people to whom I have referred, people who are part-time farmers operating a business, might be considered. If the minister does not care to make a reply, it is quite all right but I think it is a point the government might consider.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman I did not think the hon. member wanted a reply to the first question he asked before sitting down. I thought he was simply making a point and I suggested to him that we could discuss it better on the bill when we know what is in the bill. I only want to repeat what I said previously and what I think I can maintain when we get on the bill itself, that this legislation as it is now drafted takes at least as good care of the farmer as the 1939 legislation did of the farmer in those days. That is as far as I am going to go at the moment on that matter.
As to the other question, there is a long list of persons who are not paid under the act. As I said earlier, in referring to one of the members of the official opposition, there are about 20 different groups. There may be more than that. I see there are 14 classifications with half a dozen in each of two or three of them, and there would easily be 20 altogether. One person whom I think everybody would admit should not be eligible is the man who owns land and lives outside the country, and also the man who lives in some other province. He may live in eastern Canada or in British Columbia and not live in the area concerned at all. These categories are ruled out.
Then we have the man who is teaching school. There was some argument back and forth with respect to such a person from the point of view of whether he was getting enough to carry him through any difficulties that might arise, and I think he does. Then there is the man who runs an elevator and is paid a salary for handling the grain of the farmers who are being assisted. Then you come to the storekeeper who has a farm outside the village and also runs a store. The objective of the act is to help to get his accounts paid. One can go through the whole list and find that what the act attempts to do is to keep people in that area.
There were a million people living in the area we are most concerned about at the time the legislation was first introduced. Over the whole area there were many more than that, but there were a million in the area we were most concerned about, and the idea was to try to keep them there until they could learn to farm in that area in a way that would make it possible for them to maintain themselves. It was said that it was not necessary to assist the teacher that these very farmers were paying, that it was not necessary to assist the merchant there to whom they would probably pay all the money they received. It is not necessary to pay a man who has a job of any kind which gives him payment for his complete time. He is not a farmer.
82715-95i
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
All I should like to say at the moment is that the legislation will be open for discussion when we go into committee on the bill after second reading, and it will also be open for discussion in the committee on agriculture. All these points can be discussed then; and in answer to the suggestion that we should call certain people here, I hope there will be enough of the people there who have been doing a lot of talking out west so they will learn once more what they have learned on three or four previous occasions and then have gone home and said nothing about it for four or five years. They will learn what the reasons are.
I can think of the time when we had the 400 farmers down here. This was the main question about which they were concerned, and before they left the city of Ottawa they reported that they were in favour of what was being done. No matter how many come here now, I think it will be found that they will report that these are very reasonable provisions.
Finally, may I point out that all we are asking at the moment is what is in the report on crop insurance made by the Saskatchewan commission. They wind up their comments on the P.F.A.A. by saying:
Whatever developments take place in crop insurance, a revamped P.F.A.A. will still be required. During the lengthy transition period necessary to develop and extend crop insurance to its practical limits, P.F.A.A. protection will be essential for those farms not covered. Beyond that period, P.F.A.A. can be envisaged as a permanent relief program for uninsurable farms in high risk areas. Thus, P.F.A.A. and crop insurance would be complementary but separate programs.
That is their opinion. They say the P.F.A.A. not only should continue while crop insurance is being considered, but should continue even after you get crop insurance, if you get it. That being so, why have such a complete discussion on crop insurance when we are talking about this bill? So far as I know, everyone who has been discussing the question, even my friend who has been criticized by the member for Assiniboia, feels that if we could have some kind of crop insurance that would be effective right across the country it would be helpful. We all agree with that, but why go on discussing the question in relation to this legislation when everyone agrees that even if you had crop insurance you would still need to have this legislation? I suggest that we proceed and get the legislation before the house so we will know exactly what we are talking about, and then discuss these other questions in relation to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think I mentioned, crop insurance in the series of questions I asked the minister.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


James Garfield Gardiner: I was answering some others.


Hazen Robert Argue: In any event, I was glad to have his statement. I have another question. It is often said that it is pretty easy for an opposition member to ask for something more without suggesting any way by which at least a part of the cost of the something more may be met. There may be a good reason for the practice that is now followed with regard to flax. I do not know, but I am wondering whether the minister can tell us why flax has been exempt from the 1 per cent levy applicable to other grains. It is quite possible for farmers engaged in growing flax almost exclusively-I know there are not many but there are a few-to obtain payment in time of crop failure and not have made any contribution to the fund.
I believe in fair treatment for all. There may be a reason why by exempting flax there is more equitable treatment than if it were brought in and covered by the 1 per cent levy. I am wondering whether the minister could explain to the committee why flax has been exempted.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know of any good reason why it has been eliminated. It probably was simply a matter that when they were enumerating the different grains, it probably was not considered to be so important at that time as it has become since. I have no objection to listening to arguments when we get into committee on it as to why flax should be put in. I know of no reason why it should not be in.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Zaplitny:: I have one question. While the minister is on the subject of these various categories which are not eligible for P.F.A.A., there was one particular category I had hoped he would mention but he did not do so. I would rather have it all in the same day's discussion. I refer to the group mentioned by the hon. member for Yorkton this afternoon, namely the people who are settled on crown lands. The act at the present time excludes those who purchased crown lands since January 1, 1940, with the exception of those settled under the Veterans' Land Act. I think they have a legitimate grievance there. They are farmers. They do not fall into any of these other categories the minister mentioned, such as wage earners and so forth. Their whole income is from the farms. They are paying the 1 per cent levy. They are not exempt from that, yet they are exempted or excluded from the benefits.
If I understand the situation correctly, that provision was arrived at by agreement with the provinces. A great deal has happened since 1939. I think now there are many cases


where lands which may not have been considered as suitable for grain farming or may have been considered to be submarginal or marginal are not considered in that category today with developments that have taken place. I would hope the minister would give us some hope and encouragement that changes will b.e made in that respect. These farmers are paying their levy year after year and have been doing so since 1939. Then when they have a crop failure, even if they are included in a block in which their neighbours on one side, and sometimes on all sides, are eligible, because of that exclusion they find that they cannot share in the benefits. I think it is a real grievance about which something should be done.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, again I would prefer to discuss that matter in committee, but I can give a short answer to that question.
At the time that was put into the act, when we amended it some years ago, that question was put before the committee. As was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia when he was discussing the matter this afternoon, quite a number of things were put into the amendment that were not in it when it was introduced to the committee. One of them was with regard to the group mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary North, I think it was; that is, that returned soldiers should be allowed to settle on this land.
The reason for raising the question at the time was that it had developed that there was one township in Saskatchewan where there were some 34 persons who had gone back on the land in an area that was not considered suitable for agriculture. The bill definitely states that on any submarginal land or land that is declared submarginal we should not make payment. When it was found that people were going in, some examination was made into how they got into that position. It usually turned out that there was some farmer who was farming near the edge of an area such as that and he had maybe one or two sons or some other persons in whom he was interested, and the farm was extended out into that area so that it came in. But it had some effect upon the provision with regard to 400 acres and so on, where a man can only draw on 200 acres. By splitting it up in certain ways three or four may draw instead of one. That was the difficulty that an attempt was made to overcome.
As has been said by the hon. member for Dauphin, the question was fully discussed with representatives of the provincial governments here and all those matters were considered. Then everybody said: All right.

We hear claimed if they came in since 1940 the provincial governments put them on the land after that time. In the 1930's the lands were turned over to the provinces and from 1940 on those persons who were there on the land were there, if it was crown land, with the consent of the provinces. If the provinces consented to their going on it, then they should put them on it under conditions that would make it possible for them to live there. If the lands were considered to be submarginal, then they should not be put there at all.
That was the nature of the argument. So the provincial feeling was, "That is all right provided you exempt certain portions." The special areas that had been mapped out in Alberta were one portion. I think it was the hon. member for Acadia who put forward the argument at that time that these districts should be treated a little bit different. They are so treated by the act. Then somebody said the returned soldier should be treated differently, so the returned soldier was exempted from it. So if he went on the land he could still go on that kind of land and we would pay.
Representations have been made to me to the effect that practically all these lands are now occupied by returned soldiers, and that there is no reason for having this amendment in the act at all. They say that returned soldiers have got into practically all that land under this exemption that is put in the act to provide for a returned soldier getting on it. I have said, "That matter must be investigated before we take this out of the act. If that is the case, there is no good reason for having this still in the act." It is just another indication of how difficult it sometimes is to do things that you think ought to be done when you are dealing with human nature.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I want to ask just one more question in order to see whether the minister can clarify something. At one point he used the expression "If certain lands are declared to be submarginal." Declared on whose part, may I ask?


James Garfield Gardiner: The province.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In other words, so far as the federal government are concerned they will accept the description or designation of what is submarginal and what is not on the ruling of the province? Is that the understanding?


James Garfield Gardiner: In so far as these lands of which I have been speaking are concerned they were probably well declared as to what they were at the end of the depression period. When we had been paying and lands were taken out of crop altogether because they were submarginal, because of that declaration those lands we thought should be kept
Quebec Savings Banks Act out from under this act. But as I have just explained, they have nearly all got back in by the exemption we made at the time from the provisions of the act. What I want to find out, either while we are iru committee or after we are in committee, is. the extent to which that report is true.


Mr. Bryce:: I have just one question that I want to ask the minister. In connection with Indians on a reserve, where they produce grain, I believe they are excluded under this section 11 of the act. When they sell the grain they are still obliged to pay the 1 per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which portion?


William Scottie Bryce: I am asking about the Indians who produce grain on a reserve and then sell it. Under the act they are excluded from the benefits. Will the 1 per cent still be collected from them?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the 1 per cent isf collected. The act says that on grain delivered at the elevator they must take off 1 per cent. I think the Indian comes under that provision as well as the others.*


William Scottie Bryce: May I ask the minister this question? Do you think it is fair that somebody should pay in for something from which he gets no benefit?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think everybody pays under our democratic system of government.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report the resolution?
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 157, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 106, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
He said; Mr. Speaker, this bill, as the house knows, has been passed by the other place. It is a bill for the purpose of amending the Quebec Savings Banks Act to provide for further rules with respect to cash reserves, for greater authority to make loans or make investments in certain bonds and debentures of certain companies, to make further loans with respect to mortgages on real estate, and generally to improve the trading relations of
(See also amended answer on page 2066.)

Municipal Grants Act
the banks in connection with all the things they have already been authorized to do.
I do not think I need to go into specific details on the principle, which is just that it is more or less in the nature of a public bill in the sense that it applies to only two banks that are especially regulated by the Quebec Savings Banks Act. When the bill receives second reading I will move that it be sent to the banking and commerce committee for study there. I am sure the details will be dealt with by the officials of my department or, alternatively, by the superintendent of banking.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The
minister has made clear two things which I think are important. One is that when the bill receives second reading it will go to the banking and commerce committee, and second that we will be able to have the officials there who can give the fullest explanation as to what lies behind this. On that understanding it seems to me that the bill may be allowed to receive second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.



MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 15, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Harris-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to extend the benefits of the Municipal Grants Act and to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister proposing to add anything to what he said on Friday?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think this measure
should be regarded as of very great importance, but nothing the government have done makes me think that they so regard it. I was going to say that this was a step forward, but I think I would not make such a positive statement as that. I think it is a creeping shuffle forward. I think the government is dealing with this in a grudging way, and that it is another instance of too little and too late. They are really just nibbling at what I consider to be a very important subject.
The minister, in speaking about it on Friday last, gave us very much the "mixture as before". He indicated that there was very little the government was going to do about it. Perhaps it is not surprising that

the minister did that because it is only a little more than a year ago that the Prime Minister, in speaking about this matter, referred to it in such terms as to indicate that the government was not taking it very seriously. On page 49 of Hansard for January 12, 1956, the Prime Minister said:
In general, we did not see any need to share In the normal costs of growth of provinces and municipalities. The financing of this growth presented problems, but they did not seem to us to require a federal solution.
The minister himself on Friday last followed along in the same vein by saying this, as recorded at page 1354 of Hansard for February 15, 1957:
Much of the argument advanced for the extension of the program-
That is the program of making payments in lieu of taxes.
-has been on the ground of municipal fiscal need, but this is a provincial matter and not the purpose of a bill of this nature. What we are concerned with here is the effect of the location of federal property within a municipality upon its capacity to perform its proper functions.
Later on the minister gave us a brief history of what had been done over the years, beginning in 1950-51 when the government first made this concession, and continuing up to the present. The amount paid in 1951 was roughly a million and a half, and it has gone up gradually until in 1955-56 it was nearly $7 million and it is estimated that under the present further concession it will rise in the current year to $9,590,000.
The concession now being made, as the minister pointed out, is that the government proposes to remove the 2 per cent floor and pay grants to municipalities with federal property where the normal municipal services in that municipality are performed on account of the federal property. This means that the federal government will, subject to certain exceptions, pay the equivalent of full municipal taxes, including school taxes, on its land and buildings in municipal areas.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the government is not dealing seriously with a serious problem. I shall try to give evidence which I hope will satisfy the committee, and which they have often had before, that the municipalities are really up against very great problems and, as I said a moment ago, this is just a nibble. The government proposes an increase which will amount to some $6 million to $10 million, and as hon. members will bear in mind that is not more than one five hundredth of the government's total expenditures, which are about $5,000 million.

We on this side are not in the habit generally of asking for additional expenditures, but there are times when one has to point out that certain expenditures do require to be made, and to suggest with all the vehemence of which we are capable that there are plenty of cases where profusion could be cut down and the result would far more than cover the amount that is needed. I say that to hide behind, pirouette behind, the excuse that this is a provincial matter and therefore the federal government does not deal with it seems to me to be just ignoring the facts.
I would like to put forward on what a former leader of this party once called "the immortal grounds of common sense" the fact that this is a problem which we do not get away from by just shutting our eyes and saying it does not exist.
I would like to digress for a moment and draw attention to the position of crown corporations. We have not only the government's own buildings but we have the buildings of the emanations of the crown, namely crown corporations. The situation there is very unsatisfactory also. They are playing a kind of hide and seek or cat and mouse business with the municipalities, and I would like to put before the committee, because it is an integral part of this problem, what the Minister of Finance said about crown corporations in 1952. At page 1253 of Hansard, of 1952, Mr. Abbott said:
An interesting change I am proposing under the corporation income tax is that those crown corporations of the federal government which are designated as proprietary corporations-
And this is one of them. I continue:
-and hitherto have been exempt from tax, will in future pay corporate income tax to the federal government in the same manner as any privately-owned corporation. "Proprietary corporations" are those so designated under the Financial Administration Act, and generally speaking are companies which are carrying on business operations similar to and in competition with private business. One desirable result of this proposed action will be to make the financial statements of these crown companies more comparable with private industry, and make it easier to assess the relative efficiency of their operations. I do not expect this change to have appreciable net revenue effects. It will increase our tax receipts and reduce our non-tax revenue.
In other words, what you lose on the swings you get on the roundabouts. I continue:
All crown company profits eventually find their way into the treasury, and many of them already remit all or the greater part of their profits year by year.
Now, that seemed to me good sense; yet it has not been carried out. I refer to an item in the Ottawa Journal of February 5, 1957,
Municipal Grants Act
which shows the way in which crown corporations are being allowed to operate and the extent to which this forthright, clear-cut and reasonable proposal of the minister of finance in 1952 has not been carried out. I quote from the Journal:
City treasurer Lowther reported today he had successfully negotiated a $2,670 increase in the 1956 "tax grant" made to Ottawa by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a crown corporation.
He also reported to board of control that for the first time, a "tax-grant" would be received from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in respect to its Ottawa operation of CBOT at Tunney's pasture.
Mr. Lowther stressed that "tax grants" to Ottawa by crown corporations were a matter of separate negotiation in each case, and every year.
Farther on we find the following:
At present, the C.N.R., the Bank of Canada, and Atomic Energy Limited are paying the equivalent of full municipal taxes, both on real property and business tax.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had been "negotiated" into paying the equivalent of real property taxes, but disclaimed any business tax obligation. The C.B.C. argues similarly.
And later again:
Mr. Lowther said the dominion government would never pass legislation admitting any liability for such taxes. It would be contrary to the fundamental principle that crown holdings were tax-exempt. However, more and more crown corporations were beginning to admit their "moral obligations".
It seems to me to be more than almost an impertinence for them to come along and say they have nothing but moral obligations. The Minister of Finance said they would pay like anyone else.
Then I read the last paragraph:
Similar business-tax arguments were being pressed with respect to C.M.H.C. and C.B.C., but as yet, they have held out against such obligations.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the question is whether or not the government is really taking this seriously. As I have looked at the action over the years I have wondered-and I can only wonder because I have never been in power myself-whether they like to have the provinces and municipalities in the position where they have to come more or less as suppliants every year. I wonder whether it is conceivable that power does that to people, and that they refuse to deal with this thing and pretend it does not exist year after year, with the municipalities coming and making most convincing arguments, as I shall hope to show. The Gordon report, which we have just received, endorses what I have to say, indicating that the government should pay the equivalent of its taxes and also indicating that there is a big problem for consideration and settlement among the three levels

Municipal Grants Act
of government. I shall also quote from tax authorities pointing out what is being done, and I shall try, with what little hope I am able to summon up, to make the Department of Finance and, through them, the government, feel that the time has come to deal with this as a serious problem, because it is a serious problem.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with this and then take the resolution in my name concerning the Canadian Farm Loan Act; then the resolution with respect to the Exchequer Court Act, and then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


[Stage Direction]
At six 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. Nicholson: 1.	What were the total amounts spent in Canada, during the last year for which statistics are available for (a) liquor; (b) tobacco; (c) education?
2.	What were the per capita disbursements in Canada and each of the provinces last year for (a) liquor; (b) tobacco; (c) education?
Answer by.:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1 and 2.
(a)	Estimated total consumer expenditure on liquor in
Canada in 1955	 $902.0	million
Per capita	 $57.82
Provincial breakdown not available.
(b) Estimated total consumer expenditure on tobacco in Canada in	1955 .... $463.0	million
Per capita	 $29.68
Provincial breakdown not available.
(c) Expenditure on formal education in Canada in 1954 (latest available
information) *		 $705.2 million
* Included are expenditures by the federal government, provincial and municipal governments, universities, private schools and business colleges on:	(a) cost of current
operations; (b) capital outlays from current funds; (c) annual payments of principal and interest on debenture debt. Some estimates are included.
Per capita expenditure

Canada	 46.41
Newfoundland		 28.22
Prince Edward	Island	 22.34
Nova Scotia	 34.97
New Brunswick	 36.25
Quebec	 40.59
Ontario	 48.92
Manitoba	 40.58
Saskatchewan		 52.98
Alberta	 61.10
British Columbia	 57.00
Yukon and Northwest Territories 35.85


DEFENCE CONTRACTS
Mr. Pearkes: 1.	Were any defence contracts of $10,000 or more
awarded to any Canadian firms, during the month of November, 1956, for:	(a) canned goods; (b)
towels?
2.	If so, with what firms were the contracts made?
Questions
3.	What quantity of canned goods were contracted for in each case?
4.	What number of towels were contracted for in each case?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Defence Production:
1.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes.
2,	3 and 4-as follows:
(a) Canned goods.
Number
Contractor	of Cases
Annapolis Valley Canners Ltd.,	4,390
Hantsport, N.S.
Donald H. Bain Limited,	2,727
Toronto, Ont.
B.C. Packers Limited,	540
Vancouver, B.C.
Campbell & Burns Limited,	4,605
Central Bedeque, P.E.I.
Canadian Fishing Co. Ltd.,	367
Vancouver, B.C.
Cornwall Canning Company,	4,312
Vancouver, B.C.
Girard Inc.,	3,551
St. Cesaire, P.Q.
Nelson Brothers Fisheries Ltd.,	722
Vancouver, B.C.
York Farms Limited,	2,860
Toronto, Ont.
(b)	Towels.
Number
Contractor	of Towels
Caldwell Linen Mills Limited,	11,000
Iroquois, Ont.
Dominion Fabrics Limited,	9,480
Dunnville, Ont.
Dominion Textile Co. Ltd.,	11,000
Montreal, P.Q.
Stauffer-Dobbie Limited,	13,000
Galt, Ont.


WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES OUTSTANDING
Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): 1.	What is the total amount of war savings certificates that have not been cashed as of February 1. 1957?
2.	Has the government advertised in the press for the names of those people who have not cashed certificates?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):
1.	As at January 31, 1957, there were 689,412 war savings certificates outstanding with a par value of $4,804,300.
2.	The names of those who have not cashed certificates have not been advertised but general advertisements indicating that all certificates had matured together with instructions for redemption were carried in all daily and weekly newspapers in June, 1954.

Questions


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Nixon: 1.	How much has the federal government contributed to date toward the construction of the trans-Canada highway in Ontario?
2.	Has the "gap" been defined as provided in the Trans-Canada Highway Act?
3.	If so, (a) where is it; (b) what is the value of contracts let to date on highway in the "gap"; (c) what percentage of the cost of construction does the federal government pay in the "gap"?
Answer by: Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	$25,343,609.50.
2.	Yes.
Year ended
Province	Per capita
bonded debt

Newfoundland	 17.73
Prince Edward Island	 160.44
Nova Scotia	 221.16*
New Brunswick	 309.87**
Quebec	 105.68
Ontario	 146.39
Manitoba	 119.11
Saskatchewan	 157.05
Alberta	 184.78
British Columbia	 148.43
*Figures shown are for fiscal year which **Figures shown are for fiscal year which
3.	(a) Agawa river to Marathon, approximately 136 miles, and from two miles west of Pays Flat river westerly for five miles.
(b)	$11,851,100 (estimated), including materials, engineering and contingencies.
(c)	90 per cent.


PROVINCIAL PER CAPITA DEBT
Mr. Balcom: What was the per capita debt of each province of Canada, for the years 1950 and 1956?
Answer by: Mr.	Dickey,	Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister Commerce:		of Trade and
March 31, 1950	Year ended March 31,1955	
Per capita		Per capita
bonded debt	Per capita	bonded debt
less sinking	bonded debt less sinking	
funds		funds
$	$	$11.80	65.53	59.95141.05	172.69	137.72198.61*	304.55	266.36260.41**	372.14	295.9582.78	105.56	82.69130.92	189.14	164.0287.73	203.25	155.93127.26	199.48	173.06119.36	73.47	73.47120.58	157.99	114.48ended November 30, 1949.	ended October 31,	1949.


MANUFACTURING, PRAIRIE PROVINCES   EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Thatcher: How many people were engaged in manufacturing (a) during the calendar year 1945; (b) during the calendar year 1956; (i) in the province of Saskatchewan; (ii) in the province of Alberta; (iii) in the province of Manitoba?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Employees in manufacturing
1945	1954
latest available
Saskatchewan ______ 11,617	11,526
Alberta	
21,486	32,765Manitoba	
38,367	41,224


EGGS AND EGG PRODUCT IMPORTS
Mr. White (Middlesex East): 1.	How many dozens of shell eggs have been imported into Canada, during the calendar year 1956 (a) from what countries; (b) what quantity from each country?
2.	What quantity of dried powdered egg albumen was imported into Canada, during the calendar
year 1956	(a) from what countries; (b) what
quantity from each country; (c) what would the aforementioned dried egg albumen represent in dozens of eggs; (d) what was the value in Canadian dollars of the powdered albumen?
3.	What quantity of dried powdered egg yolk
was imported into Canada, during the calendar year	1956	(a)	from what countries;	(b)	what
quantity from each country; (c) what would the aforementioned dried egg yolk represent in dozens of eggs; (d) what was the value in Canadian dollars of the powdered egg yolk?
4.	What quantity of frozen egg yolk and albumen
was imported into Canada, during the calendar year	1956	(a)	from what countries;	(b)	what
quantity from each country; (c) what would the aforementioned frozen egg yolk and albumen represent in dozens of eggs; (d) what was the value in Canadian dollars of the frozen egg yolk and albumen?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and
Commerce:
1 to 4. Statistics of commodities imported for the calendar year 1956 are not yet available. Imports of eggs, as requested, during the first eleven months of 1956 are given in the attached statement. For question 4 figures shown are for the import statistical

class as indicated; a breakdown for frozen egg yolk and albumen is not available.
1. Imports of eggs in the shell, eleven months ended November 30, 1956.
Countries from which imported Dozens
United Kingdom	 18,267
Hong Kong	 33,019
Netherlands	 142
Poland	 300,000
Countries from which imported
United Kingdom	
Hong Kong	
China	
Denmark	
Germany West	
United States	
Total
3.	Imports of egg yolk, dried, evaporated, November 30, 1956.
Countries from which imported
China	
United States	
Total
4.	Imports of eggs, whole, egg yolk or egg eleven months ended November 30, 1956.
Countries from which imported
Hong Kong	
Netherlands	
Ireland	
United States	
Total
Questions
Countries from which imported (Ctd.) Dozens
Alaska	 4,110
United States	2,540,976
Total 2,896,514
2. Imports of egg albumen, dried, evaporated, desiccated or powdered, eleven months ended November 30, 1956.
Pounds	Estimated shell equivalent	Value
	(Dozens)	$
1,600	4,640	1,6615,600	16,240	5,82217,560	50,924	16,653112	325	1205,600	16,240	7,392138,820	402,578	229,821169,292	490,947	261,469desiccated or powdered, eleven months ended	Pounds	Estimated shell equivalent	Value(Dozens)	$11,000	31,900	6,61236,526	105,925	2,48947,526	137,825	9,101
albumen, frozen or otherwise prepared, n.o.p.,
Pounds	Estimated shell equivalent	Value
	(Dozens)	$
11,200	8,736	11,745488	381	78825,776	20,105	5,44465,495	51,086	43,102102,959	80,308	61,079
Thursday, February 21, 1957