1958-07-15

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and in French of a further report relative to reference No. 125 on textiles, which I have received from the chairman of the tarifE board. I am also tabling a transcript of the evidence presented to the board at its public hearings.
This report deals with three groups of textile materials, namely rags and waste of various fibres, slivers, etc., of wool or hair, and rovings and yarns of wool or hair. In general the recommendations of the board would have the effect of substantially simplifying the tariff schedule and of reducing the number of items by eliminating certain end use items.
With respect to the first group of items, the board recommends that rags and waste of all fibres which are to be further processed be classified under a single item and receive duty free entry. At present these materials enter under 13 different tariff items carrying varying rates of duty, although for the most part they are now duty free.
With respect to the second group of items consisting of slivers and other forms of wool and hair in the stage preceding rovings and yarns, the main purpose of the board's recommendations is to clarify the nomenclature and classification of these materials.
In the third group of items, rovings and yarns of wool or hair, the board recommends a small increase in the specific duties under both the British preferential and most favoured nation tariffs. Here again the number of items is being reduced. In making this recommendation the board points out that the major proportion of the yarns used in Canadian woollen mills is produced in integrated plants.
It can be seen that the items covered in this report are related, in part, to other items in the textile schedule which are still before the board. The board has recently concluded its hearings on cottons and will be proceeding with hearings on synthetic textiles, knitted goods and narrow fabrics. The government does not intend to propose to the house any tariff changes relating to the report just
tabled until it has received further relevant reports from the board; and in the light of the board's program of work it is clear that no new tariff proposals in this field should be expected during the current session of parliament.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Could I ask the minister whether any of the items referred to are bound by treaty?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think so, Mr. Speaker. In any event such bindings as do enter into this matter would have to be considered in relation to the rather broad reclassification which the board has recommended.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the house will expect me to inform it with respect to some of the grave events now occurring in the Middle East, events which have led to the landing of a force of approximately 5,000 United States troops in Lebanon this morning.
We were notified yesterday evening of the United States decision to take this urgent step, and I need hardly state that we are in very close touch with the United States authorities about this matter. President Eisenhower made it clear in a statement published this morning that these landings are designed to protect the safety of 2,500 United States citizens in Lebanon and at the urgent request of President Chamoun to assist the Lebanese government to stabilize the situation and preserve Lebanon's independence and integrity.
President Eisenhower has emphasized that the United States government cannot-and I quote from his statement-"stand idly by when Lebanon appeals itself for evidence of our concern and when Lebanon may not be able to preserve internal order and to defend itself against indirect aggression". The United States has stressed that the action being taken is "in conformity with the spirit" of the United Nations charter, that the troops being landed are not a fighting force, and that the landing is not an "act of war".
2238	HOUSE OF
External Affairs-Middle East
The security council has been fully informed of the United States action, and the United States has made it plain that the troops will stay only until "the security council has itself taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security". The step which the United States has been obliged to take in Lebanon has been rendered necessary by the sudden and alarming developments that took place yesterday in Iraq. In the light of the implications for Lebanon of these developments, it was considered by the United States that the United Nations observation group was no longer adequate to meet the current menace to Lebanon's security and independence, though I might interpolate here that it was thought at the time of the visit of President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles last week that the observation group would in fact be sufficient for the task.
Discussions are now proceeding at the security council, and the Canadian representative has been instructed to support all constructive efforts within that body which will have the effect of achieving the objectives outlined by the United States government and minimizing the threat to the peace of the area arising out of current developments.
We have also been kept informed of developments in London leading to the statement by the foreign minister, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, in the House of Commons at Westminster this morning to the effect that the United Kingdom fully supports the action which the United States government has found it necessary to take but that United Kingdom forces, however, are not being used in the current operation in Lebanon.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I know the house will have heard with great interest the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on what he has quite rightly called the grave events in the Middle East. I know the house will not expect at this time any more in the way of detailed information from him and would not, I think, expect any comments from this side which could not be helpful, and which we would not wish to be harmful. One cannot but feel, however, great anxiety at these developments and at the necessity-and it was no doubt a necessity-which required the United States to land troops for the protection of its nationals in Lebanon due-one must assume, and the minister's remarks have confirmed that assumption-to the grave events in a neighbouring state.
The result of this, Mr. Speaker, is that we now have in Lebanon United States troops protecting their own nationals and we have


a United Nations observer corps with its functions to perform. In that corps there are Canadian members. We must all hope that there will be no contradiction between the functions of these two bodies, both of which are there for peaceful purposes. We must also hope that President Eisenhower's statement that the United States troops will be able to withdraw as soon as the United Nations forces could take over their function represents a hope that may be realized.
I am certainly not underestimating the gravity of the situation, but at this time I do not think any observations beyond those I have just made can be of help. However, I would like to ask the minister one question. Can he inform the house what steps have been taken to ensure the protection of Canadians in Lebanon and in Iraq?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, as far as Lebanon is concerned, we have over several weeks been in close touch and planning with the United States embassy in Beirut, and the Americans have undertaken that they will look after-I informed the house about three weeks ago that there were about 125 Canadians there; it now appears that there are about 146-the interests of those Canadians as well as they would look after the interests of Americans.
With respect to Iraq, normally we would have depended on the United Kingdom embassy there. As the house knows, the building was blown up yesterday. There has been some suggestion that the ambassador of the United Kingdom may have been killed, but there is no confirmation of that report. Apart from that there has been no suggestion of any loss of life. We have not been able to ascertain what the condition actually is in Baghdad at the present moment. There are approximately 43 Canadians in Iraq, about 40 of whom are in Baghdad, and we are hoping for the best. That is the best answer I can give at the present time.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether our own embassy in Beirut is not being given some responsibility, particularly in connection with those Canadians, some 140 in number, who are located in that area?


Sidney Earle Smith: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest that our diplomatic representative in Beirut was not in consultation. Yes, he is the one who is working closely with the United States embassy in Beirut.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, reports from the Middle East without a doubt are the cause of grave concern and apprehension on the part of members

of this house and the Canadian people generally. In the opinion of this group recent developments in the Middle East are the result of the shortsightedness of United States foreign policy in recent years, commencing with the refusal of the loan to Egypt which could have been the starting point, in the opinion of this group, for a positive and constructive approach to the difficult problems of the Middle East.
In particular we in this group are opposed to bilateral action. We urge that every effort be made that circumstances justify for the utilization of the international police force under the United Nations to restore order and maintain peace in this very difficult area.


COLOMBO PLAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of press reports about continued delays in the approval of projects under the Colombo plan. Would the Prime Minister inform the house what action Canada is taking to accelerate these very important projects and as to the assistance given to underdeveloped countries?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The government believes in the Colombo plan, Mr. Speaker, and has given every consideration to the various projects that have been suggested as worthy of support under that plan. There has been no delay. There have been some projects for which relatively small expenditure has been asked, and they have been deferred in so far as approval is concerned.
I may say this, that having regard to the increased amount made available for Colombo plan projects since this government came into power, I am sure the house will agree that there is no justification for any criticism of delay with respect to projects which are worthy of immediate consideration.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the Leader of the Opposition made an inquiry of me concerning a newspaper report that a publication, faked by the communists to look exactly like Ceske Slovo, a free Czech paper published in Munich, had been received by Czech Canadians. He asked whether there was anything that could be done by the Post
Inquiries of the Ministry Office Department to stop this "communist propaganda by misrepresentation" from coming through the mail.
The short answer is no, but a brief explanation of the reasons will be helpful, I think. A number of communist countries have a well developed publicity program which is largely based on mailing to selected groups of Canadians various types of news and information sheets giving the communist point of view and attitude on various matters both within and without the iron curtain. With few exceptions this material has not been requested by those who receive it, and in most cases the recipients would much prefer not to be on the mailing list at all.
I have much sympathy with those who find themselves in this position, and most particularly with new citizens of Canada who have come to this country from communist dominated areas in search of freedom and who are sent this material much against their will and sometimes to their great embarrassment; none the less, under the policy which is generally adopted toward our domestic mail and more particularly under those international conventions covering the carriage of mail to which Canada is a subscriber, it is not practical for the Post Office Department to take action in these cases.
The basic principle which is involved is the sanctity of the mails and the fact that in free countries we do not set up either the post office or any other government department as a censor of that material which passes through the mails; nor would it be desirable to do so. By law or for practical reasons of safety certain classes of material are specifically prohibited from passage through the mails. The law includes such items as obscene literature, lottery tickets and the like, while safety and common sense extend to such material as explosives. Beyond this, we accept and deliver everything which is placed in our hands and on which the proper postage has been paid.
In a case such as that referred to by my hon. friend the parties who are concerned, if they are aggrieved, must necessarily look to the proper courts for whatever action is justified and not to the Post Office Department.
It might be helpful to my hon. friend as well if I quoted the remarks he made on August 1, 1956, as found on page 6837 of Hansard, when he said:
This is a free country and subject to the observance of the law, people, even diplomats from the Soviet countries, can use the mails for the circulation of their literature.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, nothing I included in my question was meant by me to transgress the principle the Postmaster General

Inquiries of the Ministry has stated, freedom in the use of the mails, and I would not have my question interpreted in that way. What I had in mind, and perhaps I did not make it clear in my question, was that there was an element of fraud in this case because the paper in question which was being circulated through the mail was in a form which would confuse it with a noncommunist Czech language paper. Therefore I thought there was an element of fraud in this particular case which might have involved a contravention of the law, and that action might have been taken in that regard.


William McLean Hamilton: What I meant by my answer was that the determination of fraud is within the province of the courts and not that of the Post Office Department.


ALLEGED ABANDONMENT OF ELECTRONIC SORTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Egan Chambers (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Would the Postmaster General care to comment on a report in this morning's Gazette that the $3 million electronic sorter which the former Liberal government installed in the main post office is a failure and about to be abandoned?


William McLean Hamilton: There is no more accurate foundation for that report than for the one which appeared in the same column yesterday to the effect that the citizens of Westmount were disturbed because of changes in their mail delivery. This is a machine which is basically, at the moment, a research project, and as in all these research projects it is currently again in the process of being reassessed to determine its value and its future potential. Certainly there is no decision as yet regarding its abandonment or anything of that nature.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskaioon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. By way of explanation I should like to say that in the throne speech debate on May 26, Hansard, page 451, I suggested that the government consider the advisability of encouraging the provision of the same standard of care for the mentally sick that is afforded the physically ill. Can the minister inform the house what measures are being taken to improve the standards of care for the mentally ill?


Hon. J. W. Monfeiih (Minisier of Naiional Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As far as

the dominion government is concerned, three avenues of approach are being taken toward improving the standards of care for the mentally ill.
In the first place, an annual grant of over $7 million is provided under the health grants program to assist the provinces in developing and extending their facilities in this field. Over the past 10 years this money has been used for the establishment of mental health and child guidance clinics, the extension of mental health services in general hospitals, the provision of staff and equipment for mental hospitals, the establishment and enlargement of provincial divisions of mental health, the support of research into mental health problems and the training of mental health workers.
In addition to this assistance, the health grants program contains a hospital construction grant under which federal funds amounting to $2,000 per bed are available for the construction of mental hospitals as well as of general hospitals, some of the facilities of which are utilized in treating the acute as opposed to the chronic phases of mental illness.
A third way in which the government is helping to raise the standards of care for the mentally ill is through the hospital insurance and diagnostic services program. This scheme takes into account the recent development of psychiatric wards in general hospitals for the active treatment of acute phases of mental illness, and includes the costs of this kind of care within the expenses to be shared by federal and provincial governments.
The whole purpose of these endeavours is to place the standards of care for the mentally ill on the active treatment level instead of on the custodial care level, which in large measure was the case in the past.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question arising out of this excellent review of what the government has been doing in this field. I wonder whether the minister can say whether active consideration is now being given to the inclusion of mentally ill persons in hospitals under the national hospital insurance act, since about half the hospital patients are involved?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There has been no change in the situation since I answered that question at the time the amendment to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was before the house a short time ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By way of
supplementary question, may I ask the minister if he is not aware that the very excellent reply he has just given is practically the same as the reply given to the Minister of Finance when he complained about deficiencies in the hospital insurance act introduced by the previous administration?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: Can the Prime Minister advise the house if the royal commission on Canada's energy resources plans to hold public meetings in the Atlantic provinces? If so, have dates and places been selected?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no information on that, Mr. Speaker. I shall communicate with the chairman of the commission with a view to ascertaining his intended sittings. When I have that information I shall communicate it to the house.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Can the
Minister of Public Works say whether or not the government is considering financial aid towards the construction of the proposed international highway bridge across the St. Mary's river between Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. No consideration has been given to financial aid by the federal government. It is my understanding that the proposal is to have a bridge built by a company known as the St. Mary's Bridge Company.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I address a question to the cool, collected and colourful Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that many Canadians believe that great art and talent belong
Radio and Television
to the ages and to all people and, therefore, wish to enjoy the same opportunities in this respect afforded other nations in the commonwealth; and in view of the fact that many Canadians wish the opportunity to hear Paul Robeson, internationally famed concert, stage and screen artist, would the minister inform the house if her department recognizes the maturity and cultural development of the Canadian people sufficiently to permit the entry of Paul Robeson for their enjoyment?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question is purely hypothetical. So far as I am aware there is no application for admission of the gentleman to Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask, as a supplementary question, if an application were made would it be favourably considered?


Some hon. Members:: Order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if many of the ministers of labour from the provinces are attending the conference on seasonal unemployment at the present time.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minisler of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Ten provincial ministers of labour accepted the invitation. Nine are here and one, being ill, is not able to be present.

The house resumed, from Monday, July 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Herridge.



RADIO AND TELEVISION


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: The
problem of how to utilize radio and television technology with maximum benefit and minimum expense to the people of Canada is certainly one of the most difficult problems with which the government of Canada could be faced, no matter what party is in power. It is something that we must have because we cannot do without it, but when we look at the astronomical cost which is involved in a country of such geographical dimensions as our own, we begin to wonder how we can afford the expense.

Radio and Television
That brings up the question of which system is best suited to our particular conditions. First, as far as the system itself is concerned we have three choices. We could have a completely public system or a completely free enterprise system or a combination of both. I believe the particular system we have at the present time, which is not only a combination but a partnership of public and private enterprise, with the public acting the role of senior partner, is the very best system we could possibly have and is one which I believe we should continue to maintain, with perhaps some modification with respect to regulatory powers.
If we have a combination certainly there is a need for regulation; and while I do not think a very good case was made out against the C.B.C. by those who produced briefs before the Fowler commission, I think perhaps it would be worth-while to adopt the regulations which that body recommended. Not only do we have a financial problem but we have the difficulty of providing proper safeguards so that our system will not become the mouthpiece or a propaganda machine for the government of the day. We must be equally careful in providing safeguards to see that our broadcasting system does not become a mouthpiece for subversive elements.
Reference has been made to the function of the C.B.C. as a means of developing our Canadian culture, and no doubt it is making a worth-while contribution in that respect. I think there is an even more important job than that for it to do, however, which could not be as well done by any other agency, and that is to provide a uniting force to keep before us the great values on which our culture is based and on which our way of life has been built and by which it is nursed. In times like these, when we are engaged in a cold war, this function of the C.B.C. is perhaps the most important of all.
As far as Newfoundland is concerned we do not have very many complaints against the C.B.C. or against the private stations; in fact the programs are very useful and very enjoyable, and we are particularly fortunate in that we have private stations which do, I think, more than their part in developing local culture. I have listened to private stations in other parts of Canada and I have not yet heard a station which is carrying out its functions in any sense better than the private stations in Newfoundland.
As far as my own riding of Burin-Burgeo is concerned, I would like to take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the house the fact that only a very small number of my constituents are able to avail

themselves of the services which the Canadian broadcasting system offers. We need the services of the C.B.C. in Newfoundland to unite us as a province in the same way we need to be united on a national scale. But we have our diversities of interest, and one of the functions which the C.B.C. could perform would be to bridge the gap of isolation caused by our geography and by these differences of interest. In the western half of my riding it is impossible for people to receive the broadcasts which go out from the C.B.C. station at St. John's, and this despite the fact that a few years ago a great deal of money was spent increasing the power and trying to extend the range of that station.
I think it has been clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to reach the length and breadth of the south coast of Newfoundland by radio without building a small relay station either on the Burin peninsula or at Port aux Basques or both. As I understand it these relay stations are not very expensive, and I would ask the government to look into this matter and see what could be done in this respect. It is a very urgent necessity, because the people in my riding are fishermen; they want to hear the weather forecasts, they want to hear the prices of fish, and they want to hear where bait is available. Their ties with the capital city are so many and so varied that the need can only be met by having a system which could provide full coverage for the whole island.
What I have said with respect to broadcasting applies to an even greater degree as far as television is concerned. Only a few people in the extreme eastern part of my riding can now enjoy the benefits of television programs, and since a microwave relay system is being erected in Newfoundland so that programs from the mainland may be received in our province simultaneously with their reception on the mainland, and having in mind that one of these microwave stations is being built at Red Rocks which is only nine miles away from the centre of Port aux Basques, I would ask the government to have a look at this to see if it would not be possible to utilize that microwave station so the people in the Port aux Basques area may be able to receive television programs. I believe this could be done, and because television waves carry a greater distance over water, I understand that it would be possible for people west of the Burin peninsula to enjoy television programs also.
I hope the minister concerned will investigate this matter and give it all the favourable consideration possible.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Perhaps I can set a certain tone in what I am going to say by acknowledging that the reason I reached the House of Commons was partly through a private television station; it was a private television station which partly opened up the opportunity, so I am quite aware of the advantages which television and broadcasting bring to many parts of the country.
I feel that neither the amendment nor the subamendment is intended to be a backhanded or nasty slap at the government, but rather a gentle but firm prod to the government along the way we are sure it is going to follow. The government's intentions, as far as we know, were spelled out in the speech which has been referred to before, made by the Minister of National Revenue on June 3, and his subsequent announcement that the C.B.C. was to go ahead and plan the building of a certain number of television stations which would provide coverage in some of the more remote parts of the country-parts, that is, w'hich are remote from present television coverage.
This announcement was very welcome, but in our district, though we were pleased that Kenora would receive some benefit, there was a certain disappointment that those further north and east of Kenora were going to be missed out according to present plans. Certainly it is our general view that the fact that the minister should stand up and indicate that the C.B.C. should go ahead with its planning was support for the view that the government was going ahead with the backing of the C.B.C. which would enable it to do this job.
The financing of the C.B.C. is one of the toughest questions in terms of fairness that I think a government will face. It seems there are three different ways in which the C.B.C. has been financed in the past, and I cannot see any other possible ways to finance it in the future. Most of you will remember that the licence system proved a very unpopular means of supporting the old C.B.C. radio system; yet in essence a licence fee is the only absolutely fair way of supporting the operation of a national system if you look at it from the point of view of straight economic justice. It means, of course, that the people who are actually enjoying the programs or who have the ability to receive the programs are the ones who are paying for them; and certainly if a licence set-up should be part of the government's plan it would save a great deal of criticism that comes from areas which have not adequate coverage from the national system at the present time. They will certainly not have the complaint that as general taxpayers they are paying for a service which they are not receiving.
Radio and Television
The system presently being used in part to support the C.B.C., that of the special excise tax, has been declared discriminatory and unfair-I think those were his words- by the minister concerned in this house; and whether or not one agrees with that, it is perfectly obvious that an excise tax levied upon the instrument through which a program is received is quite inadequate to provide any sound financial basis for the future. At the beginning, when television sets were being bought in great numbers, it provided a source of revenue; but now there has been a saturation point reached in most areas of Canada of somewhere between 70 and 80 per cent, the income from this tax will not come near to meeting the requirements of the C.B.C. in the present or in the future.
That brings us to the third possible means of supporting the C.B.C. It is the one that is likely to be followed, yet in many ways it is very unfair; that is to take the money directly out of the consolidated revenue fund, or make some sort of arrangement with that fund and have the C.B.C. operate on a year to year budget from a demand placed before the government as to what its needs are going to be in the coming year.
If the money comes out of the consolidated revenue fund it means in effect that every taxpayer in the country is contributing to the cost. It is obvious from the distribution of population in the country and the varying nature of the markets in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation must compete that a portion of the country is never going to receive the full benefit of this expenditure. From that point of view it is unfair.
As a politician amongst 264 other politicians I think we all have to recognize that the licence system is extremely unpopular. I do not care what party you belong to, you have to recognize that the licence system, which is perhaps the fairest, is so unpopular that it is going to require a very strong and courageous government and minister to bring it in. I would tend to support the third means, that is taking money out of the consolidated revenue fund, but I think we need to be aware that if we follow that course it will result in an annual spree within the House of Commons and the committee on broadcasting over ways and means to jimmy down what the C.B.C. may estimate it needs, and it will not place that organization on the long-term planning basis that one would gather from the chairman is really needed.
The argument that has gone on for a number of years led by the C.A.R.T.B.-the Canadian association of radio and television broadcasters-in essence has centred around something concerning which the Winnipeg

Radio and Television
Free Press has published a number of pamphlets. It is the contention that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a regulatory body, as well as being a competitor, was somehow interfering with their basic freedom. The Free Press was fond of drawing a parallel between radio and television stations and newspapers, and insisted that freedom of the press was parallel and analogous with the freedom of the air waves. There is no point in discussing in detail the way in which the Fowler commission and other commissions have treated this particular point, but it has been amply proven by the fact that there are such a limited number of both radio and television frequencies available that there is not and cannot be any such thing as freedom of the air.
The point was quite well made yesterday by the hon. member for Kootenay West with respect to freedom of the air and competition. The private broadcasters themselves have proved the point repeatedly, in that every time there has been an application for a new radio or television station before the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation board of governors-and this applies especially to radio-wherever the market area already had a private station, the station in existence instead of welcoming the new competitor into the field as a wonderful example of the benefits of free enterprise and freedom of the air has bucked the application all down the line, frequently using the very argument that there can be no such thing as freedom of the air parallel to freedom of the press.
One of the minor points arising out of the amendment that hit me after talking to a couple of C.B.C. producers in the Toronto-Ottawa region stems from the fact that if some limited competition evolves it could represent a tremendous blow to the amount of Canadian talent that is used. Mr. Ouimet announced last year that 15,000 artists of various kinds did work for the C.B.C. last year. Regardless of what some of us may feel concerning the quality of the work of those artists, the fact that this number were employed is an excellent thing. In any consideration of opening up a licence in a high market area like Toronto or Montreal, the government and any regulatory board it sets up must keep this factor in mind. To bring in a private station may be all right, but it should not be done at the cost of diminishing the amount of Canadian talent and creative effort that goes into these programs.
I spoke to one successful C.B.C. producer recently. He is successful in the sense that one of his series has been sold in the United States and he is down there now considering a highly attractive offer. He told me that his own feeling was that if a private station

opened in the Toronto area without any regulations to control or direct it with respect to using a certain amount of Canadian programming, you would see the advertisers who now support to a degree the C.B.C. dramatic presentations switch over and use the private station and the cheaper United States imported films. As a consequence of this loss of income the C.B.C. would not be able to maintain its standard of dramatic production. I think all of us should take pride in the recognition that has been given the quality of certain Canadian Broadcasting Corporation productions in that sales are being made in the United States market, and in the past couple of years the C.B.C. has had increasing success in selling its dramatic productions in the British market not only to the B.B.C., which is the government organization, but also to the private television network that has been created in England and Scotland.
One of the other problems in connection with the C.B.C. and its operation in the large market areas is, of course, more and more the movement of United States subsidiaries into Canada. The kind of advertisers who support television programs are marketing their products in Canada as well as in the United States. Personally I am delighted with that. I like to watch the fights and the baseball games, and I support Gillette with the occasional purchase of razor blades.
I think we must acknowledge that this will be a continuing trend. It does mean, however, that the United States television stations close to our borders are always going to be invading our markets. There is nothing we can do in the form of regulation to stop it, but it means they will always have an effect and influence upon Canadian television stations whether they be C.B.C. or private.
I want to be fair here in considering the latitude we should allow a private station and this factor must be weighed. We must weigh United States competition within the same market area against the fact that we would like private stations to be regulated in order to ensure that they utilize a certain minimum of Canadian programming.
One matter that concerns everyone in connection with television-and it has affected me as a teacher and as one in political life-is the choice of popular programs. I am thinking of the near despair that comes when you talk to people about their reaction to television programs and even to the operations of the C.B.C. I know it was a source of despair to me that amongst my pupils the most popular program of all was the Saturday night wrestling. It is very discouraging.



IS, 1958

[Stage Direction]
However, I should like to point out to hon. members that despite the despair one may feel over the reaction of the adolescent and pre-adult group, there are some significant groups and national associations in Canada that have taken a much broader and more educated view of the whole matter. I was delighted to see that the Canadian radio league has been reactivated, and was impressed by the people who are organizing and supporting it. I note that a famous Liberal is on the committee, Professor A. R. M. Lower. I think that is good. The committee also includes a man who is almost a paragon as far as the Conservative party is concerned at the present time, the great biographer of the life of Sir John A. Macdonald, Professor Creighton.
If you go over the list you find such names as Dr. E. A. Corbett of the Canadian association of adult education, Dr. Robbins, secretary treasurer of the humanities research council, Father Henri St. Denis of Ottawa. We even have the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the president of the federated women's institutes of Canada, all in this reactivated league which supports the general premises of the Fowler commission and in effect supports both the amendment and the subamendment that have been introduced in this house. That is a sort of balance to the despair that comes over one when he gets what one might say is the impromptu reaction of so many of the younger people in this country.
Television is very much a mixed blessing, and I think we have to keep in mind that our national interest in it is the paramount consideration. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Kootenay West, as well as others, have put it very succinctly. There are two main reasons why we have to keep a national system and why that national system can only be one that has government support. One is the United States inundation that is always threatening us, and the other is the fact that we have not in Canada the markets to support a private enterprise system right across the country; and, of course, the two factors are interrelated.
One of the key problems in connection with the future of the C.B.C. is the question of what kind of regulatory board there should be. Quite obviously the board of governors of the C.B.C. has not operated very well in one particular regard, namely controlling the private broadcasters from the point of view of the C.B.C.'s own regulation. As a matter of fact I know of a C.C.F. telecast that goes on regularly. Every time it goes on it breaks the C.B.C. regulations. Yet the C.B.C. has never bothered to police its own regulations,
Radio and Television
and the board of governors have never sufficiently encouraged the management of the C.B.C. to go out and police the regulations.
When you have regulations that are not policed and supported, then they become ridiculous. That is one of the reasons why the C.A.R.T.B., under Mr. Allard, went off on such a wild attack, because at that very time they were running pretty freely, without any checkrein.
Therefore, following from this point, I think the central thing we need to keep in mind with respect to the regulatory board is that it should really regulate. If it does introduce regulations it should put them out in a precise booklet, and if any changes are made those changes should be put on record and the record kept up to date and not have a whole host of separate papers, so that private broadcasters will know where they stand and know that if they do not follow the regulations then they get the axe, or some form of punitive measure will be taken against them. I know of one particular radio station about which dozens of letters have gone in complaining that they break the regulations concerning the number of spot announcements in the morning and noontime periods. All they have received from the C.B.C. is a gentle tap on the wrist, saying in effect, "No, no, boys; some day you are going to get your licence suspended." I hope when the regulatory board is set up it will enforce the regulations.
One of the factors in connection with a regulatory board, as brought out by the Leader of the Opposition, is whether it should be a fairly large board and representative of a group of interests in the country or a small board. Well, I tend to feel that a smaller board would be more effective, because once you begin to try to represent interested groups across the country you get a body that has, let us say, very little unity or homogeneity in terms of following a definite course of action, and it takes a long time when that group is meeting fairly rarely to develop an integrated course of action.
On the other hand, if this regulatory board is going to be the body that has the power to hand out those plum licences in the rich market areas that board is going to be under a great deal of pressure. I hope the Minister of National Revenue will look at the experience of the F.C.C. with regard to the television licence fiasco in such places as Boston and Miami, where the pressures have been so great. We have all observed the scandal going on in the United States at the present time over the pressure put upon federal regulatory boards for favours for certain
[Stage Direction]
Radio and Television
people. Well, that is the sort of thing this regulatory board in Canada could be open to.
As a matter of fact I would almost think the government might consider, in connection with the question of additional television licences in the rich markets, that those people should have to come right into the House of Commons in committee to state their case. If that were done we would at least know that all sides of the argument would be heard and there would not be pressures exerted or any favours passed.
This may be a rather gloomy anticipation of Canadian moral integrity in such boards or the kind of pressures that would be applied; but when the awarding of licences itself is worth several million dollars-that is the potential in several cases in Canada-there is no question but that the pressures could be very sharp. It means that the regulatory board set-up is something that should be considered very closely.
The final point I want to touch on was brought up in French last night, and I am going only by the translation of the speech by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm. To read his speech, Mr. Speaker, is to feel that we have Rev. Mr. Hansell back in the house again. That may be good or bad. There seems to be in certain parts of this country a completely different attitude toward morality and censorship than in other parts of the country. But the point raised by the hon. member-and the Deputy Speaker did try to remind him that he was moving away from the point of the amendment-is one that I think deserves some discussion. I hope the discussion will rid the whole idea right out of the premises.
I refer to the idea that it is the job of the board that is to be associated with the C.B.C. to be a screener of morals. The protests of the hon. gentlemen were placed more or less in two categories. He is concerned about morality in the sense of sexual licence, nudity and that form, and he is also concerned with morality in the fact that certain deviationists are undermining our whole social structure by moving us toward the left. Again this was the cry of Rev. Mr. Hansell when he was in this house. The C.B.C. was in the hands of leftists. We were continually under a barrage of leftist campaigning in certain forms.
I think the hon. member is entitled to his opinion, but I would just like to explain why some people, especially people who have what I would call reactionary views, feel that the C.B.C. is leftist. I think the C.B.C. has attracted to itself and will continue to attract a great many highly educated people, especially from English Canada. I think these highly educated people from English Canada, in their contacts, go out for people who they

know have certain controversial ideas, or can give a certain analysis of various circumstances, be they economists, historians, sociologists or what have you. They bring these people to the C.B.C. If they happen to be leftists, I would just like to remind hon. members it may indicate that amongst the academic community, in the ivory towers of this country, there may be people who feel that that is the way to go.
Now, they want to do something about blocking them. I would suggest that they encourage the people with the right wing view to become articulate. It has always been the mark of a conservative-I am not thinking about the Progressive Conservative-to be inarticulate. You will notice that in all their restatements they always hark back to the one great spokesman they had in the Englishspeaking world, namely Edmund Burke. If you want the other point of view, get articulate. I would remind the hon. member that even the C.B.C. had Mr. Hansell on the "Viewpoint" program, offering criticism.
I aways felt that the question of the C.B.C. being composed of a pack of socialists has been overstressed. I know that any time, I, thinking of myself as a socialist, have encountered people from the C.B.C. I have found a great deal of contradiction of statements I made. I cannot speak for the French language network, but I certainly want to assure the hon. member who made the protest that among the people connected with the English language network whom I have met there have been a great many who have opposed my views, and therefore I would assume that they are not completely dominated by the socialist ideology. Of course I would hesitate to acknowledge that I am completely dominated.
I think it is very dangerous that a member should rise and emphasize the matter of censorship so far as the C.B.C. is concerned. I hope during the debate there will be speeches by other members of the house that will restate the need for free expression of public opinion. You can quote Milton's Areopagitica in relation to censorship; but I always think of one sentence he wrote; that you cannot understand good unless you know evil. By knowing evil he meant just knowing what it was. I think that pertains pretty well to what we see on C.B.C. programs. If our young people cannot be trusted to look at a girl in a scanty pair of shorts or with a certain amount of cleavage, then I say we might as well throw up our hands and give up on our young people.
Mr. Thomas:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Certainly.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Is he advocating a board of control over our national system which would fail to exercise judgment concerning the moral content of the programs that are broadcast?


Douglas Mason Fisher: In reply I should like to state very briefly that if the hon. member would look at the speech made by the member to whom I referred he will see that he spelled out very clearly certain criticisms that reminded me very much of communist China, where they are always going through an orgy of self-criticism. I feel that to spell out censorship in such terms with relation to a regulatory body is bad. Certainly I would expect that in general the regulatory body would express certain ideas to the management of the C.B.C. and any of the other stations about the content of programs. However, I would hope that it would not be a formal job of theirs, that in essence it would be a minor aspect of their duties and that such action as they might take would be advisory rather than regulatory.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, last night, at ten o'clock, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) moved the adjournment of the debate. I expected him this afternoon to conclude his speech but, for some reason best known to himself, he has not seen fit to do so. There are a few questions that I would have liked to put to him after he was through. So, I now ask him if he would allow me to ask three questions of him.


Mr. Pigeon:: With pleasure.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot permit it
even if the hon. member will permit it. He has spoken on this motion and he is not permitted to speak again. The hon. member is free to make his own speech.


Guy Rouleau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, a little later I shall reply to the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. Among other things, he asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) to set up a board of censorship in order to rate television programs and safeguard, as he said, the rights of morality. Well, if the hon. member wants to protect the rights of morality, I would strongly advise him to do so in the various constituencies of the province where, as he knows, there are speak-easies.
At the moment I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that the amendment proposed by the Leader of the
Radio and Television
Opposition (Mr. Pearson), with regard to radio and television, is altogether relevant and timely.
When Conservative members were in the opposition, they never missed a chance to charge the government with interference in matters relating to radio and television. When Conservative members were in the opposition, they spent their time in recriminations and complaints that their party was not being allowed the air-time to which it was entitled over radio and T.V. Meanwhile other members, on the government side, were harping on the same string, claiming that Conservatives were being allowed too much time on radio and T.V.
Any man with strong convictions will always feel that members of opposite parties are allowed too much time over the state-controlled radio and television. Now that we are in the opposition, we find the situation has not changed. For instance, when the Prime Minister of Great Britain came here to address the House of Commons, the cameras were aimed solely at government benches. It was overlooked that in a democracy, the parliament is made up of both a government and an opposition.
The only consolation we had in watching that program on T.V. was to see on the screen this charming lady who is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough).
(Text):	.
I was just saying, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that the other day when the Prime Minister of Great Britain addressed the House of Commons only the government side of the house was shown on television, but we took great pleasure in looking at the charming lady who is Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
(Translation):
When they sat in opposition, Mr. Speaker, our Conservative friends were forever clamouring for a regulatory body for the control of private and public broadcasting. And while the Conservatives were busy running down the government, and making demands, the government of the day set up the Fowler commission and gave it the responsibility of inquiring into the problems that faced private and government broadcasting. The Fowler report, published just before the June 1957 election, contains conclusions which the government should consider seriously and adopt in their entirety.
The Liberal party's policy with regard to radio and television was clearly set out yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. As

Radio and Television
usual he was clear, accurate and concise in his remarks. He stated incidentally that he fully endorses the view expressed in the Fowler report, that there should be a single broadcasting system in which private stations would be the indispensable and welcome partners of the C.B.C.
The C.B.C., Mr. Speaker, has done a tremendous job throughout Canada, in setting up a truly national network. Useful assistance was given the C.B.C. in this work, by owners of private radio stations. Some time ago I received a letter from the manager of one of these private stations, who, among other things, wrote:
However before permits are issued for private T.V. stations, there should be issued requirements than has been the case, sometimes, with radio.
To begin with, the licensing authority should make sure that the applicants have the necessary capital to embark on an undertaking of this kind.
Secondly, they should make sure that applicants have the necessary know how or have had practical experience, say in the field of radio broadcasting, as evidence that they could manage a television station.
Thirdly, it should be realized that we do not want a T.V. station for the sole purpose of making money out of it, giving the public any sort of trash, but to supply good programs, suitably varied to please all tastes.
Mr. Speaker, as the television and radio systems throughout our country advertise and help to develop our culture, it is most important that these two media be controlled. In our country, radio and television broadcasts are an important part of our national heritage, and should, as I said, help to widen and to mould our national culture everywhere in this country.
In its conclusions, the Fowler report emphasizes the dual racial character of the Canadian nation; it takes into account the existence of French people in Canada as well as the economic and geographical realities of this country. Throughout its recommendations, there is an apparent concern with adequately meeting the needs of a dual race population, of a dual Canadian culture bent on remaining such. The commissioners gave a whole chapter to the necessity of extending the French network all over our country.
The reports states that "the sentiment of French Canada as expressed through the briefs heard publicly by the commission, or submitted to it for private study, was virtually unanimous in its commendation, with only minor reservations, of the general texture of the programming of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the French language and of what was believed to be the genuine effort of the management of the C.B.C. to respond to the needs of French speaking Canadians for a distinctive broadcasting fare".
[Mr. Rouleau.}
Further on, the Fowler report cautions those who preside over the destinies of this country against certain dangers.
And yet we may owe it to Canada to test the core of resistance. National leadership is a failure when it remains blind or inert before wholesome underlying trends that are precisely in need only of enlightened or courageous leadership to come to the surface. Hence, any new departure that holds before us the vision of deeper spiritual harmony among Canadians of the two main cultural groups is one that all earnest Canadians should studiously examine.
Because of the cultural importance of broadcasting, and because we are dealing here with a national asset, as I said a moment ago, radio and television must not escape the supervision of parliament. At the present time that regulatory function is exercised by the C.B.C.'s board of governors. The Fowler report suggests to the government that this be henceforth exercised by a board of governors for radio and television composed of prominent representative Canadians, responsible to the government and not beholden to any political party. That is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) demanded in his speech yesterday. I am convinced that such action would be satisfactory to all concerned.
The C.B.C. has an excellent record. It has been of tremendous service to the Canadian nation. And when I hear a speech such as that made yesterday by the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I cannot help rising in rebuttal.
Someone called my attention to an article on the subject of the C.B.C., and it occurred to me that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm might well have drawn some inspiration from it. It was printed in a paper called Nouvelles Illustrees, formerly known as Nouvelles et Potins-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, that is an absolute falsehood, and I would ask the hon. member for Dollard to withdraw that statement.


An hon. Member:: He has not made a statement yet.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I have not asserted anything. I did not say the hon. member had lifted his speech from that article; I merely said that there was in there a source of inspiration for the hon. member.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In no way whatever.


Mr. Denis:: Neither directly nor indirectly, as Mr. Duplessis would say.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, Nouvelles Illustrees is the unofficial spokesman for the Union Nationale.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to withdraw those remarks; they are out of order.


Guy Rouleau: Well, if the hon. member did not draw his inspiration from that article, perhaps the writer drew his inspiration from the hon. member's speech, for they are very much alike. Here is what it says:
That the Conservative government should thus foster a focus of hostility towards itself, that is its own business. But the people of the province of Quebec demand an early and thorough clean-up.
The author of the article also states:
If the Liberals were in power, states writer Robert Rumilly, they would not tolerate the Conservatives ruling the roost at C.B.C. headquarters a year after a Tory defeat.
Elsewhere in the same article we read the following:
Enemies of Maurice Duplessis sometimes brand him as a dictator, but in no other country in the world would such attacks, made on the state-controlled television against the head of the government be tolerated.
The article also mentions the name of Miss Simone Gelinas, editor of Notre Temps, official organ of the Union Nationale,-and goes on to say:
As for me, I am less polite, or more "fed up" . . . I say that a government that is being fooled like that by the state radio is a government of cuckolds.
At the top of the page, the article concludes as follows:
There should be a clean sweep in the C.B.C. and we are offering the broom!
Mr. Speaker, I presume that the present government is not prepared to accept the broom being offered by Mr. Rumilly.
Those words of inspiration, which fall so unpleasantly on the ears of certain hon. members, were perhaps written by the ghost-writer of Mr. Maurice Duplessis, the "jaundice" of the Union Nationale, false prophet Robert Rumilly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I feel he is drifting away to some extent from the amendment.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that when you interrupted the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, last night, he went on with his remarks just the same, and I respectfully submit that you should grant me the same privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I made no mention of a broom.


Mr. Boulanger:: You referred to scanty attire; what has that to do with the discussion?
57071-3-142
Radio and Television


Guy Rouleau: Radio and Television
Does he mean to say that people in the C.B.C.'s employ, like Father Ambroise Lafor-tune, Father Emile Legault, Father Desmarais and Mr. Rene Levesque, are communists?


Mr, Pigeon;: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dollard is distorting my remarks. Actually I said that Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon was the symbol of "leftism".


Mr. Dupuis:: Adrien Arcand is a fascist but nobody speaks about it.


Guy Rouleau: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the "whited sepulchres" mentioned by the hon. member are not where he chooses to look for them, because the ones he attacked in this house are probably users of natural gas, but there is no need of a royal commission to investigate their doings.
v Mr. Deschaleleis: Mr. Speaker, I believe tjjat, in moving his amendment the Leader of Ihe Opposition (Mr. Pearson) quite aptly raised a question of national interest which has become a subject of national controversy because of the government's failure to implement the following, taken from the speech from the throne:
.There will be placed before you a proposal to establish a new agency to regulate broadcasting in Canada-
Well, the resignation of Mr. Dunton as president of the C.B.C. has given rise in public opinion to some rumours to the effect that this resignation will be followed by others in the C.B.C. The present confusion ^vas heightened by the numerous speeches made by well-known members of this government, and I refer particularly to the Ministers of Justice and of Finance (Messrs. Fulton and Fleming) who, on several occasions, when they were in the opposition and dealt with this subject, always professed to be in favour of granting greater privileges tq. private radio and television broadcasting fOT the purpose of allowing them to set up a network to compete with the C.B.C. on a national scale. It is now well known that the present cabinet is not of one mind as to what should be done about radio and television broadcasting in Canada, i.e. as regards policy, future control, structure and financing.
: If this debate were to serve no other purpose than forcing the government to make known at last its policy on this problem, one so important to all Canadians, I am sure that ip return Canadians would be grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for having raised the. matter.

Mr. Speaker, no medium of communication is more important than radio and television broadcasting, in preserving for this country and the various groups that make up this nation their national and cultural heritage. In this regard, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) in the fine speech he made yesterday, splendidly outlined the great work accomplished by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I feel that we should be proud of the progress achieved in the last few years. Proximity to the United States presented some dangers in this regard. We managed to avoid those dangers and, in spite of American competition, we preserved the typically Canadian character of our culture and of our art.
On several occasions, we have been proud to hear foreigners pay high tribute to the quality of our programs, as well as to the quality of our performers. To a certain extent, this is the work of the previous government, and of this we are very proud. However, we are anxiously wondering today what the policy of this government will be with regard to future development of our radio and television broadcasting system. Our own approach to this matter has always been the same, it is well defined, very clear and was reiterated yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. We feel that the national interest must prevail and take precedence over any private interest whatever. We recognize the important part that the private radio and television stations are called upon to play in this regard in Canada, but they must do so under the authority and the supervision of a regulatory body.
The Fowler report has been in the hands of the government for more than a year. We have been told nothing of the government's attitude in this regard. The time has now come for it to clear up matters in this connection.
Now Mr. Speaker I have a few suggestions to offer with regard to Canadian radio and television so that they may be better fitted to render maximum service to all classes of our people. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians, night workers, shut-ins, the sick or disabled, either at home or in hospitals, are deprived of the enjoyment of television. I wonder if it would not be possible to put on more afternoon films, so that these thousands of our fellow-citizens might have an opportunity to enjoy this entertainment which is unavailable to them in the evening.

At the time I sat on the government side, I called the attention of the Minister of National Revenue to the fact that French films shown on channel 2, Friday and Saturday evenings, were often of very doubtful quality. There already has been an improvement in this regard, even though we must recognize that there is no great choice in this matter since selections have to be made among films produced almost ten years back. But I do feel that if the Minister gave instructions in this regard, there would certainly be a marked improvement.
As regards the financing of radio and television in this country, I feel that we should favour increased spending. To my mind no Canadian would really object, because it would mean a more tangible form of assistance for our young people of talent. If we expect to compete with American radio and television, we must make it easier for our young folk to break into television by means of competitions and prizes that would bring unknown talent out of hiding.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two about a speech delivered yesterday by my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). I will merely note a sentence which may be found in the official record of this house, page 2228:
Let there be a little cleanup job in the C.B.C.; let us throw out these people with warped ideas, leftist ideas, who grab half the television programs-
I have no wish of going into any details in this connection, but the hon. minister will have no difficulty in following me, since this is an extremely important matter. I feel that every newspaperman and every hon. member who sat in the last parliament, the 22nd parliament, will admit that we of the Liberal party have prevented politics from entering into the operation of Canadian radio and television. There is an old saying: "When politics enter the courts, justice is ousted".
Well, the day when we will let politics interfere in the field of radio and television in Canada, we will slowly but surely march towards totalitarianism. The word "cleanup" is often directly connected with political patronage. May I therefore be allowed to give some good advice to the hon. minister (Mr. Nowlan), and ask him to do as we did, i.e. to keep politics out of television and radio. As far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we will see to it that the government does not depart from the policies we have established in this matter.
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to reserve my observations until the Minister of National
Radio and Television
Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) had had a chance to speak, because it may well be that many of the things I might otherwise say it would not be necessary for me to say and it would therefore have facilitated what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked for yesterday, namely the speeding up of the business of the house, but since the minister is even slower than I in getting to his feet and since you, sir, were about to put the question, I seem to have no choice but to speak before the minister.
I should like to begin by referring to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). Perhaps it is almost unnecessary for me to say that we in the official opposition will be very glad indeed to support the subamendment. We hardly think it is necessary, as a matter of fact, after the words which were said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). If one compares the terms of the subamendment, which can be found on page 2221 of Hansard as follows:
And this house further regrets that the government has not declared itself in support of the maintenance and expansion of publicly owned facilities in the field of radio and television-
-with what the Leader of the Opposition said at page 2215 of Hansard:
The proper operation and development of such a national system of broadcasting will be costly and will involve increased public expenditures in the future.
And then these words which I hope all hon. members will mark well:
It is imperative that we should be prepared to meet this responsibility if we want to grow and develop as a distinct nation.
I think it will be seen that the point has been dealt with. But I see no harm whatsoever in having this point stated explicitly as it is stated in the subamendment which was moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West, and we are very happy indeed to support the subamendment.
If I could think that the words, if I may put it that way, of the Minister of National Revenue when he spoke in the house on June 3 represented the considered and final views of the government, I should think it would not have been necessary for us to have brought this matter before the house. I must say I found many good things in the minister's speech; I found nothing much to disagree with except a very minor question of propriety as to whether he should have talked about the 15 per cent excise tax in the way he did, but I regard that as such a small fly in such an excellent ointment that I commend everything the minister said and I should like

Radio and Television
to remind members particularly of these words recorded on page 813 of Hansard in the middle of the second column:
I pay tribute where tribute is due. I think the Liberal government deserves a tribute once in a while for some of the things it did, at any rate.
I want to point out this fact also. In the United States of America there are three television networks and according to the financial reports none of them, as networks, are making much money, if they are breaking even.
And then the minister went on to point out the difference between the situation there and here. If we could feel that the statements that the minister expressed on that occasion were going to be reflected in the policy of this government when it is finally brought in in this house, I hope during this session-the Prime Minister rather intimated yesterday that we could look for everything this session that was forecast in the speech from the throne-we should be very pleased indeed. Of course, I cannot question what the Prime Minister said, though perhaps I can have a few private doubts about it. But we do feel it would be quite wrong for this session to go by without some firm indication of the direction in which the government intends to move. I must say that I personally would not be disposed to quarrel with the government too much if they did not finally complete their legislation this session, if they thought it more expedient to bring down the financial proposals which are in many ways, I think, the most urgent, and to indicate the lines along which they intended to proceed. I think that might be a wise course, because it would provide an opportunity not merely for us in this house and for the ladies and gentlemen in the other place to consider the government legislation, but it would also provide for the kind of opportunity that from time to time is given to the public generally to consider measures of great importance bringing about important reforms such as was given, for example, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in connection with the estates tax.
However, I recognize that it is not my responsibility nor my function to determine the course to be taken by the government. The most I can hope to do is to influence it, and I must say that if I can add a little to the influence which I hope and believe, and which there is certain evidence for believing, the Minister of National Revenue is exerting on his colleagues, I would feel we were moving in the right direction. I must say I was very pleased, too, by what the hon. member for Kootenay West said though he did not go quite as far yesterday as the Minister of National Revenue went the other evening.
[Mr. Pickersglll.l
But the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) did say, as reported at page 2218 of Hansard of July 14, 1958:
I think this indicates very clearly that while, as the Leader of the Opposition said, there is no organization or group that does not make mistakes under very difficult conditions where we have had this development of television, a very expensive medium of communication in recent years, changed technical conditions, procedures and things of that sort, the C.B.C. has done a wonderful job in this country, which is recognized by the Canadian people as a whole.
I would be the last person to claim that the government which was in office for all but one year of the life of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation deserves all the credit or even most of the credit for the achievements of that corporation but I do not think it can be denied nor do I think the Minister of National Revenue-although that may not be true of all his colleagues-would want to deny that the government which was in office from the time the C.B.C. was established in 1936 until certain unfortunate events in June of last year did create a climate in which the kind of C.B.C. could be developed of which the vast majority of the Canadian people are very proud as was shown, I think, whenever the issue was joined either in this house, in any parliamentary committee or whenever it was investigated by successive royal commissions.
It seems to me as the Leader of the Opposition very well pointed out yesterday, and as has been pointed out by almost every one who has spoken with the exception of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), who seemed to have rather different ideas about the C.B.C., that the feeling in this house is that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or perhaps I should rather say a national broadcasting system receiving a considerable measure of support from public funds, is essential to the national life of our country. The problem of radio and television broadcasting, as I see it, is the problem of Canada itself. It is the problem we have confronted over and over again ever since we made the resolution nearly 100 years ago to create a transcontinental nation in the northern half of this continent. We have discovered in almost everything we have tackled on a national scale that, because geographically we are inevitably on the margin of a country with ten times the population and more than ten times the developed-I do not say the undeveloped but the developed-resources of our own, that it is not possible to allow our national institutions to develop solely by the free play of economic forces. I have a predilection for the free play of economic forces; indeed, I belong to a party which has

this predilection. But this is one field in which it became very quickly clear, even in the twenties of this century when radio was first developing and broadcasting was first being undertaken, that there would be no distinctively Canadian content to radio broadcasting if it were left to undiluted commercial enterprise.
It was that circumstance which led the government of Mr. Mackenzie King in 1928 to appoint the Aird commission. It is very significant that the report of the Aird commission has, in its essence, been accepted by and acceptable to the great majority of Canadians and to all governments ever since. There has been one deviation from the recommendations of the Aird commission, of course, but up until now there has been only one serious deviation.
There is no doubt that at the time the recommendation was made it was contemplated-and I think it was still contemplated even at the time the Canadian Broadcasting Act was first introduced in this parliament in 1936-that there would be a state broadcasting system and nothing else, as there is in the United Kingdom. We should remember, of course, that these recommendations were made and implemented at a time when we had a population of 10 million instead of 17 million in this country and at a time when economic activity was very different from the level it had attained at the time the Fowler commission made its report which, I might remind hon. members, was before the current recession began.
It is possible to contemplate that some of the economic conditions which made it seem imperative to the Aird commission that a complete monopoly of broadcasting should be given to a state organism were found not to be present because of the growth of population, wealth and capacity to support alternatives, but as the Fowler commission pointed out there were certain unfortunate as well as many very fortunate results which flowed from the deviation from that original decision. One of them was, of course, that because the private stations were anterior at least in time to the C.B.C. and they had established certain rights-not vested rights because specifically they were excluded, but rights of use and wont-they perhaps did manage, in one or two cases, to retain certain valuable franchises which were really a part of the public domain for which the public was not given as adequate a return as the public should have got.
That has been one of the thorniest of all the problems that every government has had to face. Once we decided to deviate from the original conception of a purely state agency, once we decided that private stations regulated
67071-3-143
Radio and Television
by a state agency should be a part of the national system, it was quite clear that the most difficult decision-and as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) pointed out, the kind fraught with the greatest danger- would have to be made from time to time, and that was how and at what price and in what circumstances should part of the public domain be exploited by private users. It should be pointed out over and over again that the airwaves are the public domain, that they are limited and that the public has the right to control them completely. All this talk about the possibility of free enterprise and competition in this sphere is, as the Fowler commission pointed out, talking about something that is not in accord with the facts of the situation.
Whenever a private station-be it a radio station or even more a television station-is given a licence it is being given a chunk of the public domain to exploit and it seems to me it should be given that chunk of the public domain to exploit only if it is going to be exploited in the public interest. That does not mean, of course, that the people who do the exploiting are not entitled to a proper remuneration for what they do whether it be in the form of salary and wages or in the form of profits, but it does mean that the public interest should always be paramount and always be put first.
It seems to me there are three problems of major significance that face the government at the present time. I am going to state them in the order of difficulty and it so happens that I think the order of importance is the exact opposite of the order of difficulty.
I think the least important of the three, but the most difficult of the three, is to decide to whom, where and under what conditions private licences for television are to be granted.


Mr. Nowlan:: That is the least important.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that that is the least important of the three in the whole picture but I think it is the most difficult of the three and I think the most fraught with dangers of many kinds for those who have the responsibility for discharging that obligation. We all know that of all those potential franchises the most valuable one is clearly the second channel in the city of Toronto. Not only is this the largest aggregation of population in the country using one language, or predominantly one language, but it so happens that in Toronto there is only one more channel available while in Montreal there are two. I am subject to correction on this but I think there are two in Vancouver, but in any case even if there is only one in Vancouver it might potentially be much more


Mr. Lamberl:: It is the same thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is a device that worked very well; I think it was a very fair device in the days when many people did not have television, because it made sure that the building up of the television chain would be paid for by the people who got the benefit and not by the people in Bonavista-Twillin-gate and other areas who cannot receive television programs from anywhere because there is no station near them. If we are to approach 90 per cent coverage, as we hope to do and I think we should, it does seem to me that the problem of discrimination between one form of raising money and another will become less important.
What is important is the problem of determining how much money the C.B.C. should have and how it should be provided. I quite agree with the Fowler commission that it should be voted by parliament. I quite agree that the ultimate responsibility should be with parliament. But we in this party have always agreed that we do not want any direct or indirect pressure from the government upon the national broadcasting system, and I was very pleased indeed to hear certain statements made during this session by the Prime Minister which suggested that he took exactly the same view. The kind of financial control that should be exercised by parliament is the control that is concerned with getting the most for the least money and nothing else. We do not want to have the government setting itself up as a board of censorship nor do I think we even want parliament to do so.
In my opinion the only way you can run a system that is going to have any vitality is to choose good people to run it, trust them to run it and if they do a bad job then do something about them. I was not reassured by hearing the speech of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm because I do not think we in parliament should attempt to be censors. I do not think that most of us have the necessary attributes or the necessary time and I would have the very gravest fears of any attempt to have parliament do that.
At the same time I know that when we were in office we felt greatly concerned about the rapid growth in the cost of this operation and the prospective cost which was even more frightening. We did think that perhaps there might be some faint disposition on the part of people wanting to do a good job,
57071-3-1431
Radio and Television
wanting perhaps to be perfectionists, to feel that there were unlimited funds with which to achieve perfection. I do not say that that attitude was a very prevalent attitude in the C.B.C. but I do not think it was entirely absent either.
While I am not going to endorse every word in the report of the Fowler commission, it does seem to me that its basic view is sound that a certain amount should be allocated to the C.B.C., with safeguards for changes in the value of money, and the C.B.C. should be told that is all it is going to get for the next four or five years and that it must make do with it, choose the things that it thinks are most important and cut out the things that are not quite so important. I know that in the last year or two we were in office we subjected the film board to that regime and I felt it had a very good effect indeed upon their attitude to their expenditures. I believe that something of that kind would indeed be the best way.
The Fowler commission recommends three different methods. As between them I think it would be silly for me to make any observations because the government will probably have a fourth one and we had better debate the actual proposition instead of an academic proposition. But I would hope that the government would never think of bringing in annual estimates which would inevitably turn the C.B.C. into something indistinguishable from a government department. I cannot conceive that it would be possible to do this by the method of annual estimates without bringing directly, and more particularly indirectly, pressures upon this organization which I believe would sooner or later, almost inevitably be political and partisan in their nature.
That brings me, of course, to the third problem the one which I think is by all odds the most important but which I also think is the least difficult. That is the problem of control. While I had some sympathy for the feeling that engendered the propaganda of the Canadian association of broadcasters-its name is somewhat longer now- I think that it was fallacious. It was never intended that we should have two systems like the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. It was never intended at any time by any parliament that there should be more than one system of broadcasting in which the private sector complemented the public sector.
I have never felt that there was anything wrong whatsoever in principle or indeed in practice-the Fowler commission has said so too-about the regulation of the private stations by the board of governors of the

Radio and Television
corporation. I must say I had a good deal of sympathy with what some of the private broadcasters had to say about employees of the C.B.C. exercising control over them. I think they had a valid point when they said that they did not object so much to being controlled by the board of governors or by people directly responsible to the board as they did to employees lower down the scale exercising control over them. They felt that this created jealousies between the private stations and some of the public stations which may have been unfortunate. I do not claim to possess any personal knowledge but I think an argument could be made and in my opinion the basic solution suggested in the Fowler report that there should be one board to control both but that control should not be exercised by employees actually engaged in the operating agency is a good and sound one.
But what is most important, what I should like to emphasize above all, is that national broadcasting should be as independent of the government as the judiciary. What is important is that we find a formula-whether it has been found by the Fowler commission X am not absolutely sure-which will make it absolutely certain that there is no way in which the government can yield to the temptation, which I suppose is present in all executives, namely to use all legitimate means to further their own ends, to exercise pressure upon the people who have control of this great agency, which we believe must be a national agency and must be supported by the state, in order to favour one political party, one group or one set of ideas rather than another. We do not want to have a totalitarian type of broadcasting system. If we are going to have a national system, we have to have one that is financed by the state to some degree and controlled by an agency of the state.
In that regard it seems to me that the great historic experience of the British peoples in establishing courts that can be completely independent of the executive, and they are independent, is the real model and pattern for us to follow and that in this matter more than in any other field it is of vital importance, not only that there should be no interference by the executive branch of the government but that there should be no colour of interference. If the government brings before us proposals which cover this point completely, which give us real assurance that what has been the case over the past 20 years will continue to be the case, then in my opinion they will have no difficulty with that part of their legislation in getting it through the house.

As I said at the beginning, and I say it again now in coming to the close of my remarks, if I felt that the Minister of National Revenue was himself going to decide this question I would have great hope and great confidence. But we have had from hon. gentlemen opposite, in their different metamorphoses-and they have been many in the past 25 years-many divergent views about how broadcasting should be carried on in this country. We had Mr. Drew's famous proposal to which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) referred last night, that all the lucrative broadcasting should be left to private industry and the government should pick up the tab for the outlying parts of the country. In 1952 the hon. member for Laurier demolished that proposition so completely that we never heard it again. Incidentally, he made one of the most magnificent speeches that I ever heard in this house; that was before I was a member.
I do not believe there is much danger of the Tory party reviving that proposition. Then, we had the Prime Minister making a statement at Kenora, with which I am sure the minister is familiar, on March 18, when he said:
I have read and studied the report.
The reference is to the Fowler report.
We intend to bring in legislation for a semijudicial body similar to the board of transport commissioners so that radio and television will have that justice which is the essence of our system.
The time is long overdue to assure private stations in competition with the publicly-owned national organization, that their cases shall be judged by an independent body instead of as in the past by those in national competition, acting as judge and jury.
I would not have minded so much the first paragraph, but I do not care very much for the second. I imagine that perhaps the Prime Minister was speaking, as he sometimes does, without a text and perhaps without the same amount of reflection that he might have given to his words on a different occasion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rarely ask for the indulgence of the house, but I could finish in one minute.


George Clyde Nowlan: Go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I was saying, with the first half of the Prime Minister's statement I find no difficulty, but the second half worries me. It worries me quite a lot. This conception of competition, and this conception



[Stage Direction]
that it is not one unified national system. I hope when the government's proposals are matured that that will disappear. I may say- I never thought the day would come when I would say this, but in closing I want to say it-this is one field in which I hope the Tory party goes back to Bennett because on this subject, and on this subject almost alone, Bennett was right.
(Translation):
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join hon. members who spoke before me and supported the amendment submitted yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). After listening to severe criticism aimed at the C.B.C. by government members when some of them were sitting in the ranks of the opposition, we are hardly surprised that our leader, the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) should have thought it was time to upbraid the government for delaying a statement explaining its policy with regard to our radio and television systems.
From its timid attitude with regard to the C.B.C. and the delay in revealing their policy to this effect, we may conclude that the government has now realized that our present system, which they so vehemently criticized when they were still in the opposition, managed, though it is not yet quite perfect, to combine public broadcasting and private property by an agreement very suitable to our country, which meets the demands of the great majority of Canadians.
This house certainly regrets that the government has not yet submitted any proposals for the control and financing of radio and television, and it is also important that some decision be announced as soon as possible in order to dispel any uncertainty that may now exist with regard to public and private broadcasting in Canada.
Our radio and television system, as it exists today, is perhaps not perfect and could no doubt be improved in some respects, but we have to realize and to admit that it is to our advantage to keep, as far as possible, our Canadian identity and our Canadian culture.
It is to our advantage to avoid, if possible, in our cultural system, any foreign influences which might affect this Canadian element which is our own, both inside and outside the country.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay any further the debate on this important question
Radio and Television
upon which depends the future of radio and television in Canada.
I am glad, however, to take this opportunity to associate myself with the remarks made in this house yesterday by the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) with regard to French language stations in Canada.
We recognize that the Canadian economy cannot by itself take care of a radio and television system depending only on commercial revenues. That is why it is essential that a system such as the C.B.C. should be supported by public funds, and this is all the more necessary if we wish to protect the rights of our various racial groups.
We, as members of a minority group in the maritime provinces, recognize that the principles adopted by the C.B.C., and especially those regulating the operation and control of French language stations, try to be fair towards our minority groups.
Representatives of various French language groups who appeared before the Fowler Royal Commission, were practically unanimous in approving the general quality of the French language programs of the C.B.C. They took the opportunity to pay tribute to the governors of the C.B.C. who endeavour to give the French language population of Canada a service which aims to satisfy the requirements and demands of the French-speaking population.
We should also recognize that, in their briefs, those various groups requested improvements which were then introduced by the C.B.C. as far as financial and technical facilities allowed.
I should like to mention particularly those briefs submitted in French from the maritime provinces, that dealt with the establishment of a television station connected with the French network, having its broadcasting centre in Moncton.
As announced in this house a few weeks ago by the Minister of National Revenue, the request was considered reasonable and the C.B.C. wasted no time in taking the necessary steps for the establishment of this station.
Realizing that most of the French-speaking people of New Brunswick live in the northern constituencies of the province, the C.B.C. promptly acted on our request that French network programs be extended to the new television station planned for New Carlisle, the inauguration of which is anxiously awaited in the northern area of New Brunswick and of the Gaspe peninsula.

Radio and Television
We have reason to believe that the C.B.C. will not delay in agreeing at the same time to the request of the English-speaking people of this area, particularly in extending to this station or to the northeastern area of New Brunswick, the programs of the English network of the C.B.C.
Mr. Speaker, I am therefore happy to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
(Text):


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on this subject of radio and television broadcasting in Canada perhaps we have had just as much in the way of speeches and material written in those other media of communication, the newspapers and magazines, as on any other subject that has been before us for a number of years. I am speaking as perhaps the only one who has intervened in this debate and who comes from a region where private radio and television has more scope than in this particular area of the country. Perhaps some of the views of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken have been coloured by that fact. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members some of the difficulties which face those concerned with the development of radio and television in Canada.
I do not think I need to go back over the history of this subject, because references were made by the proposer of the amendment and those who followed him to the Aird commission report, the Massey commission report and finally the Fowler commission report, which pretty well indicate the history of these media. I think we must however recognize the fact that the existence of private radio and television in Canada is not the result of unfettered development as some members might have seen fit to allow, but rather some sort of controlled development. If we look at the results in this light perhaps they are a little easier to understand.
I know there are many areas in Canada where, if development of television had been less restricted, we would have better television today. We have the rather ludicrous situation in Vancouver, for instance, where the viewers in many areas are able to pick up six channels, only one of which is Canadian, and where hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue pour across the border to United States stations simply because-or this is one of the reasons-the Canadian

station does not have enough hours available in which to accept advertising and commercial sponsorship from the people who want to give it. I suggest the same thing applies in Toronto, Montreal and other areas. These cities could support a greater number of channels or outlets and it is not a matter of an entirely commercial outlet taking away all the advertising from the existing C.B.C. outlet.
I think the matter of attracting viewers is a question of the type of program available. After all, you cannot force a person to listen to a radio program or to view a television program against his will. There are, of course, many people who perhaps need a sort of sound conditioning-they cannot live without some sort of background noise-and they will take what is there. We have all witnessed this condition in some rural areas where smaller stations pour out hour after hour a certain type of music which is rather grating on the nerves, but still a lot of people will accept it. However, people are free to choose and if they will listen to that type of broadcasting then such programs will be sponsored.
I feel it is fallacious to suggest that simply because there exist limited channels in the Toronto area that if we turned over the remaining channels to a purely commercial organization revenue would immediately depart from the C.B.C. station. That, I think, is based on the assumption that what the C.B.C. station has to present to its viewers is not worth looking at and that its viewer rating will immediately drop and the commercial sponsors will desert it as rats desert a sinking ship. I do not accept that theory at all; I think it would be a good thing if the C.B.C. had competition in such areas. The men who are in charge of the management of these various private stations are businessmen and they have responsibilities like everyone else and they are recognized as having those capacities, so they will certainly make efforts to cater to the public and make their product a saleable one. As in so many other things the matter of radio and television content is a matter of selling to the public and I would say the best sales attraction for these media would be quality and then service.
I have one further observation to make in connection with the question of private and public television stations. Based on my somewhat cursory knowledge from visiting and participating in programs at both types of stations, I am astounded at the number of personnel in private radio stations compared with those at C.B.C. stations for the same type of program. It is almost incomprehensible. One cannot understand why so many

people have to be around a sound stage at a C.B.C. station. I presume they have a job to do. The same comment applies to the technicians involved. They may have something to do with the quality of the program, but I have particular reference to where the same type of program is involved. Somehow or other the C.B.C. always seems to have rather more people about. Perhaps the technical production is superior; I do not know, but I make that observation in passing.
I feel the position of our radio and television coverage in this country is such that we should encourage competition between the national system and private interests. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) suggested that we did not want to get into a situation in this regard like we have with the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., but I think the fact that there is a privately owned radio system and a publicly owned one-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member does not want to misrepresent what I said, which was that we had not created a system such as the one with respect to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I felt from the reference of the hon. member that he was suggesting that the fact that there exist two different types of competitors was something that should not be encouraged. I would like to say that I would have thought the best competition for the C.N.R. is the C.P.R. It acts as a spur to provide a better service to the public, and the same applies with respect to the C.P.R.
I believe the same might be said of this field of radio and television. Competition within the framework of technical control by a board set up to regulate the allocation of wave lengths and the general technical development of radio and television in my opinion would be beneficial. This competition, of course, would have to be confined in other aspects from the point of view of morality, et cetera, but we could then encourage private radio and television and the C.B.C. on the same footing, but not the condition which has existed for rather too long of the one group acting as judge, jury and prosecutor. It may be that the greatest discretion was used, but there was always the suspicion that because the framework permitted it there were occasions when there was some discrimination. From what I have heard from private radio and television interests, those occasions were somewhat frequent.
And now may I make a suggestion with regard to the future of radio and television -certainly television-it would be this: I have spoken on a number of occasions in this house about the value of bilingualism, but I will address myself now particularly to the
Radio and Television
English speaking members of this house; I do not think I have to convince the French speaking members about the value of my proposal. We have today French speaking television stations and English speaking stations. In a few centres in Canada we have bilingual stations, but if I am fully conversant with the regulations, such stations can exist only where there is not already an English speaking or a French speaking station. In other words, we cannot have an English station and a bilingual station in the same area.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all members that if we are to develop as a nation we must encourage the learning of the other language to the fullest extent possible and take steps to see that our people, particularly our children, become bilingual. We have seen such a development taking place in many areas, in our schools and so forth, and noted that though there had been previously a great antipathy toward learning a second language, that attitude has been changing. Knowledge of a second language is certainly of great advantage in this house, and I feel that where there is a field for a second television station and where there is a demand because of the existence of a minority of the second language group, be it French or English, we should provide a bilingual station on the basis of 70-30 or 60-40 or even 50-50. I suggest that the limitation which exists today be dispensed with.
I know that here in Canada the quality of the development of our domestic actors on the French network of the C.B.C. is of a higher calibre on the whole than that which exists on the English network. Simply because there are no fill-ins they have had to get out and produce. In the same way I think we should give encouragement throughout the rest of the country and that we should give encouragement to the full development and use of both the English and French languages from one end of this country to the other. That is by way of constructive suggestion.
I feel we can say to hon. members in the opposition that this government is fully aware of the problems which they have been eloquent in pointing out. It has been spoken about in the debate on the speech from the throne, and I suggest that if we bide our time we will see something that will be satisfactory.


George Clyde Nowlan: We have had an interesting debate starting yesterday afternoon and running into today and I think I will be expected to say something about the matters which have been raised, although frankly there has been very little here of a controversial nature. I appreciate the fact that the debate has been kept on a high level

Radio and Television
and that the discussion has been constructive rather than destructive.
I hope I am not departing from that standard when I suggest that the fact that the amendment was made in the terms that it was, is a great tribute to this government, because after all this is one of the six motions, we were told yesterday, to go into supply. This is the fifth of the six motions which give to the opposition a chance to move a vote of censure on things which the government has done and which should be rectified, and it is interesting to see that after this parliament has been sitting as long as it has, the only criticism with which we are faced in this amendment is the fact that we have not proceeded quite as fast in dealing with the order paper as members of the opposition would have wished.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? Did the minister observe that practically all of the amendments pointed to omissions and failures to act?


George Clyde Nowlan: If we are only guilty of omissions of this kind then Canada is undoubtedly blessed in the government it has, and I think the majority of Canadians are of this opinion.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) quoted at length from the Fowler commission report, partly in the language of that commission and partly in his own, very adequately presenting the problems which face broadcasting and telecasting in this country. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) quoted at length from a speech which was made here a few days ago by the Minister of National Revenue and I am not sure which one of the two hon. gentlemen made the greater contribution to the debate. I suppose modesty would prevent my deciding that matter. In any event, I do not propose to make again the speech which the hon. member for Kootenay West repeated at some length last night.
Hon. members will remember that I discussed the C.B.C. on an ad lib basis for 20 minutes or so here the other evening, and certainly I am not going to repeat the observations I made then, though the fact that I do not do so does not in any way suggest that the circumstances have changed or that I have changed my mind with respect to them. Perhaps, though, I should make one comment or explanation, because I have had some letters from people associated with the television industry.
Apparently I said in a free and easy moment, and quite factually, that I thought the radio system in Canada was the best in the world. But I did not make the same
observation about television, and they thought there might possibly have been an implied criticism of our television programs. There was no implied criticism intended. We have some excellent television in this country but naturally, with the tremendous sums of money spent on television programs elsewhere, we cannot, perhaps, say that all of ours are superior to all of those that are available to the Canadian people.
The amendment itself simply regrets that the government has not yet presented its proposals for the regulation and financing of radio and television broadcasting and thereby removing the uncertainty as to the future of public and private broadcasting in Canada.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, we have not presented our proposals as yet, but I doubt if that is a matter for serious criticism at this time. I think hon. gentlemen opposite wanted, perhaps, to stake out a claim for themselves in defending the C.B.C. and also, perhaps in elaborating upon the Fowler commission, perhaps taking the copyright on that. And so, to use a slang expression, they rather beat the gun and moved this amendment yesterday. But because presumably in a week or two or certainly in the relatively near future I will be having to make another speech on broadcasting and telecasting in Canada when the government legislation is brought into the house, I am sure hon. members will not feel I am slighting them in any way if I do not deal in detail or in fact if I do not deal except in a very general way with the arguments they have raised.
I have made some rather copious and rough notes here which I shall review. I will have the advantage of reading in Hansard my remarks and those of hon. gentlemen who have spoken and if I anticipate correctly I will have an opportunity of speaking on this matter again in the near future and perhaps at that time I could clear up any points which hon. members have raised with which I did not deal this afternoon.
After all, Mr. Speaker, this house opened in May. We did not conclude the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne until well into the month of June. We have had the budget debate since then. We have also had five motions to go into supply. We have had legislation dealing with housing, legislation dealing with an extension of unemployment insurance benefits and the house has considered many other matters in addition to having had private members' days and the hours devoted to a consideration of private members' bills. At least it cannot be said that the house has been idle. The house has been sitting regular hours for several weeks and now we are moving to an extension.



[Stage Direction]
It is true, I suppose, that one could have brought forward a certain piece of legislation and set it ahead of another and perhaps this could have been brought on a little earlier, but very little earlier. If that had been the case, other legislation which to many people would have been equally important would have been delayed. In other words, I do not seriously accept for one moment-and I do not think hon. members opposite expected me to accept it seriously- the suggestion that there has been any delay in bringing forward the legislation. I doubt that there has been any great uncertainty in the minds of those associated with the corporation because of that.
As one hon. gentleman pointed out, the report of the Fowler commission was brought forward in the early spring of 1957, I believe in February or March. The government of that day did not proceed with legislation at that time. This was natural because an election was pending and the government delayed action on it until after the election. That government was not returned; we were. But I suspect that if the government had been returned-I am fairly certain of this although I cannot be sure of it-last year with a full majority it would have been inclined to look upon the session as sort of a windup of the earlier part of the session and if hon. gentlemen opposite had formed the government last summer I doubt if they would have brought in legislation dealing with the C.B.C. last fall. I am certainly sure they would not have done it if they had been returned in a minority position as we were wherein they would not have known how long they might be in office.
This government was returned last year under circumstances wherein it had a cleanup of legislative matters and details left from the previous session and not being in a majority position I do not think it was expected of us that we would bring in legislation which obviously would be contentious and is of tremendous importance and attempt to deal with it at that time.
I say there can be no possible suggestion of delay in this matter on the part of the government and the same delay would have occurred if hon. gentlemen opposite had been in power until after parliament was called together this spring. I feel I have dealt with that point adequately and I say again that there has been in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of all hon. members of this house regardless of what position they may feel they should assume on the vote, that there has been no great delay in this connection.
This is a very important matter and one could discuss it at considerable length. I 57071-3-144
Radio and Television
could take all the time that is available to me and more in dealing with the points which have been raised but, as I said, I do not think this is the time for me to do it. I cannot believe that hon. gentlemen opposite expect from me a preview of the government legislation which is to be brought down. I could not properly do that even if I wanted to because it would be contrary to all the rules and accepted principles of legislation. But I can say this to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who raised the question-and certainly properly so-that it is proposed to bring down the legislation at this session of parliament and I hope it will be done in the very near future.
This is not an easy matter upon which to legislate. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) quite properly pointed out what he considered were the three problems in connection with it. I wish there were only three. Two of the problems to which he referred will come into being after the legislation is brought down, the matter of licensing and of regulation. There are many problems in trying to bring into being a workable scheme different in conception from that which has applied heretofore. Assume for the sake of argument that the government did decide to establish some sort of independent regulatory board such as is recommended by the Fowler commission and that the board were given the powers heretofore exercised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Assuming that were done, when you come to draft working arrangements whereby that could be accommodated, I think the ingenuity of the draftsmen would be taxed to a considerable extent and whatever system the government may decide to introduce presents many problems.
Perhaps what I am about to say should not be said but I think it is a fair observation. I think quite frankly that whatever the legislation is and whatever the regulations are we are not going to make a system like this work by referring, let us say, to section 475, subsection 2, subparagraph (g) and saying, "That is the answer". The success of this endeavour is going to depend on the men who are administering it, on the personnel, on common sense, on practice, on goodwill and all the other factors which enter into arrangements such as this. Whatever system may be introduced and whatever similarities or changes it may embody, it will be very similar to the British constitution. There will be more which will be unwritten and which will have to develop with practice than will be set down in black and white and capitals as the legislative enactments of the Medes and Persians. I doubt if a system
[Stage Direction]
Radio and Television
like this can work in any way except in being based on established general principles.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred to the one-station system which is applied in Toronto and other places. If the inference or thought were in his mind I think it should be said that is not a matter for the C.B.C. per se. That is a matter of government policy which was laid down by the preceding government, and I think properly, at that time. It is a policy which has been carried on and maintained by this government. The C.B.C. as such, whatever it may or may not have benefited by it, depending on the circumstances, is not a matter of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regulation. It is a policy of the government of Canada and, as I said once before, the time is rapidly approaching if not already here when the government will have to give careful consideration to a revision of that policy. My own thought would be that when that policy is revised, if it is, it would not be advisable to do it until such changes as are proposed in the legislation are brought into enactment and such bodies as may be created under that legislation are named and such regulations as they may decide upon are drafted and published because I do not think -and I am now expressing my own personal opinion and I think it is a reasonable one- that people, groups, corporations or syndicates can operate successfully without knowing the regulations under which they have to operate and once they get them it is hard to change the regulations afterwards. My own thinking for what it is worth would be that there will be no change in that policy for some little while yet at any rate and when the change is brought in regulations will have been adopted.
There has been a great deal of talk by some hon. members about licensing. I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Frankly, I think it is a minor matter. It is very important to the people who are looking for licences. It might be very awkward or damaging to the government or to any political organization which has to make the decision but actually, in so far as the national interests are concerned, it will not make so much difference whether the group of A, B and C get the licence or group D, E and F get it, provided that there are regulations laid down which will be operative, which will be known, which will be reasonable, which will have application and which will be enforced. If those regulations are promulgated by a body in whom the Canadian people have confidence and are the type of regulations that such a body would promulgate, then I do not think there

will be much trouble in dealing with the matter of licensing.
Something has been said about the use of the French language by radio and television stations. I quite agree with what has been said by hon. members in that connection. There have been French speaking stations authorized but not licensed with which the C.B.C. is proceeding this year. We have the station at Moncton about which hon. members have spoken from time to time. And the hon. gentleman spoke about it a moment ago. We have one at St. Boniface which has been authorized by the C.B.C. this year. We have the bilingual station to which the hon. member for Edmonton West referred a few moments ago. We have a bilingual station being licensed at New Carlisle, which is serving the northern area of New Brunswick and part of Quebec, and we are making and will continue to make progress in the extension of those French television and radio stations. The matter of finances is-I will not say embarrassing

a problem of great importance and of increasing importance every day. The costs are rising astronomically.
Something was said about the number of employees in the C.B.C. television stations as compared with private stations. I do not think any one of us who has gone into a C.B.C. station to make a telecast-I remember one night, sir, I happened to encounter you somewhere; it was a hot night; you were coming out as I was going in-has not been struck by the fact that as he went into the C.B.C. station he saw that the service was, shall we say, more adequately manned than was that of the private stations. Of course the C.B.C. is faced with unions, negotiations and contracts which may or may not be the explanation. The matter was delicately referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
Although it is very pleasant to speak about the C.B.C. as we have, and as I certainly have done in the past and will again, yet we also have to pay tribute to the private stations, many of which in this country have carried their share of this national obligation in a very adequate way. There may be some exceptions; there are some who, armed with a disc jockey and a few records, would like nothing better than to play those records all day long and charge for them; but generally speaking I think it can be said that the private stations have recognized their responsibilities either to the local communities, particularly the smaller stations operating within the communities, or to the province or the nation, as the case may be. They are part, of course, of the integrated national system.

Some hon. members talked yesterday and today about competition and whether they were competitors or partners. I think sometimes it might be rather difficult to persuade the private stations that they were partners entirely in this enterprise, and there is no doubt in the world that they are competitors, and properly so, for the advertising dollar. That may have a good effect on both because they are in competition one with the other in the quality of their programs, and so on, to attract the advertising. In the other field they are associated in an integrated system. As I see it, it is the only system that could possibly work in this vast country.
In this system we have created something unique in the whole world, which we have evolved here, partly private and partly public. It is a compromise which Canada has used so often throughout her history, for example, in the building of railways and in fact in the building of the whole nation. Yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West rather humorously suggested that perhaps we have followed the C.C.F. in combining private enterprise and public interest. The C.C.F. are following. They have adopted the policy and the pattern which were in effect in Canada long before the C.C.F. was ever heard of. We had that in the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National and now we have it in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There has been this compromise. Perhaps we are not the most colorful people in the world; perhaps we are not dramatic, but we have built up a pattern which is rather unique in creating this nation stretching across the northern half of the continent, and nowhere is it better exemplified, than in the working out of this partnership.
Perhaps I would be expected to say one word about the matter to which I referred in the house the other day. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has suffered a very severe loss in the resignation of the chairman of the board of governors, Mr. Dunton. He has served the corporation well throughout the years in many ways. The development of this enterprise is a monument and tribute to him which will endure for many years and the country as a whole is indebted to him for what he did during the years in which he was associated with the system.
I do not think there is anything more I need to say at this time, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should say a word about the subamendment. Simply expressed, it reads:
This house further regrets that the government has not declared itself in support of the maintenance and expansion of publicly owned facilities in the field of radio and television.
57071-3-1441
Radio and Television
That may be technically correct, Mr. Speaker. I was under the distinct impression -and I admit I have not found it-that there is on record in Hansard a speech of mine in which I declared myself very forcibly in favour of such a system. I certainly did it by inference the other night, if not explicitly, and I am quite sure there have been statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) to the same effect. If they were not made in the house, then they were made on several occasions outside the house, because I have heard them myself. Let there be no doubt about it, this government is in favour of support for and maintenance of the publicly owned facilities in the field of radio and television.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, a Conservative government under R. B. Bennett, later Lord Bennett, laid the foundation of the whole Canadian broadcasting system. That was when the pattern was developed, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate quite fairly and generously paid tribute to the government of that day for having established the foundation on which the rest has been built.
With every committee of the House of Commons, regardless of the political party, unanimously recommending in favour of maintaining such a system, with three royal commissions recommending the same thing, any political party that would seek to depart from that would certainly not be worthy of the confidence of the people and would not get the confidence of the people and would be politically inept and politically stupid. This government I do not think has shown any of those traits, and I am sure they would not do so in a matter such as this.
As I said, the legislation will come down in the relatively near future. I hope that perhaps the opportunity afforded hon. members to speak yesterday and today will take some of the speeches out of their system and we may possibly have a shorter debate on account of it, although I doubt that very much. I do not think there will be anything in the legislation which has not been envisaged in one way or another in the speeches that have been made. Certainly I cannot go any farther in dealing with that legislation than simply to make the statement I have made, that it will be brought down at the earliest possible moment. I regret the fact that it has not come down earlier. It has certainly been due to no fault of the government in trying to delay it or anything of that kind. There are certain factors in connection with it which have had to be and are being dealt with so that now we are in the position that with the work of the draftsmen nearing
[Stage Direction]
Radio and Television
completion the bill will be brought in at the earliest possible moment.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister concludes I wonder whether he would permit a question. Can the minister say whether it is the intention of the government to appoint a successor to Mr. Dunton pending the bringing down of their new legislation?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would not want to give a definite answer. Frankly, I think it would depend on circumstances. If we can bring the legislation in at the time I hope, see the framework that is provided under the legislation and the legislation is enacted, then, as the Fowler commission has pointed out and as this party pointed out in days gone by when we were in opposition, there obviously would be an independent regulatory body of some kind and one would assume, whatever the details might be, that some board would be set up such as that which might or might not obviate the necessity of filling the vacancy. At the moment there is a vice-chairman, of course. This is not the general manager of the corporation. As the hon. member well knows, this vacancy is that of the chairman of the board of governors. There are vacancies on the board now, and perhaps it would be rather invidious to appoint one person, make him chairman and not fill all the vacancies. That is a matter which the government will have to decide depending upon circumstances and the progress made in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does	the house	wish	withunanimous	consent	to proceed	on	the
amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Pearson) negatived on division.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the house be prepared to dispose of the main motion now?


Hazen Robert Argue: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh no. You tried.


An hon. Member:: Grievances.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to ask for a statement from the government as to its policy regarding the question of deficiency payments on western grain. I see the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) has just entered the chamber and I hope that at the conclusion of my remarks he will enter the debate and place the government's position in this regard on record.
The case for deficiency payments, western producers feel, is very strong. For many years they have been in favour, as they still are, of the Canadian wheat board system of marketing their grain. They have asked for stability in the assembling of their grain, in the grading of it and in the selling of it on the domestic and export markets. At the same time they have asked for a measure of stability in the price-cost relationship. They have said that the price of
Grain-Deficiency Payments their grain should bear a fair relationship to cost of production. Grain producers were quite satisfied with the price-cost relationship in the first few years immediately following the end of the war. They had a number of grievances at that time relating to the final payment and so forth, and after the British wheat agreement was brought to an end they had certain grievances as far as freight costs were concerned, but generally speaking they found their price-cost position between 1945 and 1950 reasonably good.
Since that time, however, there has been a drastic increase in the cost of production. Since 1947 there has been an increase of just over 50 per cent, according to official statistics, in the cost of production. At the same time there has been a general decrease as far as the prairies are concerned of 12 per cent in the price of agricultural commodities. As far as wheat is concerned, the drop has been 21 per cent. Western farmers find, then, that since 1947, the cost of production has increased by more than 50 per cent while the price of their most important agricultural commodity has declined by 21 per cent. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite how any ordinary business firm in this country could maintain its solvency over a 10-year period if it faced increased costs of 50 per cent and a reduction of 21 per cent in the price of its main commodity.
Prairie producers at this time face a very serious economic crisis. It is true that in recent months prices of certain other agricultural commodities have tended to increase. Farmers on the prairies in desperation have been taking a substantial acreage out of wheat and turning it into coarse grain, turning it into coarse grains and fodder crops, and increasing very substantially their production of cattle and hogs. I think that is a sensible long term trend but unless something is done to correct the price-cost position as far as grain products are concerned there will be a far greater acceleration of the movement away from the production of grain to the production of livestock which, I suggest, would have disastrous results as far as agriculture in other parts of Canada is concerned.
No one will dispute me when I say that you can produce grain on the prairies more cheaply than in any other part of Canada, and if the grain producers find it is unprofitable for them to sell their grain they will turn it into livestock, and if they turn any substantial percentage of this enormous production of grain into livestock and livestock products it could mean the total collapse of agricultural prices all over this country. I am hoping that the government will act. Certainly the farm organizations have

Grain-Deficiency Payments expected the government to act, and farmers have had a good deal of faith that the government would act.
The events of March 31 demonstrated to every person on the prairies, no matter what political party he might have voted for on election day, that the people of the prairies had displayed great confidence in the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and in the stated policies of the Conservative party. I know that a great number of them were most unhappy on April 1 and had the feeling that they had gone too far and that it was not in the best interests of parliamentary government that in the three prairie provinces which return 48 members, 47 should be members of one political party. But that action was taken and I do not think that in general the public were sorry they had supported the government.
But now they are beginning to question the government as to what its agricultural policies are going to be, and they are asking this question day after day, over and over again: when is the government going to announce its policy on deficiency payments?
The western wheat pool organizations, which in the past have always been considered cautious and careful organizations, organizations which adopt and initiate policies only after a great deal of the most careful consideration, have now for more than two years been asking for deficiency payments. Before the final payment was announced on the 1956-57 wheat crop the prairie wheat pool organizations had been asking for deficiency payments on wheat for
1955-	56 of 22 cents a bushel; for 1958-57 of
30 cents a bushel; for oats, 1955-56, four cents a bushel; 1956-57, 15 cents a bushel; for barley, 1955-56,	14 cents a bushel;
1956-	57, 22 cents a bushel; and they estimated that the total amount of money that would be involved on the basis of these requests would be in excess of $220 million.
That was before the final payment was announced on the 1956-57 wheat crop. The farmers were disappointed. The wheat pool organizations, through their spokesmen, said they were shocked at the very low final payment averaging approximately six cents a bushel and because the final payment was amended to six cents a bushel they altered their request for a deficiency payment and increased it from 30 cents a bushel to 36 cents a bushel. I understand, from reading the press, that at the last annual meeting of the Saskatchewan wheat pool a resolution was passed instructing the incoming board of directors to wait upon the government to present their request for deficiency payments and by the time of the next annual meeting, which is in November, this year, to have

received a satisfactory answer from the federal government or in the meantime to have organized to be sent to Ottawa a mass delegation to wait upon the government to impress upon it the producers' views.
The government has made no announcement. The directors of that organization are under these definite instructions from their annual convention. That is why they are so anxious that the government delay no further this very important announcement. This request is supported not only by the wheat pool organizations but by the farm union organizations and at various conferences throughout western Canada it has been endorsed by most organizations with a mass membership. It has been supported by rural municipal associations, urban municipal associations, retail merchants' associations and by some church organizations and teachers' federations in their annual conferences.
This is a request that is not confined to the spokesmen in a given political party nor is it confined to spokesmen in a given organization. This is a request that is supported by the people of the three prairie provinces almost unanimously. I confidently hope and expect that it is supported by the 47 Conservative members in this house from the prairie provinces. I would be highly surprised if it were not. There was such an indication during this session at the time I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) whether or not the government was giving consideration to this question. The minister replied that the 47 Conservative members to whom I have referred were as anxious as I was to have action on the matter and had spoken to him about it. I hope they have continued expressing themselves to the minister in this regard. I also hope that sometime this evening before the main motion is put to the house we will have an expression from hon. members from the various provinces that are mainly affected by this question because I expect that the people back home, for that matter all the people on the prairies, will be anxious to hear from them as representatives of the people in the three prairie provinces.
Although the Liberal party is not represented in the house through members from the three prairie provinces I would also hope there would be some indication of the attitude of the official opposition with respect to this question. We all know from practical experience that when the government presents any program, and particularly a new one, it is anxious to know the stand of the opposition parties in this house. If the proposition put to the house by the government is unanimously supported then there is

little political trouble for the government presenting the motion. I would expect that if the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose department this affects mainly, would stand in his place in the house tonight and announce deficiency payments such as have been requested, the official opposition would unanimously support that announcement. I would certainly hope that would be the case. Certainly the C.C.F. members would support it.
I have heard it said on many occasions in various debates in this house-


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Surely.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been standing in his place preaching like a parrot for the last 15 minutes about the difficulties of the farmer. We are all aware of the facts of the situation. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman what he ever did-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has been given the floor to ask a question. I suggest that he put his question.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what the hon. member has ever done to remedy the situation in the last four or five years other than to stand there and talk about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will examine my record in the house I think he will find that it compares favourably with the record of any other hon. member on this particular question.
I was about to refer to the many occasions when some of my good friends on the Conservative side of the house and I participated together in various debates and was about to remind them that even with the tough government we had to deal with in those days we were able to make some progress. My hon. friend, as has already been suggested to him, can rise in his place a little later and make whatever submission he wishes.
I have been saying that this proposition is supported by most organizations in the prairie provinces. I have in my hand the submission of the interprovincial farm union council to the federal government dated May 28, 1958. In it they have asked for deficiency payments of approximately but not exactly the same size as those asked for by the wheat pool organizations. In 1955-56 they asked for deficiency payments on wheat of 28 cents per bushel, and in 1956-57 they asked for payments of 26 cents per bushel with appropriate deficiency payments for oats and barley. In this submission they point out by way of their own tables and figures some of the
Grain-Deficiency Payments very things that were pointed out by the wheat pool organizations.
This brief is highly complimentary of the government. It congratulates the government quite frequently. It is very moderate in tone and concludes with a request for deficiency payments. Since the date of presentation of this brief the interprovincial farm union council has returned to Ottawa; in fact, representatives of that organization are here now. I have not been informed whether they have yet interviewed the cabinet as such but they have certainly been interviewing private hon. members from the various parties. They have left with us a memorandum on deficiency payments and other farm issues. The submission is dated July, 1958, and bears the notation that it is submitted to the members of the House of Commons by representatives of the provincial farm unions. I do not intend to quote all of the brief but I shall cite some extracts from it. It speaks about a resolution supporting the sending of a large delegation to Ottawa and then goes on to say:
As you will note, the foregoing resolution is based on the assumption that immediate action was not taken on this matter, following the last federal election. It may be, however, that this is not the case, and we certainly commend those members who have been keeping this farm issue before those responsible. Still, we must stress the fact that until farmers see definite action on these matters, words give cold comfort.
Omitting a paragraph, the brief goes on to say:
Since our submission in May, the final wheat payment for the crop year 1956-57 was announced and proved to be a disappointment to the growers. This price level lends further evidence in support of our reasoning that farmers are carrying an impossible economic load with continued higher costs and progressively lower prices, and there is no evidence of any effort being made to reflect an honest cost-price relationship in the domestic price of wheat.
Omitting the next paragraph and proceeding to the subsequent one, I continue:
We feel therefore that our request for consideration of our position on the basis of our May submission is more than reasonable, and farmers are extremely disappointed that action has not been announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The brief makes a strong statement in asking for action on the part of the government and a statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There are many reasons why such action should be taken some of which I have outlined. I think the main and over-all reason is that the cost-price relationship has worsened to the point that prairie producers are unable to make a living in that occupation unless action is taken.
However, there are other reasons why action should be taken to come to their assistance, and I refer to the very serious crop outlook

Grain-Deficiency Payments on the prairies. Recent rains have improved that outlook, and those of us who have been raised on the prairies know that even at this late date a substantial supply of rain within the next few weeks can work wonders. Even so, a large part of the crop is beyond redemption and in certain areas farmers are going to have what will amount to a near total crop failure. Because of that, coupled with other reasons, they need assistance at this time.
Certain additional emergency steps that could be taken and should be taken are the provision by the federal government of emergency assistance in the provision of freight assistance for the shipment of feed and fodder into distress areas. Then there is the need to expand the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, to increase them in keeping with the tremendous increase in the cost of production since those payments were made effective back in 1939.
In my discussions with producers I have found that related to the cost of farming at this time they feel that such payments at a time of crop failure should be at the rate of $10 an acre. They would have no objection, in fact, they would be quite favourable to a substantial increase in their contribution to the prairie farm assistance fund. They do feel that the present maximum of $4 an acre is inadequate; that the other payments of $2 and $3 per acre for various yields of crop are too low; that all of these payments should be increased. As I say, they are prepared to make a larger payment into the fund.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member be in favour of raising the levy?


Hazen Robert Argue: Definitely, yes, provided of course that the benefits under the act were increased.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: To what rate?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am quite prepared to answer the question. I would not mind the rate being tripled. I would support a tripling of the rate-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the farmers agree?


Hazen Robert Argue: Wait until I finish my sentence. I would support a tripling of the rate if the maximum payment were increased to $10 per acre in time of total crop failure, and the other payments increased proportionately, and I would be prepared to defend that proposition on any public platform in western Canada and I think agricultural producers would support it. There has been little or no complaint; there has been some complaint in Manitoba
fMr. Argue.]

and some in the northeastern parts of Saskatchewan and perhaps some in the northeastern part of Alberta about the general prairie farm assistance scheme, but generally speaking the scheme has met with the approval of western producers. If they could receive a maximum payment of $10 an acre instead of $4 an acre and if in addition the maximum acreage on which it was paid was to be increased in keeping with the general increase in size of farms since 1939, this whole proposition would be even more acceptable. It would seem to me that if an acreage of 400 was accepted as something that was fair and reasonable in 1939, as a maximum, that an acreage today of 600 would be approximately in the same proportion.
Those are the main suggestions I am making as far as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is concerned, together with the oft repeated request so eloquently made by the Prime Minister when he was member for Prince Albert and when he was member for Lake Centre that prairie farm assistance should be paid to farmers on an individual basis. I think he was right in those past years when he made that statement. I hope that if that is not accepted during the present session of the house, a very definite step will be taken in that direction.
I would also say to the government that if the crop should be so disastrous that large numbers of producers across the prairies should have to seek social aid or relief, as the word was known in the 1930's, there should be a sharing of any of those emergency costs between whatever provincial government is involved and the federal treasury, just as the federal government has come to the assistance of provinces and of workers when there has been widespread unemployment. But I do not base my request for deficiency payments in the main on this emergency situation because even if the crop prospects on the prairies today were excellent the same price-cost squeeze would remain, and this above all is the economic problem that the people on the prairies wish solved at this time.
They have believed that the Prime Minister would give them a sympathetic hearing. As a matter of fact, as late as July 10 the Prime Minister said, in answer to a question on this subject, that the whole problem of deficiency payments was receiving full consideration. As to whether an announcement would be made in this session and as to whether appropriate legislation would be introduced, he replied that that, too, is a matter that would receive full consideration. In the light of that statement, in the light of previous statements by the Prime Minister, and in the light of similar statements by the Minister of Trade and Commerce,

I hope that an announcement will be made forthwith in keeping with the requests of farm organizations, an announcement that will satisfy them, that will improve the economic position of the producers and will be in keeping with what the same producers believe has been the promise made to them by this government.
The Prime Minister made a speech in Moose Jaw during the election campaign. At that time the whole question of deficiency payments was raised and at that time he made the statement that this would be given very sympathetic consideration. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources went even farther at Wolseley. He is reported in the Regina Leader-Post of March 21, 1958, as follows:
He said it was the first step in a comprehensive farm program started by the Progressive Conservatives on June 10. Future steps included a revolutionary farm credit program, crop insurance, tax reductions, deficiency payments on western grains and many other important reforms.
Here is the statement attributed to the minister, that this government would take future steps so important that he called them revolutionary, which would include deficiency payments on western grain. The time for a statement from the government has arrived. The people on the prairies are looking to the government for action. They are most distressed because of the very low final payment announced a few weeks ago. They have been given hope and encouragement by statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Prime Minister himself. They feel that their request is reasonable. They are not asking for the same price-cost relationship they had immediately after the war; but they are asking that deficiency payments be of such an order as to restore the price of grains to the 1947-55 average.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that members generally support this proposition. All we need now is a statement from the government that such action will be forthcoming during the current session.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a moment in this debate merely to answer some of the points brought up by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue), much to my dislike, I might say. I agree with certain things he said but I disagree with him with respect to others. He referred to western Canada and how some people in the west were sorry that they had sent too many members to parliament belonging to one party. I can say that the farmers I know in the west are in the
Grain-Deficiency Payments best position they have been for years because of that very fact. At last they have got together and have realized that the only way they can get what is just, what is fair, what is coming to the west is to send a united body of members belonging to one party to parliament rather than splitting their votes between three or four or five or six small splinter parties.
I say again that the west is in the strongest position politically it has ever been and probably will be in the future. As was pointed out, there are 48 members from the prairie provinces and only one who does not support the government party. In view of the fact that a mass delegation is thinking about coming to Ottawa may I say that we have a mass delegation here already. There are 47 members from the prairie provinces who support the government. That is a mass delegation, and every one of those 47 members has been working for deficiency payments and for what he thinks is right for western Canada.
Let there be no doubt in the minds of the members of that small group to your left, Mr. Speaker, or any other group in the House of Commons that they have been working for it because they have been doing so on numerous occasions. The government certainly has the matter under study and it has been under study a great deal. It is a question that needs a great deal of study.
I am a farmer from the west and I am proud of it but before we implement deficiency payments as the solution for everything we must give the matter a little thought. Over a long term period I think a better system of farm loans could do more for agriculture than a straight, flat gift every year which from a political point of view would have to be increased every year.
The hon. member mentioned the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and said that he thought the acreage should be raised. He stated that his reason for suggesting that the acreage should be raised was that farms are getting larger. I have not had time to look it up in Hansard but I would refer the hon. member to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) last October in which he indicated that there are 230,000 permit holders in western Canada, half of them with less than 200 acres of cultivated acreage. Why would you increase the acreage to 600 acres? It would be of greater benefit to the larger farmers and would not benefit the small permit holders to the same extent. That is something we have got to watch. With an improved farm loan board administered on a better basis we could do a lot more. We could lend money on the basis of the farmer's ability to earn, not on his security. If we

Grain-Deficiency Payments are going to improve agriculture and increase the size of farm holdings so that they will become economic units the farmers have to have capital, and under an improved farm loan system we could lend them money on their ability to earn money. If you lend them money on their security you are just allowing the larger farmers to increase their land holdings.
The hon. member made no mention of the government's export of 300 million bushels of wheat. He did not refer to the fact that perhaps in the long run this would benefit western agriculture. In the very pamphlet he held in his hand it is stated that the average yield per year over the past number of years is 319 million bushels. If we can export over 300 million bushels I say that over a period of years that will tend to do away with the wheat surplus of western Canada, and I think that is one of the main steps in improving agricultural conditions in that part of the country.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that by the statement he made in the house a few days ago he was not helping agriculture, particularly the situation with respect to cattle when he implied that great numbers of cattle would come on the market and prices would fall terrifically. That is a poor attitude for a member of the house to take. I would say it would be better to try to encourage market prices to stay up and not educate the packers to pay less for our cattle, which in a sense is what he was trying to do.


Hazen Robert Argue: Misrepresentation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not misrepresenting.


Mr. Palleli:: The hon. member for Assin-iboia (Mr. Argue) is an expert at that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to say a bit more about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The hon. member implied that we should increase the levy. I can perhaps go along with him to the extent that if the levy is increased the payments should definitely be increased. But as a farmer in western Canada who has collected P.F.A.A. payments in a good many years I certainly do not want the levy increased unless the payments are increased. I should like to point out that right now the one per cent levy accounts for about half of what is paid out. I certainly would not go along with an increase in the levy unless there is an increase in the payments.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the house. To some extent I agree with the hon. member in respect of deficiency payments but he is wrong when he says that

nothing is being done about them. Of course I could say that some of the Conservative backbenchers have not been talking too often because we have a leader and cabinet ministers in whom we have faith. We are not like the C.C.F. group. When their leader spoke on a subject a couple of days ago six more members of that group had to get up and say the same thing because they had no respect for their leader's judgment.
Over the past two and a half months that I have been here I have noticed that the new members have a tendency to get to know one another perhaps quicker than they get to know some of the older members, and I can say that I have been surprised at the ability of all the new members I have met. In my opinion it certainly would not take them four years to learn where to hang their hats and coats in the House of Commons. It might take them four minutes. It may have taken some hon. members four years in the past to find out where to hang their hats and coats but not the members of this party.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in effect the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has challenged the 47 new members of the Conservative party from the prairie provinces to say something about wheat. You have heard one reply, Mr. Speaker, from my neighbour and fellow member, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner). May I say that those of us who come from the prairies and represent agricultural districts are just as keenly cognizant of the wheat problem as is the hon. member for Assiniboia.
It is a strange fact that with representation from the west comprising some 48 members one member should take it upon himself to be the spokesman for the farmers of the three prairie provinces. It is a strange fact that his party should take it upon itself to speak for labour, to speak for the civil service, to speak for the servants of this house and to speak for all other groups in Canada.


An hon. Member:: And small business too.


Edwin William Brunsden: In so far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, as a very humble backbencher in a party of which I am very proud, I resent very much the inference that the hon. member for Assiniboia or the other members of his small group can take it upon himself or themselves to be the sole spokesman for a tremendous group of agricultural producers stretching from Manitoba to British Columbia.
He has referred to the wheat problem. The wheat problem did not arise yesterday; it did not arise on March 31, 1958 or in June of 1957. Yesterday we had an opportunity, as

did the hon. member for Assiniboia, of discussing wheat and other problems with the members of the farm uinon of western Canada. I would say, with respect to the brief to which the hon. friend has referred that I was astounded, dismayed and somewhat disgusted with the tone of that particular brief which implied although it did not state, that this government elected on March 31 had had no consideration for, and done nothing about, the wheat problem and other allied agricultural problems in western Canada. We have been here about two months. These 47 members-it should have been 48 incidentally -have been here two months, and had my hon. friends in the far corner of the house exercised that discretion and judgment which we may have expected from them we would have been able to tackle the wheat problem at least one month ago.
If we, as western representatives, if we as the spokesmen of western agriculture if you like, are to sit day after day, week after week, listening, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said yesterday, to repetitious speeches, if we are to listen to debates on matters of order and procedure, if we are to listen to amendments to motions and if we are to be delayed far into each night with the views of a small group of men who do not represent prairie agriculture, then we shall never come to grips with the problems of the western wheat producer. May I say in all humility, sir, it has been one of my studies over many years, and it is based on a world situation. Until the rise of Hitler in Germany and the rise of economic nationalism in Europe there was no wheat problem in western Canada.
It is quite true that we had problems of drought; we had problems in some years of slight over-production; we had problems of congested markets; but generally speaking, as compared to the last few years, we had no problem regarding the mounting surpluses that we have seen in recent years. This problem can never be solved by discussion in the House of Commons. It will never be solved by pitting political strength, however puny it may be, against the voice and thought of the government of this country. It will only be solved by serious and deliberate study of ways and means of alleviating a very difficult situation. The hon. member for Assiniboia referred to a probable mass movement on the city of Ottawa, the seat of this government, by the individual wheat producers of western Canada. We had such a movement as that in the 30's. By chance I happened to be in Ottawa as the servant of a farm organization in those years. The cry at that time was a dollar a bushel for No. 1 Northern.
Grain-Deficiency Payments
That crusade was spectacular. I can still see the former prime minister, once removed, on a platform in a hall in this town receiving that delegation along with his minister of agriculture. I can remember farmer after farmer rising to plead the case of the western wheat grower. I can remember a priest making a very colourful appeal to the government to raise the price to one dollar per bushel. This appeal was successful. But I do say that in this year 1958 the situation is completely changed. We talk about the average cost of the production of wheat. I challenge my friends in the far corner of this house to produce such an average figure of the cost of production. Frankly, as a student of agriculture over many years, I know not what that average figure may be.
I do know that production methods today are much more efficient than they were ten years ago. I know, too, of course that taxes are higher; that labour costs are higher; that the cost of farm machinery is higher. However, I believe that the efficient grower of wheat is still assured, under this government's policy, having particularly in mind the payments-I refuse to use the term deficiency payments, because they sound like an orphan industry-that may be forthcoming from this government, coupled with market prices, of a fair margin of profit.
One would have to be a prophet to predict the future of western Canada in the next few years. It is quite apparent that we are moving into a period when wheat production as we have known it in the last 20 or 25 years may be a thing of the past. We have the possibility of the entry of the U.S.S.R. into the wheat market. We have bountiful production in the Argentine. We have a reasonable degree of self-sufficiency in Europe, and the promise of a further degree of selfsufficiency. It may be that our western wheat economy, as we have known it in the past, will have to undergo some drastic change.
I am not at all interested or helped by the veiled threat which 1 heard yesterday from a certain gentleman of the west, and which I heard again tonight from the hon. member for Assiniboia, that unless we put wheat production in western Canada on a profitable basis, unless we keep our acreages in western Canada in wheat, then we in the west will wreck the entire agricultural economy. I remember an old rancher friend of mine in the west who ran cattle on a large scale back in the 30's. We were talking about the over-production of cattle. We always talk about the over-production of agricultural products, regardless of what those products may be. I remember sitting with him in this city when we were meeting the government of that day. He sat in the office of the minister

Grain-Deficiency Payments of agriculture, and the minister said to him, "What do you think of the over-production of cattle?" My friend Mr. Rube Gilchrist- I am very proud to know him-said, "Mr. Minister, old mother nature has a manner of straightening out these problems." I would say to the gentlemen in the far corner, and their spokesman, that with respect to the overproduction of any product they have in mind, and I presume they are thinking mainly of pigs, old mother nature has a habit of straightening out the problem.
I am convinced in my own mind that there is no threat to the eastern hog producer from the western grain producer because of the fact that, by virtue of the particularly unhappy position with respect to wheat, he may turn to hogs. The western grain grower is not essentially a hog man. You either love hogs or you don't. If you do not love them, you do not raise them successfully. I would say that the alarm expressed by my hon. friend was probably more political than factual.
May I conclude as a member representing a western constituency and as a westerner myself, that I have no particular fear with respect to the policy to be adopted by the government regarding wheat payments. May I add that with respect to the disaster which has struck western Canada in recent months, the outcome of which we do not yet know, I have no particular fear respecting the provisions of the P.F.A.A. which may be applied. I do feel, however-and this is the only point upon which I am in agreement with the hon. member for Assiniboia -that the 47 Conservative members on this and the other side of the house representing the agrarian constituencies of western Canada, are quite able and we are most anxious, to advise this government with respect to the problems of that particular section of the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Churchill:: Same topic?


An hon. Member:: He is a wheat farmer?


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the hon.
member that he introduced the motion we are now debating and that if he speaks now he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not introduce the motion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as I understand it there is only one way in which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) could speak at this time, and that is by unanimous consent of the house because he has exhausted his right to speak

on the main motion. If he makes that request to the house the house can decide whether it wishes to give consent but, with great respect, I do not think he should now claim the right to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is well taken. The hon. member was not introducing a substantive motion and therefore he cannot even close the debate by speaking. He has exhausted his right on this particular subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, is it not the case that the amendment to the main motion has been disposed of and that therefore my right had been restored to speak on the main motion once it came before the house?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Very ingenious but not very sound.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I only regret, Mr. Speaker, that the rule prevents me from making my first agricultural speech in the house at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Another farmer.


An hon. Member:: A horse trader.


An hon. Member:: "I love hogs Martin".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all regret that the rules of the house are such as to preclude the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) from speaking at this time on this grievance.
The Leader of the Opposition will, I am sure, take advantage of the earliest opportunity to deal not only with this very subject but with agricultural problems on a much wider scale than the particular and narrow concept suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


An hon. Member:: You will be quoted on that, Paul.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member is supposed to speak for himself, is he not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I say the narrow concept, the hon. member, of course, would be wrong in concluding that I do not at once regard this particular phase of the matter as of the greatest importance. I could not help but feel, as I listened to the last speaker, for whom I have the highest regard, and the preceding member who sits further to my left-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for
Acadia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -suggest that it was wrong for those of us sitting on this side of the house, including the hon. member for Assiniboia, to use this forum for raising matters which we regard as important to a particular and important section of our country. Hon. gentlemen opposite with their vast numbers should have learned by this time that although they do have a preponderant numerical position in this house, every hon. member has the right notwithstanding the convenience or the inconvenience to some hon. members sitting on the treasury benches to raise matters which they regard as urgent and important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman who just spoke did say that he did not think the House of Commons was a place where this problem could be resolved.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In one sense the hon. gentleman is right.


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But only in one sense because the decision rests not with any hon. member of this house but with those hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches. The decision for giving relief to the farmers of western Canada rests at this time-let there be no mistake about it, as the hon. gentlemen said-upon those who today have the responsibility for formulating the agricultural policy of the government of Canada. But it is open to all of us, wherever we sit, to take advantage of the procedures of the house and to bring home to the government what we believe to be situations of an urgent character, what we believe are the demands or the requests or the submissions put forward by various groups. It is all very well to chastise the numerical inferiority of the opposition-


An hon. Member:: It is not only numerical.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but let there be no mistake about it that those of us who sit under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition will take advantage of every opportunity to bring home to the government what we regard as the legitimate complaints of various sections of the country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: And when hon. members interrupt me as they now do let it not be forgotten that they have as their leader a man who was the first to criticize interruptions of this kind as being one form of closure which was not in keeping with our parliamentary traditions.
Grain-Deficiency Payments


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), as you will recall, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Let's hear about wheat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -when you had a different status in this house-


An hon. Member:: We want hogs.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -referred to this kind of interruption as contempt of parliament. Some hon. member says "Oh", but he was not in this house at that time. However, if my hon. friend will read Hansard and if he will follow the newspaper accounts for the past decades he will find that the kind of observation I am now making was made by his leader with regard to some hon. gentlemen who did not like what he was saying, and one member had to be retrieved from this obstruction by the then minister of agriculture, who had done so much for the farmers of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members
opposite do not like the hon. member for Assiniboia or other members on this side of the house asking the government for a statement of policy at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In view of the fact that during the years 1940 to 1950 the Canadian farmers subsidized the rest of Canada in the sale of their wheat, would he say whether he would call the supplement payment or deficiency payment a form of relief?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will not think that I disregard the importance of his question if I do not deal with it at this particular moment. How often have we heard in this house hon. gentlemen including the present Prime Minister, including the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), including other hon. gentlemen on that side of the house when they sat in opposition, talking about the plight of the farmer in western and other sections of Canada, and asking the government to proclaim policy.
Shortly after the farm unions had come to Ottawa to meet the cabinet, the present Prime Minister, rising the next day, was demanding that the government should state its policy with respect to the requests placed before the government by the farm organizations at that time. The farmers' union came to

Grain-Deficiency Payments Ottawa in the month of May. They acknowledged the difficult problems confronting the government, but they reminded the government that during the elections of 1957 and 1958 they had given the farmers of Canada reason to believe that given the opportunity of forming a government they would resolve many agricultural problems.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) was among those who gave such assurances in his own city of Winnipeg and throughout western Canada during the last election. On March 15 last the Prime Minister is reported as having promised that some consideration would be given to making deficiency payments on wheat, oats and barley to growers so that their returns might bear a fair relationship to production costs. That was the statement made by the right hon. gentleman who heads the government which is now being asked to explain this policy in answer to submissions made to the farmers' union in the month of May last. Is it unreasonable now, on this the 15th day of July, for members of parliament on this side to ask the government of the day what its policy is with regard to the various demands made by the farmers' union? Is it unreasonable to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what the attitude of this government is with regard to the question of deficiency payments? Is it unreasonable to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who regards this apparently as a laughing matter-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am laughing at the notes you are passing back and forth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are going to be laughing in a few moments-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have not got your own speech, that's all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the attitude of this government, having promised the people of Canada that if elected they would call parliament in September and resolve these problems? And now two months after those requests were made by the farmers' union the Minister of Trade and Commerce sits in his place and is not able to answer any questions from this side of the house as to the request made by the farmers-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am listening to you, give me a chance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen opposite promised the farmers of this country price support at fixed and declared figures. They introduced an act last session which was supposed to be a charter as a result of which farmers would be extricated from their economic difficulties, and that was based on farm legislation which had been introduced


by the previous government. We were told there would be firm prices for this and for that. To take an example, the Minister of Agriculture announced there would be a floor price of $2.10 for soybeans. Let us see whether or not we have a floor price of $2.10 for soybeans. When the Minister of Agriculture announced that policy, every farmer in this country, certainly in those areas particularly concerned, believed there would be a floor price of $2.10 for that particular commodity. But there is no such floor price of $2.10-


Mr. Speaker:: As I understood the grievance which is under consideration at this moment, and to speak on which I gave the hon. gentleman the floor when there were others who wished to speak, and as enunciated by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) related to deficiency payments


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just seeking to illustrate how the policy of support prices in the form of deficiency payments in respect to one particular subject has operated under the present administration. The hon. member for Assiniboia has said we are asking for a declaration of policy by the government with regard to deficiency payments, that is, with respect to a policy which has not yet been announced. I am now dealing with the technique, with the administrative machinery of the operations of this government with regard to deficiency payments already announced with regard to other commodities, and I submit with much confidence that surely it is within the relevancy of debate that I should be able to indicate what this government is doing with regard to floor prices-


Mr. Speaker:: I am, perhaps, even less familiar with agriculture than the hon. member who has the floor but, with respect, I would suggest that he has gone off on to support prices which seems to me something different from deficiency payments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say is
that though I have a high regard for you I can well understand that your own acknowledged limitations on this subject have not afforded your Honour the opportunity of following the refinements of my argument.
However, if you take the position that I am not able to discuss floor prices generally, I will have to bow to your ruling except to say that there will be an opportunity for dealing, not only with the policy of this government in relation to deficiency payments to western producers but also with regard to such things as soybeans, Ontario wheat, and many other matters which are of great concern to the farmers of this country.

Now the farm union has representatives in this city at the present time. I understand that they have seen the administration, that they have called on various members of parliament, that they have put forward their points of view, and that the nature of their grievance, as stated by the hon. member for Assiniboia, is that in the light of the assurances given by this government in the elections of 1957 and 1958, and in the light of the assurances given by the administration when this group called on them in the month of May, that we and they are now entitled to ask of the government, so many weeks after they first met with the administration, what is the policy of the government with regard to deficiency payments as asked for by the group that called on the administration only a few days ago and in the month of May?
Mr. Pallet!: Isn't there a rule against repetition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Assiniboia asked us what was our attitude with regard to this problem. Our attitude has been declared; it is on the record and is represented by years of fruitful Liberal administration on behalf of Canadian agriculture. And while it may be in the hands of hon. gentlemen to criticize the agricultural policy of the previous administration, the fact is that the record of achievement of the former government toward all sections of agriculture is such as to compare favourably with the policies of this administration and, from all indications, with all future policies of the present treasury benches.
We believe on this side, as a statement of principle, that we should maintain and extend the system of support prices and deficiency payments where appropriate, administered in such a way as to obtain for farmers for their products prices bearing a fair relationship to their costs of production and designed to ensure to farmers a fair share of the national income and encourage the production of marketable farm products.


An hon. Member:: Where did you copy
that from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is copied
from the national Liberal convention which, earlier than you think, will give us the next prime minister of Canada.
Mr. Pallet!: Did the hon. member mention the year 2000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the convention policies that led to the election of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker)? Where is the implementation of that policy and that program?
Grain-Deficiency Payments


Lester Bowles Pearson: Where is the program?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where is the
program, my leader asks.


Mr. Fraser:: We will show you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask my hon.
friends to compare the inaction of this government now with the kind of demands made by hon. gentlemen opposite when they sat on this side of the house. I do not refer only to deficiency payments. What about the other points put forward by the farmers' union in the month of May and referred to again the other day? They called upon the government to establish an adequate farm credit system under the Department of Agriculture to handle all the types of farm credit that are needed. They asked for the accumulating, as quickly as possible, of adequate data on the cost of production of farm products in order that the price stabilization board may have authentic statistics available as a basis for implementing the provisions of the price support legislation.
How often have we heard the present Prime Minister speak of trying to bring about some government policy that would result in a yield to the farmers in proportion at least to the cost of production, and how often did he urge the government of the day to establish some system through the research bureau in the Department of Agriculture or in the Department of Trade and Commerce, in collaboration with the universities, by which a better appreciation of the factors of the cost of production of agricultural commodities might be better ascertained?
The hon. member who just spoke a few moments ago, if I understood him correctly, said he was at a loss to understand fully how one could arrive at what the cost of production would be with regard to the growing of wheat. If that is the case-and the hon. gentleman I take it is an experienced farmer-I ask him, then, will he not join with us in asking the government to implement this particular request of the farmers' union so that we can have some appreciation of the authentic statistics available as a basis for implementing the provisions of the price support legislation?
If the government finds that one of the reasons why it cannot announce this deficiency payment policy is because it has not at its disposal the necessary facts to ascertain what is the cost of production, then I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce why he and his colleagues did not take that position when they sat on this side of the house asking the government of the day for measures that would relieve the economic pressure which confronted not only western farmers but farmers all over Canada.
2278	HOUSE OF
Grain-Deficiency Payments
And so I say to the hon. member for Assiniboia that only because of the rules of this house was it not possible for the Leader of the Opposition speaking on our behalf to rise at once and to say that we, too, have strong views about these matters. In fact, we have a stronger claim than the hon. gentleman because, while he has spent many active, interesting and imaginative years sitting on this side protesting, we have sat many years on that side of the house achieving.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, Rosthern constituency is a well-known agricultural area. It is probably best known as the home of world championship wheat-


An hon. Member:: And Walter Tucker.


Edward Nasserden: -the kind which first
focused world attention on the superior quality of western grown wheat and cereals in the markets of the world that demand the best high protein wheat and flour. Besides that many championships in the pure bred classes for bacon hogs have come to our breeders and in other pure bred classes of livestock. I just want to say at this time in regard to dairying which is an important part of our economy in Rosthern constituency that the people there engaged in that industry are appreciative of what has been done by the present government and our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) in this regard.
In recent years the grain producers in western Canada have known declining prices and rising costs and in their efforts to escape that situation they have turned to almost every avenue of revenue that could imaginably be turned to by people engaged in the agricultural industry. For instance, many of them have turned to the production of turkeys. After the experience of last year when the turkey industry was threatened by the dumping of United States turkeys on the Canadian market, I have yet to meet a turkey producer who was anything but "Diefenbaker, all the way".
As a result of the cost-price squeeze, many of our farmers have turned to the production of rapeseed and this acreage has increased until today many people believe that we may soon face a surplus in regard to that commodity. Many farmers have also turned to the production of flaxseed as a source of a cash crop. Generally speaking the producers of both those crops are well satisfied with the situation in that part of the industry. The notable exception to this is the question of freight rates on rapeseed which are so high that they constitute a very limiting factor in returning to the producer a full share of the selling price for that commodity. I have discussed this matter with several members of


the cabinet and I am sure that when a decision is reached it will benefit the producers of that particular commodity.
The situation in regard to durum wheat is anything but rosy. There are many bushels which have been stored on farms for several months now. Some of the storage dates back to the time when the Liberal government was in power and when this grain is ultimately sold it will be sold at only a fraction of the cost that prevailed at the date the grain was grown by the farmers in those areas.
As hon. members know the price of rye is based on the open market and therefore subject to the wide fluctuations that used to prevail in the marketing of wheat, oats and barley before the advent of the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency of western grown grains. There is a well founded feeling in many parts of western Canada and particularly among those who produce rye that as long as the government is not prepared to handle rye on the same basis as wheat, oats and barley, then the restriction in the marketing of this commodity should be relaxed so that a farmer might take advantage of the price when it suited him under that kind of situation. Once again I recommend this particular matter for the consideration of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and other members of the cabinet.
Something has been said here tonight and on other occasions about Bill No. 237 and what it does and does not do for the farm people of Canada. All I want to say about it is very little but I want to say this-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that it would not be in order to go on discussing Bill No. 237. This is a grievance period, when only one grievance is supposed to be discussed. I take it we are discussing the question of deficiency payments and the government's policy on that matter.


Edward Nasserden: I would like to thank the Speaker for the guidance he sought to give me. I would also like to point out it has a bearing on the situation of deficiency payments on grain in western Canada, but on the whole I shall try to tie myself very closely to the subject under discussion.
Each year farmers in western Canada have seen a widening of the gap between the income that they have received and the income received by other groups in this country and I predict that within the period of the next three years, unless something is done to indicate to western growers that the Canadian people want them as the producers of cereal grains, we shall see in western Canada a turn to the production of dairy products, poultry and hog and beef products,

such as this country has never seen before. As proof of that I would say that we receive a lot of literature in the House of Commons. I hold in my hand a letter on Canadian livestock products from the meat packers council of Canada and I quote from it:
In Canada the increase in marketings in the first 20 weeks of this year over last was a little over seven per cent,-
This is in regard to hog production.
-with a 19 per cent gain in western Canada offsetting a 1J per cent decrease in the east.
I know from personal experience that many of the farmers in western Canada are putting capital expenditures into the erection of buildings suitable for the production of hogs. If that takes place it will mean that they are going to be in the business for a long time. It will mean that they are going to try to take advantage of the guarantees given in Bill No. 237.
As hon. members know, the prices of wheat, oats and barley have been on the decline over the past several years. These grains have been under a rigid quota system which has brought about some semblance of equality of delivery to those engaged in that production, but it has also put a problem upon our elevator companies which receive and store grain before they are called upon for delivery by the Canadian wheat board. Each year we have seen our grain handling companies devote large sums of money to a building program to enable them to receive and hold that grain, and each year we have seen the problem of storage on the farms increase and increase. On an average size farm in western Canada of about 400 acres under cultivation the general practice of good farmers is to seed half to crop and to sum-merfallow the other half. That means that with 200 acres in crop, if you take an average yield of 18 bushels per acre, which is just about the average for the last 10 years, you have something like 3,600 bushels of grain on a farm of that size. Out of that jmu have to take dockage, make allowance for shrinkage and loss in storage and then provide seed for the next year's crop. I think that that requires roughly another 400 bushels. That would leave a farmer with 3,200 bushels of grain to sell.
All hon. members have heard of the ravages of rust and what it can do to reduce the grade of the crop. All hon. members know what frost can do when it affects any crop, whether it is grain in western Canada or in eastern Canada, and all hon. members know that under unfavourable harvesting conditions, whether the crop is wheat, soybeans, tobacco or any other crop, there is a deterioration in quality and a loss in price.
Grain-Deficiency Payments Usually in a year of poor harvesting conditions, grain in western Canada has gone into storage to deteriorate both before and after delivery to the elevators.
For instance, last fall rain resulted in mildew of much of the oats crop and as a result farmers were taking from 34 cents to 39 cents less per bushel for much of that crop. Under a system such as that I think it is fair to assume that a farmer gets little more than $1 per bushel for wheat year after year in actual take-home pay and under our quota systems with 400 acres and a quota of five or six bushels, the maximum that he can deliver is roughly 2,400 bushels. There is an initial quota of 300 bushels, making a total of 2,700 bushels, or $2,700. In addition to that, on a basis of the final payments this year, he can get perhaps another $200 and that would make a total of $2,900 before expenses and before the cost of living are taken into consideration. It is true that he still has 500 bushels in storage, but he has to provide storage facilities for that grain, just as he has to provide storage facilities for the other 2,700 bushels of grain that he has to carry from August 1 of one crop year until the end of the next crop year. In addition to this he must provide for paying taxes which are at an all-time high in this country. He must pay for insurance costs on buildings and on grain in storage, hail insurance, repairs to machinery, fuel and oil bills, chemicals and, in some cases, fertilizer as well as labour and all the other expenses that go into making a farm produce.
In the industrial areas of our country labour works for wages at so much an hour. From time to time we hear of limitations being set on the production levels of man hour work. Farm people have no choice but to pay those rates on everything that they buy that goes into the production plant on their farms. Farm people are entitled to returns-and I think every member from western Canada believes this-that will enable them to provide themselves and their families with returns over and above their ordinary operating expenses equal to that received by labour.
Since coming to this house and since coming to eastern Canada I have heard some people venture the opinion that 400 acres do not fully occupy a farmer during the year, and therefore he should not be expected to make a living on a 400 acre cultivated farm. I know from personal experience that it will require the full-time labour of a farmer from March to December to produce and to look after production on a 400 acre farm.
2278	HOUSE OF
Grain-Deficiency Payments
The only other thing that I would like to say is that there are some areas of western Canada, part of my constituency, part of the constituency represented by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp), part of the constituency of Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and part of the constituency represented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) where the cost of labour is even greater because it requires more than one man to take care of 400 acres of a grain farm.
It is a generally accepted fact in western Canada, and I think almost any banker will confirm it, that many of the farmers have been living on their machinery depreciation during the last several years and if they were to go out today they would not be able to buy new equipment because they have spent the money in those years on family living costs. That is one of the reasons why industrial plants in eastern Canada have been shut. That is one of the reasons why men and women are idle in Canada today. For 12 years the best customers of the people in industrial Canada have been starved for income and as a result we are faced today with an unemployment situation such as the country has not seen for many years. During those 12 years the Liberal party, in power with majorities that compelled responsibility, failed time and time again to take appropriate action. Year by year marginal surpluses built up until they became unmanageable and the country found itself in real trouble.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing about it?


Edward Nasserden: You just cannot go out and sell a 12 year surplus at the drop of a hat. We on the government side who represent those who produce grain in western Canada know that the farmers are not asking for a handout. We have not seriously questioned the subsidies given other segments of the economy. We have not risen in our places to challenge the tariff policy which has been built up over a long period of years by other governments and parties until today it has become an integral part of the economy of the country. We are prepared to accept the voices of the representatives of other constituencies as the voices of the people of those constituencies. All we ask in return is that those who have come to the House of Commons from other parts of Canada give equal recognition to the rights and needs of the people who inhabit the three prairie provinces which have become known as the grain bin of an empire.


I have devoted more time to this particular matter than was my wish but since coming here I have been astounded by the fears rampant in Ontario townships and some parts of Quebec and the maritimes as to what may happen if western Canadian farmers turn in earnest to the production of those commodities that the farmers of the east have felt for so many years they had the sole right to produce. My only comment in that regard is the same as the one I made a few minutes ago with respect to hogs, that there is a trend today that far surpasses anything anyone in the house imagines if the remarks I have heard during the time I have been here are indicative of what is taking place in western Canada.
There is a great deal that can be said for deficiency payments, and I think everyone in this house, regardless of party, recognizes that the farmers of western Canada have laboured under a handicap not only for the last year or 18 months but for the last several years. I do not need to remind hon. members of what took place during the war years and what it cost western Canadian producers of cereal grains to be a patriotic part of the Canadian war effort. I believe, as the leader and members of our party believe, that the solution of this problem is the adoption of a national agricultural policy, a policy that will enable farmers in all parts of the country to realize that they do not have to come cap in hand to the government year by year asking for another morsel, whether you call that morsel deficiency payments or something else.
The other day in the house the leader of the C.C.F. intimated that if deficiency payments were not paid the Conservative party would forfeit much of the good will it has in western Canada. I say to him and to others of like mind that the making of deficiency payments alone is not the total answer to the plight of the western grain grower. We want a national policy that will continue from year to year so that the farmers of western Canada will be able to take pride in the fact that they are playing an equal part in the economic development of this great nation.
I can understand the anxiety that is felt in many parts of western Canada when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) goes back west and says that the Conservative government will do nothing for the farmers. All I want to say is that those who do that, and it has been done for many years now, are more responsible than anyone else for the measure of hostility that I seem to sense even on the streets of Ottawa when the word "wheat" is mentioned. In the ordinary course of events it will take years for the Conservative members who have been sent to the House of Commons to overcome that measure

of inconsistency that has prevailed in the presentation of the demands that have been made so blatantly so many times by those who have come to the House of Commons with the slogan, "fight for the west".
I believe in a national policy for agriculture. I believe in the ability of the western Canadian members of the house to renew that confidence that should be part and parcel of the understanding between farm people in all parts of the country. Toward that happy end I am ready to work with those members and with the government to the end that the people of western Canada may say, as the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is reported to have said at Winnipeg on June 25 of this year, "Never before have Canadian farm organizations played so influential a part in shaping national farm policy as in the last two years."
Something has been said about the election and about the promises during the campaign with regard to deficiency payments and agriculture generally.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We seem to have forgotten about the grievance.


Edward Nasserden: I rather wish that the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) were here so that I might do this in his presence, but I am very happy to take this occasion to thank him for coming to my constituency during the campaign and outlining the Liberal agricultural policy. He was not able to speak tonight. Maybe I can tell the house something of what he advocated at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I have allowed the hon. member a good deal of latitude and I do not think he ought to go back to the last election and general agricultural policy.


Edward Nasserden: I am very glad to stay away from it then. You would probably see that I did anyway, but all I want to say now is that when an announcement is made I imagine it will be made by those who should make it, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture. When it is made I believe that hon. members to my right will find there will be something which will give the farm people of western Canada, not only another morsel but something upon which they can build their hopes for the future. It will amount to more than what one might call a deficiency payment. After all the problem is four-fold, as I see it. It takes into consideration this thing called credit that has been mentioned here tonight. It takes into consideration this thing called markets, the finding of markets and it takes in prices. Then it takes in above all else the shaping of the industry to the other parts of the economy of Canada.
Grain-Deficiency Payments
I just want to say that during the period to which my hon. friends to the right referred western farm costs rose by 50 per cent while the price of wheat has fallen by almost 21 per cent. Something was said about the pledge of our leader with regard to deficiency payments. This is what he said at Moose Jaw:
The question of deficiency payments on western Canadian wheat, oats and barley would get a sympathetic hearing from a Conservative government and it was one that needed full and careful consideration.
I submit to this house and to the people of western Canada that when he said "full consideration" that meant a program that would carry forward into the future. I believe, therefore, that the cabinet and the members of this house have been justified in giving this matter consideration until a decision is reached.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that remain, I should like to say a few words about the topic raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) namely deficiency payments. This topic was not reached by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), although his speech was full of deficiencies, and his arguments had no bearing whatever on the topic under discussion. The subject is a troublesome one because it deals with one of the main problems facing Canada, the level of income of western agriculture. We do not consider that any more important than the income of agriculture elsewhere in Canada, but it has been indicated over the years, from a study of wheat production and other grains and the prices procured in world markets, that one of the great difficulties facing western agriculture has been the variability in income year after year depending on yield, price and other factors. Hence we have the suggestion now of deficiency payments to make up for the loss of income which western farmers have suffered over the years.
It is related to what the western farmer has called the cost-price squeeze. We have had representations from the interprovincial farm union people and from representatives of the various wheat pools. This subject is not raised for the first time on this occasion, and it has been given very careful consideration. The hon. member for Essex East quoted the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to the effect that the government would give sympathetic consideration to this problem. That is precisely what has been done. It has been sympathetic consideration. We have heard the delegations
2280	HOUSE OF
Grain-Deficiency Payments who have come here from time to time dealing with this problem. We have listened to their arguments. We have studied those arguments. We have prepared quite a bit of material from time to time in attempting to analyse this particular problem to ascertain if there was a satisfactory solution.
I can understand the impatience of people in western Canada anxious to get a reply to this particular question. There is a general impatience when problems like this are raised, and that impatience has been whipped up a bit by people like the hon. member for Assiniboia. But you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that tonight the authentic voice of western Canada was heard in the able speeches delivered by members like the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasser-den). These hon. members from western Canada do not get the opportunity from day to day that is afforded to the hon. member for Assiniboia who, by virtue of the fact he represents a group in this house, gains the floor on almost every occasion and can pose questions to the government every day. This is a special privilege which is accorded to him by virtue of his position in this house, and by his chance survival last March 31.
But these other members, the three of them who have spoken tonight, are people with as much experience as the hon. member for Assiniboia, with as much knowledge of the problems of western agriculture, with as much sympathy for those problems as the hon. member indicates in this house. They have given very reasoned statements with regard to the problem and have not attempted to whip up any emotional response.
We have been considering sympathetically this particular problem. Last January when representatives of farmers' organizations were here in Ottawa I recall saying to them on the subject of deficiency payments, why do you come to the government and ask for this without yourselves doing some of the hard work? Why do you not give us some figure with which to work? What are you talking about? I recall saying to them, are you talking about $50 million or $150 million? Have you any plan of your own? Subsequently, they got to work and produced some figures. We, in our turn, have examined those, and generally there has been a useful consideration of this problem.
But I noticed with regard to those who are advocating deficiency payments that they have not given attention to some of the factors that should have been considered. In the first instance, the idea of deficiency payments originated not on this continent but in the United Kingdom and in Europe. In eight


or nine countries situated across the Atlantic deficiency payments have been given to the growers of wheat for a number of years. The deficiency payments have been used as an incentive to production because those countries, with the exception of France on occasion-I am speaking now of the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany and so on-did not produce a sufficient amount of wheat for their own use each year. Consequently they have endeavoured to stimulate that production by deficiency payments. It is an entirely different thing when you talk about deficiency payments in a country like Canada, which is one of the great exporters of wheat, the country that supplies those areas in Europe with a great part of the wheat that they need. It seems to me it is quite wrong to lift from a country in Europe which does not produce sufficient for its needs a plan such as deficiency payments and transport it over here to a country where that incentive to production is not required.
That is one point which was not considered by those who made presentations to us last year, and my hon. friend from Assiniboia in his argument tonight said nothing about certain other factors which should be considered. If you are going to discuss deficiency payments on the production of wheat you have to take into account increasing yields which have occurred over the years; you have to take into account more efficient production techniques, the decreasing number of farms and the effect of the size of farms upon the profitability of operation.
When you look at the farm picture in western Canada closely you find, as I believe my hon. friend from Medicine Hat pointed out tonight, that some farms are able to produce wheat at a profit but you also discover that perhaps some 50 per cent of the smaller farms, some of which are on unproductive land, are not able to do so. Hence, you get a demand for deficiency payments tc take up the slack. It is a problem which is large in extent but whether or not deficiency payments are going to be made I am not in a position to state tonight.
I would however point out to those who have spoken on this subject that we are giving very active consideration to it. I hope there will be an answer before many more days have gone by and that answer will not be in response to any pressure exerted upon us in recent days or any threat, such as my hon. friend from Assiniboia has made on several occasions of some march on Ottawa by the people of western Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I know the minister wants to be fair and I think he will accept my word when

I tell him I have not insinuated any threat. I have merely outlined what I believe to be the facts as far as the wheat pool organizations are concerned. If my facts are incorrect I shall apologize for having given the house wrong information. I believe they are correct and I was referring only to decisions and policies of the wheat pool organizations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I have misunderstood my hon. friend I am sorry, and I hope there is nothing like that behind any of his suggestions because I do not think that would be a responsible way to approach this particular problem. As I say, we hope to have an answer one way or the other but whether that answer will be deficiency payments depends upon a careful study of this question and I have pointed out some of the factors which must be considered.
As my hon. friend from Acadia pointed out, the most important thing of all in these days of large production is to dispose of all your stocks, get them moving to market and this, of course, is what has complicated the situation in recent years. Surplus stocks of wheat on the western prairies during the last several years, the inability of the farmers to market the grain stored on their farms, has meant that the income has not gone to the farmer in the year of his production, and then, the general over-all surplus on the North American continent in both Canada and the United States of America has of course had a depressing effect on world markets. These are things over which there is no ready control but, on the other hand, certain steps can be taken and before you reach the stage where you pay a deficiency payment I think some of these other matters should be pressed home until you are very clear that you have done everything possible to ease the situation.
This government's program is aimed in that very direction. The very fact that over the years an initial payment has been made on wheat has stabilized the situation in western Canada to some extent. A few years ago plans were made for the payment of storage charges on that amount in excess of 178 million bushels which over the last three years has resulted in the payment by the treasury of approximately $95 million as assistance or in discharge of the obligation on the part of the people of Canada to bear some of the burden of storing this surplus wheat. Such a burden should not be borne entirely by the farmers.
Supply-Departments Entered
Then, last fall we introduced the cash advance legislation which was a stopgap measure designed to put ready cash into the farmers' pockets. The sum of $35 million was paid out, of which 90 per cent is already paid back. The Export Credits Insurance Act has been used to foster the sale of wheat on terms to certain countries which could not pay cash for it, and great efforts have been made to move wheat from Canada to overseas markets. The success of the exports of this crop year will mean that we will exceed the 300 million bushel quota which we set last summer and that will constitute a record in recent years for the sale of our wheat.
We have undertaken to provide through the Colombo plan long-term loans for wheat and gifts as a result of which about 40 million bushels of wheat have been moved already which otherwise would not have got into the world markets.
I see that my time has run out but I have outlined some of the policies which have been pursued by the government in a serious attempt to assist western agriculture and we are quite prepared to provide a comprehensive agricultural program, introducing measures other than the one proposed by my hon. friend tonight, which in the long run will have beneficial effects on western agriculture and as a result of which the western farmers and all of Canada will benefit.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
58. Departmental administration, $706,492.

[Stage Direction]
231. Departmental administration, $1,441,494.

[Stage Direction]
308. To provide hereby, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $15,000.
Proceedings reported.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the house leader would tell us what the business will be for the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall commence with item No. 8 on today's order paper, which is second reading of a bill to amend the Yukon Act; then item No. 9, second reading of a bill to amend the National Parks Act; then item No. 3, a resolution to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is No. 3?


Howard Charles Green: It is the third on the list. We hope to send this bill to the agriculture committee; then item 10 on the day's ordeT paper, second reading of the Taxation of Estates Act, which is to go to the banking and commerce committee; items 4 and 5 dealing with income tax conventions-


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think the bill is available yet; No. 4 is not available yet.


Howard Charles Green: Item 6 on the day's order paper, second reading of the act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act; then item 13, the resolution preceding a measure to establish a national parole board. Then, if these should go through, we will take the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am not sure about Thursday, but we may take any of those measures or the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not proposed to go on with budget resolutions either tomorrow or Thursday?


Howard Charles Green: It is possible that we may take budget resolutions on Thursday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the leader of the house try to get the government to make up its mind as early as possible so that we may have a little advance information?


Howard Charles Green: Unfortunately it is not my mind that has to be made up.


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

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 78
Azellus Denis: What amount, in money or otherwise, was contributed by Canada to the Colombo plan each year since its inception?
Questions
and flour to Colombo plan countries, as set out below:
Year	Country	Amount1953-54	
Pakistan	$5,000,0001955-56	
Pakistan	1,475,833*1957-58|	
India	8,000,0001958-59)	
Pakistan	4,000,000Ceylon	3,000,000
*Part of the total allocation of $15,000,000 for this program was financed from moneys authorized in 1957-58; the balance is provided for in the estimates for 1958-59.
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary
of Slate for External Affairs):
All moneys voted by parliament for Colombo plan assistance are, with minor exceptions, transferred to recipient countries in the form of goods and services. Canada's annual contributions to the plan since its inception in 1950 are as follows:
(Funds voted by fiscal years.)
1950- 51	 $ 400,000
1951-	52	
25,400,0001952-	53	
25,400,0001953-	54	
25,400,0001954-	55	
25,400,0001955-	56	
26,400,0001956-	57	
34,400,0001957-	58	
35,000,000
(main estimates).
It should also be noted that, in addition to the moneys voted for the Colombo plan, Canada has given certain amounts of wheat


VETERANS INSURANCE, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 153
George Roy McWilliam: 1.	How many veterans domiciled in New Brunswick have insurance coverage under the Veterans Insurance Act?
2.	What is the total amount of insurance coverage in force?
3.	What are the regulations governing eligibility for this type of insurance?
Answer by: Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of
Veterans Affairs):
Return at June 30, 1958:
1.	Statistical records are not maintained to show the domicile of persons insured under the Veterans Insurance Act. The number of veterans so insured who were resident in the province of New Brunswick when their policies were issued is 652.
2.	$86,243,034; of which $2,170,701 is carried by the 652 veterans aforesaid.
3.	Eligibility of veterans for insurance under the Veterans Insurance Act is governed by the provisions of that act, of the veterans insurance regulations and, for veterans of the campaign in Korea, of the Veterans Benefit Act, 1954.


END OF VOLUME II