1958-07-31

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) presented the seventh report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Sixth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.
Fourth report of standing committee on mines, forests and waters.-Mr. Murphy.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make on UNOGIL and the Lebanese election.
Hon. members have no doubt already heard that the Lebanese chamber of deputies has elected General Fouad Chehab as the next president of the Republic of Lebanon. We in Canada sincerely welcome his election, both because of the widespread respect which he enjoys both inside and outside Lebanon and also because of the reassuring evidence afforded by his election that the Lebanese people are determined to put an end to the difficulties which have unhappily divided them in recent months. We express the hope that the transitional period before the new president takes office will pass peaceably and without further disturbances. We trust that under his presidency the task of the United Nations observation group will continue to be facilitated, and that UNOGIL will be able to contribute to conditions of stability that will render easier the task undertaken by the general.
On July 22 mention was made in this chamber of the increasing effectiveness of the United Nations observation group in Lebanon. It was announced then that in response to a request by the Secretary General of the United Nations the government was assigning an additional three Canadian officers for service with UNOGIL and that
attention would be given to any further requirements as events transpired. There is every indication that despite the Soviet veto on July 22 of the resolution proposed by Japan-that was the resolution within the security council-it has been possible .for UNOGIL, within the authority granted it by the security council resolution of June 11, to expand the scope and area of its operations.
We have now received a further request from the secretary general for additional assistance, and in response have agreed to assign an additional seven Canadian officers. This will bring to 20 the number of officers -in a total force of some 200-sent from Canada to help in this operation.
It is encouraging to note that so far 20 countries have been approached to provide personnel for UNOGIL, indicating the breadth of the international base that is being sought and achieved for this exercise which we believe will bring about the preservation of peace.


SUMMIT CONFERENCE-PROPOSED MEETING ON AUGUST 12
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish also to take this opportunity to say something in regard to the heads of government meeting and the security council. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced in the House of Commons at Westminster today that in the reply he has sent to Mr. Khrushchev's message of July 28 he has suggested that the proposed high level meeting of the security council be held on August 12, the place and details of the meeting to be worked out in the security council by the permanent representatives of the member states. The Canadian government welcomes the positive stand taken by Mr. Macmillan, a stand which is fully in conformity with the position I have taken ever since the suggestion for a summit conference on the Middle East was put forward.
As has been made clear in the House of Commons on more than one occasion, the government of Canada stands ready today to do all in its power to promote the successful completion of the steps now contemplated to the end that this meeting may take place. If the security council, of which Canada is currently a member, is in fact convened at heads of government level on August 12 in New York or elsewhere, I shall be ready to

External Affairs
attend. If Canada can make any contribution to the success of the proposed conference, and that includes the convening of the meeting of the security council at the summit, that contribution will be made willingly and with full confidence that it will have the approval of all those who are sincerely dedicated to the cause of peace.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house and certainly hon. members on this side will welcome the news the Prime Minister was good enough to give the house to the effect that the representatives Of the people of Lebanon have chosen a president in the person of a distinguished Lebanese patriot. We must hope that this step will help bring to an end the civil disturbances in Lebanon and restore peace and stability in that country, and thereby make possible the withdrawal of outside forces, in this case forces from the United States of America.
I noted with interest what the Prime Minister said about the strengthening of the United Nations observation group. That strengthening should make it possible for the group to discharge its functions in Lebanon, which in turn would make it still easier for the United States forces to withdraw. We most warmly support the decision of the government to add another seven officers to that peace preservation corps under the flag of the United Nations. I can think of no way in which the Canadian army through its officers could better act in the present circumstances than as part of this peace preservation corps.
So far as the summit conference is concerned, we welcome also the information that it is now likely to be convened very shortly, and I reiterate the hope already expressed that after an initial meeting of the full security council, which without doubt will be subject to a great deal of publicity, perhaps those governments most concerned will be able to meet in some manner under the auspices of the United Nations in as much privacy as they can obtain, and not only make a contribution to the solution of the immediate crisis in the Middle East but begin a process of settlement by international agreement, including all the governments concerned, covering those political and economic problems which have plagued that area for so many years and which, if not settled, will undoubtedly before long result in another crisis in that part of the world.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are pleased with the further indication that there is a relaxation of the

tension in Lebanon because it has been possible to elect a new president. We, of course, welcome wholeheartedly the announcement that UNOGIL will be strengthened in that area. We know that Canadians will support unanimously an increase in Canada's contribution. We express the hope that Canada will encourage the United States to withdraw its troops from this state as early as possible. We feel that the presence of United States troops in Lebanon has added to tension and is continuing to add to tension, and that they should be substituted by a strengthened UNOGIL immediately.
We welcome also the announcement by the United Kingdom that she is prepared to take part in a summit meeting, beginning August 12, at the United Nations. We express the hope that this summit meeting will be fruitful, that it will deal with the basic problems facing the people of this area, and that from that meeting will come not only arrangements for the withdrawal of the troops of the United States and the United Kingdom but also a program formulated for economic development that will result in the oil resources in that area being developed in the interests of the people who reside in those nations. We further express the hope that from the summit meeting will come an agreement which will lead to free elections in those nations so the people themselves may control their political as well as their economic destinies.


STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR FURTHER ECONOMIC AID
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, late in May the Canadian government received an urgent appeal from the government of Ceylon for economic aid, which it will require in order to finance a broad development program designed to strengthen its economy and provide a substantial increase in the standard of living of its people. Subsequently discussions have taken place between the ministers and officials of the governments of Canada and Ceylon concerning the nature of the assistance which Canada might contribute.
On the basis of these discussions, and having in mind the request made by Ceylon, it was decided to offer Ceylon a loan of $2 million to finance the purchase of 25,000 tons of flour and to make an outright grant of 5,000 tons of flour valued at $400,000.
I take this opportunity to inform the house that the government of Ceylon has decided to take up this loan and grant, and the shipment of the first 10,000 tons of flour will be made before the end of December of this year. The remainder of the flour


3L 1958
[Stage Direction]
being made available under the loan and the grant will be shipped in the first quarter of 1959.
It will be recalled that on January 8 of this year my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced that a $15 million grant of flour and wheat would be made to India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and that $35 million in credit for the purchase of wheat and flour would be available upon request to all Colombo plan countries. Of the $15 million grant Ceylon received $3 million worth of flour.
In February last a loan of $25 million was made to India leaving $10 million uncommitted, and it is from this sum that the current loan to Ceylon is to be financed. The terms of the loan are identical with those covering the loan to India, that is the loan is repayable in seven equal annual instalments, with the first payment due at the end of the second year. It will bear interest at the rate of 4J per cent, payable annually.
I add to this statement that in the course of these discussions it was a matter of concern that the flour that Canada was being asked to provide to Ceylon might seriously jeopardize Australia's normal sale of wheat and flour to Ceylon. We have received firm assurances from the governments of Australia and Ceylon that the flour which we are now making available under the current loan and grant will not affect adversely Australia's interests.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether this particular grant to Ceylon, which we on this side support, is additional to the grant to India and Pakistan previously announced, and additional to the Colombo plan contribution?


Sidney Earle Smith: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


CRIMINAL LAW
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to inform the house that our study of the Fauteux committee report and recommendations has now proceeded to the stage where we will be able to call a meeting with the provincial representatives to discuss the whole matter. I have accordingly written to the provincial attorneys general asking them to name a period within the month commencing September 16 when they would be able to come to Ottawa for a meeting for that purpose. It is anticipated that discussions will cover the whole field of the
Inquiries of the Ministry Fauteux recommendations, including especially those where joint action or agreement by the dominion and the provinces is indicated. We on our part will be prepared to discuss all aspects and implications of the recommendations in that area, including any proposals put forward by the provinces.


UNITED STATES-STATEMENT ON PRESSURE TO CURTAIL IMPORTS OF ALUMINUM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question with respect to the export of aluminum from Canada to the United States. My answer is that the government is aware of the efforts of primary aluminum producers in the United States to seek relief from the effects of a general decline in the level of their production. It is my understanding that one of the points raised by the United States industry is the adverse effect of Soviet sales of aluminum in world markets at cut-rate prices. These sales have also affected our exports.
While there has not been any direct attempt on the part of United States producers to identify their difficulties with imports of aluminum from Canada, the submission made by the producers to the United States administration proposed that there should be a regulation of imports from foreign countries. Any restrictions imposed on the import of aluminum into the United States or any action to raise the duty on aluminum would, of course, cause substantial damage to our Canadian interests.
It was with that thought in mind that we raised this matter in the discussions we had when the President and the Secretary of State of the United States were in Ottawa earlier this month. Our representatives in Washington are following developments closely, and the house can be assured that we shall take whatever action may be necessary to bring our views to the attention of the United States government.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and, in his absence, to the minister in charge. Is it the intention of this government to make any contribution toward the cost of the proposed three overhead

Inquiries of the Ministry bridges to be built by the Ontario government over the Welland ship canal at Homer, at Welland and at Port Colbome, as reported in today's Toronto Globe and Mail? Also, are tolls to be charged on those bridges?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will take the question as notice and see that it is brought to his attention for an early reply.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: I would like to ask the Minister of Transport, or in his absence the acting minister, whether the minister has recently received representations requesting the implementation of the decision taken by the previous administration to build a third bridge over the St. Lawrence river in the east end of Montreal?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will have to follow the same course as in respect to the other two questions and shall bring the matter to the attention of the minister upon his return for an early reply.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: I wonder if I could ask the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether the report in the press is correct that an additional 1,000 Hungarian refugees are to be brought to Canada at the expense of the government?
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I would not care to comment on the accuracy of the figure in the absence of the minister. I can, however, confirm that a decision in principle was taken, but I would ask the hon. gentleman to wait until tomorrow or until the return of the minister for any comment on the actual number.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the acting minister would be good enough at the same time to ask the hon. lady whether she could inform the house how many of the Hungarian refugees in Canada who were seeking employment are still unemployed and being cared for by the department, and also how many of those who came here have returned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to bring that question to the attention of the minister, but

in the meantime I think the house and the hon. gentleman will be glad to know that in both cases the number is satisfactorily small.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought it was, Mr. Speaker, and I am delighted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I
wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources based on a newspaper report that caused my body temperature to rise as a conservation enthusiast. In view of newspaper reports to the effect that in the Yukon fires are being allowed to sweep through the country unchallenged, except where they threaten homes, would the minister inform the house whether this statement is correct? If so, would the minister inform the house whether consideration has been given to the use of armed forces personnel for firefighting purposes in order to limit as far as possible the destruction of our forest resources in the Yukon?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I should like to reply to this question. Before doing so, however, I should like to say that the hon. member for Yukon has been in daily touch with the minister and the department in connection with these fires.
I can assure the hon. member for Kootenay West that not only has consideration been given to the possibility he suggests but that members of the armed forces and of the R.C.M.P. have been actively engaged in the firefighting effort, and have made a tremendous contribution in helping to limit as far as possible the destruction of our forest resources in the Yukon.
It should also be made perfectly clear that firefighting activities have not been limited to those fires which threaten federal housing. In such a vast area so sparsely populated it is, of course, not possible to fight every single fire. Consequently it has been necessary to concentrate efforts on those fires which threaten the most valuable forest resources and, of course, those which endanger human life and property.
Under the direction of the commissioner of the Yukon Territory great efforts are being made to bring the fires under control. In addition to the regular force of forestry officers and members of the armed forces and of the R.C.M.P., a good deal of equipment and extra

personnel have been brought in from outside, notably from several of the national parks. Above all, tribute should be paid to the civilian population of the territory, who are bending every effort to help bring these fires under control.
The house will be pleased to learn that, in part because of the coming of rain but in very large measure because of the exceptional efforts of everyone participating in the firefighting activities, the threat has been greatly diminished in recent weeks, and the worst of the fires have been largely contained.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: May I
ask the minister if he would explain how the member for Yukon was in constant daily touch with the minister concerned in the minister's absence?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member must have been around here long enough to know that when a minister is absent another minister is in charge of his department.


George James McIlraith: May I take it, then, that the minister's answer was incorrect to that extent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member apparently, in spite of having been here for some 15 or 20 years, still does not understand how government is carried on.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries, not only on my own account but also on behalf of the member for New Westminster, if there is going to be an advance in the time of fishing between the Pattullo bridge in New Westminster and the Mission bridge on the Fraser river?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for New Westminster have given me notice of intention to ask almost identical questions on this matter.
This is a matter which has been brought to my attention from time to time during the last year by those especially interested, and as a result I have had a thorough investigation made of this salmon fishery between the New Westminster bridge and the Mission bridge over the Fraser river which, under subsection 14 of section 67 of the British Columbia fishery regulations, must ordinarily close on September 15 of each year. My object
Inquiries of the Ministry was to determine whether the season in the area might be extended without endangering conservation.
The problem is complicated, as there are five species of salmon involved in this fishery. Each is constituted of a race which runs at a different time and to a different river. It is obvious from the reports that early closure has benefited some runs to a slight extent, while others do not appear to be affected. I feel that the analysis must be carried further before a final decision is reached and this will be done.
For the year 1958, however, action has been taken to amend the regulations to permit salmon fishing in the area concerned, but of course subject to the provision that the area director of the fisheries department in British Columbia may use the over-all powers given to 'him under the regulations to prohibit fishing for part or all the season, should it be determined that such action is necessary for the protection and proper escapement of the salmon to the spawning grounds.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister inform the house if the bulls which are to take part in the deplorable exhibition at Lindsay this week end have been imported and, if so, were they subject to the usual tests and quarantines?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether they have been imported or not; the only knowledge I have in connection with the matter is that if the bulls were imported for any purpose they would be inspected in the normal manner by the health of animals division.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister tell the house why his department does not protest the use to which these bulls are to be put?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will refer to Hansard of 30 days or so ago, he will find that this question was dealt with by the Minister of Justice.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister table



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry a copy of the agreement on the South Saskatchewan dam project which was signed July 25?
Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to table a copy of that agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In French?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport, or in his absence the acting minister, a question based on a report in the Sherbrooke newspaper in connection with a recent delegation from that city to the minister in question. Did the minister promise this delegation a grant for the construction of an underpass on Acadia street under the C.P.R. main line?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not
having received notice of the hon. member's intention to ask this question in the capacity in which I now appear I will have to take it as notice. I will bring the question to the attention of the minister for his early reply.


Samuel Boulanger: I did send a note before noon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not receive it.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel Boulanger: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works with regard to a delegation which is reported to have visited Ottawa from the city of Sherbrooke. Was this delegation promised a grant for the construction of a main sewer which will cost $1 million, with a view to relieving the unemployment situation in that city?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have not had the privilege of meeting a delegation from Sherbrooke, but I should be very glad to meet such a delegation.



REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SALE AND SETTLEMENT OF STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: May I
ask a question of the acting minister in the absence of the Minister Transport. What action has been taken by the government following the recent request of the Halifax board of trade, as reported in this morning's Montreal Gazette, urging the federal government to reconsider its decision to sell the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships fleet, and also to end the seafarers' international union strike which began nearly a year ago and to return the ships to service?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press report to which my hon. friend refers. I will have to have the press report studied and a reply made later.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The press report is in the minister's office, where it was sent earlier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It may be in the minister's office, but it is not in mine.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question has been before the house several times, and I am not sure that there is anything novel about it.
I would like to say that the ingenious device of giving apparent urgency to a question by asking whether someone has received a delegation or a communication seems to my mind to be going a bit too far. The urgency of the subject matter of the question is more important than whether or not a delegation or communication has been received within recent date.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If reference was made to my question, my question read "what action has been taken by the government".


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to a communication from the Halifax city council, I think the hon. member said. My point was, the initial part of his question was that the Halifax board of trade had written a letter or sent a communication. The other part of the question has been dealt with quite extensively by the minister in the past.


Mr. Howard:: I had a question for the Minister of Transport, but in view of what has taken place perhaps I will let it go.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the urgent need for deficiency payments on grain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question is asked today because of the answer given in the house on this subject yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who said there would be an answer to this whole problem just as soon as the Prime Minister was back in Ottawa. I am sure that western Canada is waiting for a statement by the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I may say that the Prime Minister was absent for the same reason the Minister of Transport is absent today, namely as the responsible minister in connection with the visit of Princess Margaret, and I say this particularly in view of the rather facetious question which was raised a moment ago by the hon. member for Skeena.
In so far as the question raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia is concerned, that matter will naturally receive the earliest possible attention, and information will be communicated to the house when a decision is able to be communicated.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday that on his return a statement would be made by the Prime Minister in answer to this whole problem-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should attempt to argue the sufficiency of the answer. After all, whether or not an answer is given is a voluntary matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I will ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether a statement will be made within a few days, as was indicated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


John George Diefenbaker: It will be made at the earliest possible date.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND  SALE OF CANADA HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Roy Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the government to sell the house
Children of War Dead Act now occupied by the premier of Newfoundland, known as Canada house?


Howard Charles Green: I will have to take that question as notice.



CHILDREN OF WAR DEAD ACT


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act so as to extend the benefits of the act to other classes of persons and to increase the allowance that may be paid in certain cases.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Mr. Chevrier:: Will the minister make a statement?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, this resolution has to do with amendments to the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. Hon. members will recall that this act was given royal assent in May, 1953. Its basic purpose is to ensure that children are not deprived of higher education because of their father's death, where the death is determined by the Canadian pension commission to be related to service.
Briefly, the act provides for the payment, up to the age of 25 years, on behalf of a child who is following a course of higher education, of tuition fees and an allowance of $25 a month is granted for a period of four academic years or 36 months, whichever is the lesser.
The number of children who have already received benefits under this act has been somewhat higher than had been estimated, and that is all to the good. During the course of administration of the act certain anomalies and deficiencies have come to light, and it is hoped that these will be remedied by the proposed amendments which are contained in the bill to be introduced if this resolution is adopted. I shall now indicate very briefly the purport of these amendments.


The Deputy Chairman:: I wonder if I could ask hon. members to lower their voices. It is impossible to hear the minister.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Eligibility under the present act is restricted to a child on whose behalf a pension is being, or has been, paid because the parent's death is connected with war service. This has been found to be too restrictive. For example, it excludes a child who is over the age of 21 years at the time of the parent's death and who is already pursuing a course

Children of War Dead Act of higher education. It also excludes a child whose parent's death is compensable under a workmen's compensation act, or by legal liability on some person to pay damages, and the amount collected is such as to preclude the payment of pension which would otherwise be paid.
It further excludes a child whose parent's death is service-connected but, because of some technicality preventing payment of pension under the usual section of the Pension Act, an award is made by the commission under the compassionate clause. It excludes a child whose parent's death is found by the Canadian pension commission to be a direct result of a specific military duty in peacetime. And, finally, it excludes the child of a veteran who upon discharge from the forces is passed directly to my department for treatment and dies during such treatment. The Pension Act provides that in these circumstances pension is awarded to eligible dependents.
The bill which will be introduced later would extend eligibility for education assistance to the groups that I have mentioned. None of the groups is very large, but to the individual child his eligibility is of great importance. The government feels that justice and equity will be served by the proposed amendments, and I wish to point out that they preserve the principle of relationship of death to service.
Another amendment, and this I consider a very necessary and important one, would permit payment of the allowance at a rate of $60 a month where pension has ceased at the twenty-first birthday of the child. Prior to that age, pension would normally have been paid at $40 a month and an allowance of $25 is granted under the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. Experience has shown that the sharp decline in income upon discontinuance of pension is inadvisable, and it is proposed to adjust the situation by paying an allowance at the same rate that was granted to the single veteran student taking higher education under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rise not to delay this resolution in any way but to tell the minister and the committee that we on this side welcome the bill which will be brought in following the adoption of this resolution. As I understand the statement made by the minister, the resolution divides itself under two heads; that is, first, it is sought here to extend the benefits of the act known as the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act to classes of persons other than those now covered by the act and, second, also to increase the allowances that may be paid in certain cases as the minister has set out.

I have also listened with interest to the restrictions as to eligibility as the minister has detailed them here, and while I am unable to pass any comment on the validity of the amendments it would seem to us none the less that they appear on their face to be of the kind that should be approved by the house. Because of that we will be happy to see the bill receive second reading and sent to the committee on veterans affairs, so that it may be considered by that committee.
Meanwhile I wonder if the minister could say at this stage how much higher than the estimates are the number of children receiving educational assistance under the act? He said the figures were higher than those estimated when the act was introduced and he thought that was all to the good, with which I think I would agree. I wonder if when the time comes to reply the minister would give those figures at this stage.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is complete unanimity in the committee on the amendments proposed by the minister in this resolution. I was interested when he mentioned the fact that the number who were eligible was somewhat higher than was expected. I am pleased to hear that, and to learn that the act has been of benefit to a larger number than we expected.
I notice that there are two amendments. One extends the eligibility to include certain groups presently excluded, as explained by the minister, and we are pleased to support that proposal. The second amendment provides for the payment of an allowance of $60 per month which, if I understood the minister correctly, is the same amount paid to student veterans.
I am keen on this act because I know of a number of cases of children of deceased veterans in my constituency who have benefited from this act, and I want to emphasize the following remarks. When we can spend millions of dollars to bring certain immigrants to this country, and in some cases spend good Canadian dollars to bring and maintain immigrants here for a year who have fought against us, there should not be a single disabled veteran in this country suffer on any account because of the failure of this government to provide for his needs. Second, there should not be a single veteran's dependant in this country suffer on any account whatever or because of the failure of this government to provide for his or her needs. And third, and of equal importance, there should not be a single child of a deceased veteran who has

fought in defence of his country and of freedom denied the opportunity of receiving an education.
Therefore on behalf of this group I want to express the strongest support possible for this act and for the amendments, and we trust it will be further amended to meet the representations of the Canadian Legion when that day arrives.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, I am now in a position to answer the question raised by the hon. member for Laurier, who wanted to know the number of children who had received benefits under the act in the past year. That number is 507. I might add that under the new amendments we anticipate the number receiving benefits will be in the neighbourhood of between 720 and 740.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Kootenay-West for his co-operation, which I have always received in the past. He mentioned the spending of considerable sums of money for bringing immigrants to this country. I would merely point out to him that this country has been settled by immigrants. As I read over the list of names of those who have received benefits under this act I observe that many of them are children of immigrants who came to Canada and served Canada in the last war. So those who came to our shores may be immigrants today but they will be Canadians tomorrow, and we find that in the past the immigrants and their children have played a significant role in the building up of this country and will do so in the future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to be misunderstood. I am not at all opposed to immigration. I was referring only to immigrants from countries who fought against us in world war II, and only in the context of comparing what we do for these immigrants and what we should be prepared to do for the children of deceased veterans. We should not allow the needs of any veteran or his dependants to go unheeded or unremedied.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Brooks thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-45, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: When shall the bill
be read a second time; by leave, now?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the house to permit the bill to be read a second time now. The committee on veterans
Supply-Agriculture
affairs is sitting, and we propose to send this bill immediately to that committee.


Lionel Chevrier: That is agreed so far as
we are concerned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Agreed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: the second reading of Bill No. C-45, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
Motion agreed on, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $674,164.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee I should like to revert to a matter which was under discussion yesterday, namely the dismissal of one Walter Mitchell, formerly employed as a checker and fumigator in the port of Montreal. I shall try to discuss this case without acrimony and as quietly and equitably as I can having regard to the circumstances.
The question arose some time ago because of a starred question which I put on the order paper. It also came up during a short discussion of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture one day last week and again yesterday when I moved to have certain documents produced in connection with the dismissal. I would have thought the minister would have had no objection to the production of these documents, because when a person is dismissed and loses his employment there should be no objection on the part of those taking such action to producing the evidence upon which the dismissal is based. For those reasons I should now like to put on record the other side of the case.
Mr. Walter Mitchell was a checker and fumigator at the port of Montreal for the last 22 years. I have forgotten how many years the minister said he was employed, not that long, but the information I have in my possession is that he has been employed in that capacity perhaps not during all the time but certainly in the Department of Agriculture for 22 years. He was employed during the season of navigation only; that is, he began his work in April and terminated it in December. He was a loyal, efficient, assiduous and honest employee of the Department of Agriculture. In fact, I am informed that

Supply-A griculture
heard and contrary, I say again, to the resolution approved by both parties in this house over the years.
The only way, as I say, in which this man could have been dismissed was either by the certificate of a member of parliament or by an investigation made by an impartial tribunal. In essence an individual should not be dismissed under any circumstances without being given the opportunity of being heard. The principle is clear. It is based upon the assumption that an hon. member of this house who certifies to such a condition has satisfied himself to his own personal knowledge as to the authenticity of the statements he makes, and that they are true; but if he makes such a statement without regard to the fine detail of it being true or untrue and the individual is dismissed, I think the man probably has an action against the member of parliament because he has compassed his dismissal and destroyed his position.
These were the reasons why, after a lengthy debate, the conclusion was arrived at that this was the only fair, equitable and reasonable manner in which to dispense with the services of an individual. Therefore with regard to the political activity part of this case I conclude that the man, Walter Mitchell, has not been dismissed in accordance with the long standing practice of the house and that a grave and serious injustice has been done to him under the circumstances.
The next reason given by the minister was that Walter Mitchell was in possession of contraband liquor and contraband cigarettes. What are the facts? I hold in my hand a document which the minister refused to produce yesterday. It is from the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise division, and is dated December 23, 1957, almost a full month after the alleged charge against Mr. Mitchell, which offence was said to have occurred on November 29, 1957. It is the usual and very ordinary notice served pursuant to sections 158 to 166 of the Customs Act advising this man that he was in possession of five bottles of liquor and six cartons of cigarettes. What member of parliament who has been in the house for any length of time has not acted on behalf of constituents who have brought such notices to him because they have been searched by a customs officer and found in possession of cigarettes or other articles they have brought into Canada without payment of the excise tax?
Over the many years I have been here I have had many such notices brought to me. Many of them were of little or no importance. Others were more serious and still others were very serious. But the point I

wish to make is that this was not a charge but a notice pursuant to sections 158 to 166 of the Customs Act to the effect that Mitchell had in his possession liquor and cigarettes upon which the excise tax had not been paid. It was not considered serious by departmental officers. Revenue officers came to his home. He opened the door and said, "Look at the premises; you are entirely welcome to find what there is here." He told them how these articles came into his possession and he invited them to confirm the information he gave them. They must have done so, because a little later he received a notice from the same department, pursuant to sections 158 to 166 of the Customs Act, to the effect that the statements he had made were found to be true and that the officers of the Department of National Revenue were not proceeding against him.
I do not have that letter. I had hoped to get it from the minister when I moved for the production of papers. I was not able to get it. I have therefore only the information which has been brought to my attention; but the information is that the letter was forthcoming and did go to Mitchell to indicate that the department had no intention of proceeding because they did not consider this matter as being of a serious nature. If that is the case, I think the minister did the house an injustice when he did not produce that information. Notwithstanding that, I now hold in my hand two documents from officers of the Department of Agriculture attesting to the fact that Mitchell was a good, honest and assiduous worker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What is their political creed?


Lionel Chevrier: Somebody says "What is their political creed?" I would ask hon. members to listen to the letters as I will put them on the record from permanent officials of the Department of Agriculture and to draw their own conclusions. After Mr. Mitchell was dismissed, on June 20 he obtained from Mr. J. J. Kieran, who was his immediate superior at the city of Montreal, the following affidavit:
I the undersigned do hereby solemnly declare, that for the past twelve years, acting in the capacity of supervisor of checkers and fumigators for the port of Montreal, that Mr. W. P. Mitchell was employed under my supervision, and has always been punctual, courteous, sober, reliable, rendered valuable service, and has always reported and remained on duty when requested.
J. J. Kieran
Sworn before me at Montreal, Que. this 20th day of June, 1958.
Leopold E. Lamoureux, a commissioner of the Superior Court, District of Montreal.

This statement comes many months after it is alleged by the minister that Mr. Mitchell was found in possession of contraband liquor. Surely the official, his own official, must have known about this alleged offence and he could not have considered it serious when he, in the face of these facts, gave the statement which I have put on the record.
Then from a higher official of the Department of Agriculture, namely Dr. G. T. Labelle, regional veterinarian for the city of Montreal, comes this statement which is in French and which I shall read and translate. It is dated June 19, 1958:
A Qui de droit.
Ceci est pour attester que Monsieur Walter Mitchell, durant son emploi k notre Minister e comme Verificateur et Fumigateur, a toujours 6t6 ponctuel et assidu k son travail. Nous n'avons aucun reproche k lui adresser concernant l'accom-plissement de ses devoirs.
This statement translated in my best English is as follows:
To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that Mr. Walter Mitchell during his employment in our department as a checker and fumigator was always punctual and assiduous at his work. We have no blame or reproach to attach to him concerning the accomplishment of his duties.
This is dated June 19, many months-in facts five or six months-after this alleged offence. Furthermore, notwithstanding that the minister said on two occasions that this man had been guilty of an offence on November 29, 1957, he was called back to work in April, 1958. If this charge was so serious and if it had not been abandoned, as I am informed, why was he called back to work? I have put on the record what the facts are.
I say to the minister that he has dealt unfairly and unjustly with this man. I say furthermore that he has maligned this man's reputation by putting on the record a statement which is certainly not in accordance with what he said the other day and with the facts. He has clearly left himself open also to an action for defamation of character if made outside the house. He has dismissed a person who was in the employ of his department for 22 years, and he refuses to produce the evidence. He says he has affidavits and photographs, but he does not want to give them to the house. He guarantees that the facts are accurate, but he will not tell us on what he bases his judgment. He says he decided not to prosecute because he did not want to give the case any publicity.
May I say that the case was not one in his department. The case came from another department, if there was a case; and there was no prosecution. The minister had nothing to do with the matter in so far as the other department was concerned.
Supply-Agriculture
The minister said he knew about this case only two or three months before July 23, which was when he spoke. If he knew about it only then, how could he refuse to prosecute as he said he did? Then of course he went on to say that he did not like the questions that were being asked. He decided this matter without inquiry and without investigation. When a man makes his livelihood by means of a position such as the one held by this man, and when he has been discharging his duty over the years-for 22 years in this case-without the slightest complaint and with the strongest recommendations even after the alleged infraction, I say that his reputation is at stake when action of the kind taken by the minister has been taken.
The decision of the minister was taken ex parte. I say again that he has committed a grave injustice to Walter Mitchell, particularly as this action comes from a minister of a government pledged to bring down a bill on civil rights by which the rights of the individual are to be protected. The rights of the individual in this case are clearly established by the record and the practice and procedure over the years in this house. That practice has not been followed. Someone in the department, evidently of a different political faith from that of Mr. Mitchell, has reported against him.
While it was the minister's prerogative to accept the report and consider it, I say that he should not have acted upon it (1) without getting a certificate from a member of parliament or (2) without conducting an investigation. An investigation was not conducted. The minister proceeded without an inquiry. I submit that his action is contrary to the practice; the rules of this house and contrary to justice. In the name of justice I demand that an investigation be now held into this case by an impartial tribunal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the initial complaint of the hon. member for Laurier I thing characterizes the entire long speech he has made in this matter. He complained because, as he says, there had been failure to produce documents yesterday in connection with this case. There is no man in this house who knows better than does the hon. member for Laurier that documents of the kind he asked for have never been produced in this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is utterly untrue.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In speaking to this matter yesterday I outlined the three types of documents which I said constituted most of the file in connection with this case. I then went on to say that documents of that type-

Supply-Agriculture
that is to say documents within the department, reports of officials to officials and to the minister, interdepartmental reports and letters which have come in marked "personal and confidential"-have never been produced.
There is no who knows that better than the hon. member who has got up in the house and tried to create a completely false impression with regard to this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I went on to say, as reported at page 2858 of Hansard for yesterday, that if there are any documents in addition to these I shall be glad to produce them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, you choose your evidence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Laurier was not satisfied with that, as he should have been and, as I say, he attempted to create a completely wrong impression in connection with this matter. He shouted, I think, the word "secrecy" or something of that nature, trying to create the impression that I was trying to conceal something.


Lionel Chevrier: You are.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have never tried to conceal anything in this matter. When the hon. member put his starred question on the order paper I answered it. I did not need at that time to say anything about the political grounds partly on which the man was dismissed. All I needed to say was that he had been dismissed because he was in possession of these contraband goods. I answered the question fully but the hon. member has been trying to create the impression that I have been endeavouring to maintain some secrecy in connection with it.


Lionel Chevrier: You certainly have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The record shows it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What he had to say in regard to the production of papers I think is characteristic of his whole speech. It was an effort to twist this case around.
The next point I would like to comment upon is that the hon. member went into a long diatribe as to what happened in 1902, 1911 and various other dates. As far as I can make out, all that this amounted to was a great complaint because I had not just fired this man upon the complaint of a member but that I had made an inquiry into the matter. I had the matter investigated but the hon. member for Laurier is apparently complaining because I did make an inquiry and

after I made that inquiry I found there were very good grounds indeed for discharging this man.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well, if the minister does not want to answer my question.
Some hen. Members: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would point out to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that we are in committee and he can ask as many questions as he wishes. It is not a matter of not permitting a question, but I would first like to deal with the questions which have already been asked. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has a great habit of trying to throw people off the track by getting up and inquiring if he may ask a question or something along those lines.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a tactic which does not always work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We shall see.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next point is that the hon. member for Laurier read from a document which happens to be a document not from my file. He said he was expecting it to be produced but I did not have that document.


Lionel Chevrier: You should have had it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Someone has been around the files.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, what I did have was a considerable number of police and other reports from which I am completely satisfied that this man was guilty of securing contraband liquor from these ships which he was inspecting in the Montreal harbour on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, and any employee of this department-and I hope of any other department of the government-who in the course of his duties as inspector takes gifts from the people he is inspecting should be dismissed just as soon as that fact comes to light. I do not think there is any question about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was exactly what was done in this case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With no chance to defend himself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Laurier went around still trying to confuse the issue-


Lionel Chevrier: A fair kind of investigation that was.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as I and the senior officials of my department are concerned, we consider it a very serious matter when a man engages in conduct of this kind. It brings the entire inspection service into disrepute and under suspicion and it is the type of thing which cannot be allowed to continue.
The hon. member for Laurier was trying to make it appear that we had known about this matter months back and did not take any action in connection with it. That is not the fact. The first time any information in regard to this man or his political activities or other activities came to my attention or that of my officials in Ottawa was May 1, 1958. That was the first intimation of any kind we had in this connection and it was as a result of the complaints we received at that time that I ordered an investigation made. The various facts I have already given to the house in connection with this man came to light and I finally ordered his release on May 29.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Which is about a full month later. Yes, I will answer a question.


Lionel Chevrier: Was this man given an opportunity to appear and defend himself?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There was no opportunity to appear and defend himself, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A fine investigation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact by his own admission he received this contraband which was forfeited. He admitted buying the cigarettes and that he received the contraband liquor as gifts from the people on the ships which he was supposed to be inspecting. Hon. members can draw their own conclusions as to why he was getting gifts from these people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Fine justice.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But if the information that this man had received contraband which had been obtained from these ships, and had been found in possession of it had come to my attention and the attention of my departmental officials at the end of November or when the events took place or at any time after that within two or three weeks or even one month-the hon. member for Laurier mentioned something about a date in December-then this man would have been dismissed forthwith and that would have been the end of the matter. He would then
Supply-Agriculture
have been available for full-time duties in helping the hon. member to organize in the election campaign.


An hon. Member:: He needed lots of help.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In regard to the question which was raised in so far as the prosecution of this man is concerned, the customs department apparently decided not to bring him into the police court for prosecution because it had no evidence that he was selling this liquor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All right; I am so informed by the Minister of National Revenue.


Lionel Chevrier: You had better read the sections of the act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All right, in any event the prosecution branch of the customs department decided not to prosecute because of that fact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They had no case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They certainly had a case- they found liquor in this man's possession. He admitted where he got it and as a matter of fact he said he bought the cigarettes-he did not get them as gifts-but he admitted he got them from the ships and admitted that the liquor was given to him. As I say, however, they did not prosecute him, which happens in a large number of cases, according to my information.


Lionel Chevrier: When it is not serious.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In any event, had the matter been drawn to our attention, as I have said, he would have been discharged forthwith.
The hon. member for Laurier said that I mentioned I did not like questions being asked, but I do not know where he can find any statement of mine along those lines. I do not mind any questions being asked-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Ricard:: You flatter yourself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate said it, I did not say it. I do not mind questions being asked but I do deplore the amount of time which is being taken up over a matter of this kind which I think the hon. member, as well as everyone else here, realizes is not a very important matter. I think if everyone in the house looks at this thing in any sort of a fair way he will agree that there was every excuse and every reason in the world for getting rid of this man. He was not the type of man one should have engaged on an inspection job in one's department.

Supply-Agriculture


Lionel Chevrier: After 22 years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that covers the
matter, more or less.


Lionel Chevrier: More or less, less than more.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In any event there has been a considerable amount of time devoted to it and I gave a full summary of the matter when it came up previously and I have given quite a full summary today. It seems to me that the hon. member for Laurier just made a mistake in ever bringing this matter before the house in the first place. Now he is attempting to get out of an awkward situation.


Charles Benjamin Howard: First I should like to make a very short comment about what I consider to be the most disgusting and deplorable attitude of both the Liberal government and this government in following the practice of having members of the civil service dismissed on the word of members of parliament that they have participated in the electioneering. I do not think that members of parliament, regardless of the fact that their statements made in their places in this house are to be accepted, have any right to act as both judge and jury in respect to anyone, and I should have thought that this government with its talk about a bill of rights and the rights of individuals might at least have changed that system and treated civil servants better.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not use that system. I carried on an inquiry.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If the Minister of Agriculture feels he can justify this situation by means of interjections he is incorrect. He knows as well as I do, and it was said not only on this occasion but on another occasion last fall, that if a member of parliament indicates that a civil servant participated in politics, the latter should be fired instantly, and that is the attitude I am complaining about.


An hon. Member:: What about the C.C.F.
record in Saskatchewan?


Mr.. Howard:: I would be quite willing to discuss the attitude of the government in Saskatchewan with regard to civil servants on some other occasion but I know very well that the chairman has more understanding of the rules than to allow such a discussion to take place here.
We should not have had a debate of this nature. I do not know whether the attitude expressed by the hon. member for Laurier is correct in this ease, or whether the attitude expressed by the Minister of Agriculture is correct. The truth of this matter is beyond my knowledge and it is, I think, quite unfortunate that the matter should get to this

stage. Civil servants should be in a position no different from that occupied by employees of private concerns with regard to matters of this kind, and I maintain that they should be treated precisely as other employees are treated. I am dealing now with the question of bargaining rights and the opportunity to submit grievances to independent tribunals. If we had a sensible system and if this government would undertake to treat its civil servants as more than second class citizens-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Hon. members can laugh, but if they laugh apparently they do not have too much of an understanding about the rights of individuals, and I am sure many civil servants would like to hear the snickers you are making about them.


Some hon. Members:: We are snickering at you.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If a civil servant is dismissed a channel should be provided so that that person, if he feels he has been unjustly dismissed, can take his case to an outside tribunal or arbitration board, as other employees are able to do, so that he can put his case, or so that the organization to which he belongs can put his case, and where the crown or the person who fired him, can also be heard. An independent arbitration board could make these decisions just as is done with regard to any other group of employees who are covered by a union agreement or who have collective bargaining rights.
Until the government of Canada undertakes to recognize the rights of individuals to be treated as individuals regardless of whether they work for the federal government or for an independent employer we are going to have deplorable discussions of this nature in which one hon. member says one thing and another hon. member says: no this is the true state of affairs. That is all I have to say about the matter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall make just one or two brief comments on those remarks. As far as the rights of individuals are concerned, I think everybody in this country knows that we have much greater respect for the rights of individuals than have the members of the C.C.F. party. The whole theory of socialism is to regiment all individuals. We believe in allowing an individual freedom in order to carry on his activities in any way he thinks best as long as he remains within the law.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You are not speaking the truth.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I ask for an immediate withdrawal.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must
advise the committee that we are not discussing the philosophy of various political parties, and I think we had better bring this whole discussion back to vote No. 1 that started it. The vote deals with the Department of Agriculture, administrative service, including the advisory committee on agricultural services.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Before we proceed, I demand a withdrawal on the part of the hon. member who has just stated that I was not telling the truth.


Charles Edward Rea: Did the hon. member for Skeena say that?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Of course, but I would like to amplify it.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Charles Edward Rea: I ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will certainly withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, if-


An hon. Member:: All right. Sit down.


Charles Benjamin Howard: -I may explain, because I feel that in asking to withdraw the minister has not understood what I was saying. When I said to him that he was not telling the truth, I did not say he was telling a falsehood.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, the hon. member for Skeena was asked to withdraw, not to make a speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who is chairman of this committee?


An hon. Member:: Not you, Jack.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to explain. I have no objection to withdrawing, but I am sure the minister does not quite understand. He made a reference to the effect that the party to which he belongs had more respect for the rights of individuals-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister indicated that the party to which he belongs has more respect for the rights of individuals than we had, and I said he was not telling the truth in that respect, but when I said he was not telling the truth I did not say he was telling a falsehood. I have got just the same right to say that the C.C.F. party has more respect for the rights of individuals than the Tories have, and along this line I do not think I should be asked to withdraw.
Supply-Agriculture


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member withdrew those words, as he said before-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He does not withdraw them.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member said he was withdrawing the words that the minister was not telling the truth.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If you insist that I do, after the explanation I have made.


Charles Edward Rea: I think those words should be withdrawn or modified.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Well, I will modify them a little bit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, like my colleague, the hon. member for Laurier I feel I have a good case and it is not therefore necessary for me to raise my voice as it seemed to be necessary for the Minister of Agriculture to do realizing-


An hon. Member:: Speak a little louder; we cannot hear you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -as he obviously did that he had done something he had no justification for doing and no right under the law to do. The Minister of Agriculture said that this was an unimportant matter. Anticipating this debate I took some time this morning and looked up what the minister had to say in another debate a little over a year ago when he was urging me to disregard the law and to do things that were not provided for by the law because he claimed the rights of certain individuals were being interfered with. At that time the minister was very critical as was his party and the newspapers in his province because I insisted that my duty was to carry out the law made by parliament.
The minister has now dismissed a civil servant who had served in his department for 22 years. The minister did not say he did not do his work well, assiduously and conscientiously and the minister produced no evidence to the contrary. The minister admitted he dismissed this man, took his livelihood and his rights away from him without giving him a hearing. That apparently is one of those new civil rights the government the minister belongs to is going to include in the new charter we have been promised, the right after 22 years of good service of civil servants to be fired by a minister after a secret investigation-the papers concerning which the Minister of Agriculture has refused to give parliament- after the civil servant has been given no hearing and after the minister has made defamatory observations about the man under the protection of his immunity in this house,

Supply-Agriculture
observations which if made outside the house would render the minister subject to an action for damages.
That is what has happened in this case and the minister has not produced one jot or tittle of evidence to this house, to which he is responsible, that this man engaged in any political activities. We are expected to accept the minister's affirmation of that fact unsupported by any documents or evidence whatsoever. None has been given. The minister said it is too trivial a matter to be bothered with and that we should get on with the important business of the country. The minister is a member of the party which promised us a bill of rights. In this case a man has been deprived of his livelihood.


An hon. Member:: What did he do?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that you let the courts decide if this man did anything wrong. I think it is a shocking thing, sir.


Mr. McGee:: You are shouting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never expected to hear any minister get up in this house and say, "I have secret police reports which I will not show any one else which convict this man." I remind hon. members that this individual has never had a hearing or a chance to say a word in his own defence. The minister has said, in effect, "I have secret reports and parliament is not entitled to see them". There has never been a hearing in the courts and no charge has been laid in the courts. The minister said, in effect, "I just fired him because I, the Minister of Agriculture, was satisfied on the basis of the secret reports I received that he should no longer be an employee of my department".
First of all the minister constituted himself the prosecutor. Then he constituted himself the judge. And then he constituted himself the executioner. This, sir, is the new bill of rights the promises of which we have heard back and forth across the country.


Frank Charles McGee: You are shouting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not a scrap of evidence concerning political activity on the part of this individual was ever given to parliament to whom the minister is responsible. A charge has been made by the minister that this man is guilty of something about which no charge has been laid in the courts. The only person who has judged this man is the Minister of Agriculture and he reached his decision on evidence that the man has not been allowed to see and that the jury before whom the Minister of Agriculture has to appear has not been allowed to see. That is what we are asked to accept here as trivial and then go on with the business of the country. Nothing,

in my experience, that has happened in a British parliament compares with what we have been asked to do here today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no evidence and no hearing. The man was just deprived of his livelihood on the order of an arrogant minister who refuses to account to the people to whom he is accountable, apparently believing that a huge and servile majority will justify anything he cares to do.
The minister said that as soon as the facts came to light he dismissed this man. I should like to know what the Minister of National Revenue was doing between November 29, 1957 and May 1, 1958 when the minister says he heard about the matter for the first time. Incidentally I should like to know why the Minister of National Revenue is not here at this moment when a matter is being discussed in which his department is clearly involved. An officer in the employ of the Minister of National Revenue seized contraband, or alleged contraband, in the apartment of a known civil servant. Either the minister or his officials thought it too unimportant to tell the Minister of Agriculture or they were derelict in their duty. Surely, if what was known to the Minister of National Revenue and his department last November was considered serious enough to merit the dismissal of this man and the taking away of his livelihood, it was serious enough for the Minister of National Revenue to have acquainted the Minister of Agriculture with the facts before six months had elapsed. And yet, on the admission of the Minister of Agriculture he did not hear about this case until May 1. Another civil servant in the employ of the Minister of Agriculture on the order of the minister some time before June 12 sent the dismissal notice which was dated we are told, although not by the minister concerned, June 12.
It seems to me the least the minister could have done, instead of abusing the opposition for defending the rights of individuals, was to have given this committee a detailed factual account of every circumstance that happened in this case together with the evidence because we have not yet-although the Minister of Agriculture came perilously close to disproving it-reached the stage where we operate under the system that obtains in the Soviet union.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said, "I have secret police reports. I am satisfied this fellow did something wrong and therefore I fired him". The minister speaks about his respect and the respect of his party for the rights

of individuals but surely it is not a very far step from that kind of action to the Soviet system.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, hon. members may protest but the minister did refer to secret police reports. Of course, the government has not yet put this man in a concentration camp but the man has been deprived of his livelihood on the order of the minister who says, "I have secret police reports that parliament is not entitled to see". That is what he told us. He said, "Parliament is not entitled to see these documents. I am satisfied that this man should not be in my department. Out he goes. And furthermore, if anyone asks questions I will malign the reputation of this civil servant so he will not be able to get a job anywhere else, and I shall do so in a place where 1 have immunity from the courts."
If it were done outside the ambit of the immunity provided by the house the minister would doubtless be liable for an action for damages.


An hon. Member:: Is that your method?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman asks me if that is my method. That is not my method nor was it ever the method during the time my colleagues and I occupied the treasury benches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the argument I am making now I am not in the least concerned about whether or not this man should be in the civil service and indeed I know nothing about that. As a matter of fact, I have never seen the man in my life and I know nothing about him except what I have heard in this chamber. What I am concerned about, is whether any civil servant, no matter who he may be, can be fired on the say-so of a minister simply because the minister comes into the house and alleges that he has in his possession some secret police reports and we in parliament are not allowed to make any inquiries about them nor are we provided with any evidence surrounding the case. That is what I am concerned about.
No doubt some hon. members heard the broadcast on the C.B.C. this morning. Perhaps we will not hear this sort of thing too much longer on the C.B.C., if this kind of attack on civil rights continues on the part of this government. What we heard this morning was that this was something much bigger than the case of Walter Mitchell. It is the right of every Canadian to have his case heard before an independent tribunal and not to be judged by his prosecutor, or his accuser, and
Supply-Agriculture
then to be executed after the judgment, and then defamed after the execution. Here is a man who had 22 years of public service and he was taken on the service at the opening of the navigation season this year and then suddenly, on June 12, he is told that he has no more job. That is what the minister has done. It seems to me, sir, that this is no small matter.
I want to repeat what I said before. In my lifetime I can think of nothing that has. happened in the parliament of Canada, or in the parliament of the United Kingdom comparable with this attack upon the rights of a free citizen, this attack upon the rights, of a public servant and it seems to me, sir, that the minister should take this matter seriously. He should remember that he is. no longer an irresponsible member of the opposition, as he was perhaps for too long. He is now supposed to be a responsible minister, responsible to this house, and it is the duty of a minister to treat this house with respect, to treat the members of this house with, respect and to treat questions raised in this house seriously and with respect. It seems to me, that the minister should cut out his vituperation, cut out his innuendoes, cut out his cheap jibes and confine himself, as we have confined ourselves, to the known facts of the matter and give us a detailed chronological account of what really did happen in this case after May 1 when the minister first heard of it, and produce the evidence on which he acted. Even then I say, sir, that I could never be satisfied for this reason: this man had no hearing; he was never given a chance.


An hon. Member:: He admitted it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Someone said he admitted it. How could he have admitted it? The minister never saw him; the minister admitted he had no hearing. How could he have admitted it if he had no hearing? If he had a hearing, if he did make admissions at the hearing, why did the minister not, in a straightforward, simple, consecutive manner, tell us so instead of doing what he did. Instead of doing that, what he did was. just say that it was not important enough to be bothered with.
I seems to me, sir, that certainly in this session of parliament nothing has happened yet that is nearly so important as this. What we are entitled to, in this committee, and what we should insist upon getting in this committee is a proper accounting by the minister of what, on the face of it, on his own admissions perhaps more than on anything even that was said by the hon. member for Laurier, though what he said was pretty damning, too, was damning.

Supply-Agriculture
The minister's own admissions were far more damning. His admission that he was doing this on secret police reports that nobody else should he allowed to see, his admission that this man had no hearing, his admission that he conducted the inquiry and he reached the conclusion and he carried out the execution entirely on his own and that we are not entitled to be told what are the facts, it seems to me is far more damning than anything that has been said on this side of the house. I refer to what has come out of the minister's own mouth. I feel we should have from the minister a respectful and proper account of what happened.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the peroration we have just heard from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will go down in this house as a classic of making a mountain out of a molehill. Two or three of the things that he has said I would just comment on briefly. I never at any time said, as the hon. member just stated, that this was too unimportant to be bothered with.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes, you did.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. What I said was that it seemed to me we had spent a great deal of time on a matter of this kind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Too unimportant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Not very important", was what the minister said.


George James McIlraith: "Not very important".


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not correct. The accuracy of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, of course, is not very good. He kept repeating that this man had been a civil servant for 22 years. The man has never been a civil servant to begin with, never. The hon. member for Laurier talked in the same way and so did the hon. member for Timiskaming. The man has never been a civil servant; he has been a casual, seasonal employee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is his livelihood not just as important to him?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He was not employed for 22 years. He was employed at various times during 16 years.
Now, the hon. member is talking about giving a detailed account. I have given a detailed account; I have given all the details in connection with this matter and I do not know what else the hon. member is talking about when he is talking about a detailed account.


Mr. Deschaielets:: Where is your written judgment?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That, I think, is all I can
really say in reply to the remarks that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has just given utterance to.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, I have tried
to get your attention ever since the hon. member for Laurier was on his feet making his statement. When I rose to my feet to ask him if he would permit a question the Minister of Agriculture rose and he was recognized. I am wondering whether I am in order at this time in asking the hon. member for Laurier a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Frank Charles McGee: I would like to know whether to the hon. member's knowledge the gentleman in question did participate politically on his behalf?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a good question
and I am glad the hon. member asked it. According to the rules and procedure of this house the onus is on the minister dismissing an employee to establish beyond doubt-


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Mr. Cardiff:: Answer the question.


Lionel Chevrier: I am answering the question by saying that the onus-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You are evading the question.


Lionel Chevrier: I have been asked a question; just let me answer it. I say, according to the procedure in this house, the onus is on the minister to establish that the person dismissed is guilty of political activity or political partisanship, not on anybody else.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is not answering the
question.


Frank Charles McGee: Am I then to assume that
the hon. member will not reply to my question either in the affirmative or negative?


Lionel Chevrier: I have replied in the manner in which the procedure is laid down, and there is no doubt that that is the position taken by both parties in this house.


The Chairman:: I think tempers are getting a bit frayed. We should really not be discussing anything else but the items involved in the resolution before the house. Consequently, we should not be discussing the conduct of individuals in this particular case or the conduct of the hon. member for Laurier. I would ask hon. members kindly to try to relate themselves as much as possible to the items under discussion.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister one or two questions with your permission, Mr. JULY 31, 1958
Chairman? The minister has said that he has an affidavit dealing with this case. Will he produce the affidavit?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have more than one affidavit in connection with this case but, as I stated yesterday, these affidavits have come in under a personal or confidential covering letter and the hon. member knows that when he gets a letter of that kind he does not produce it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor does he dismiss civil
servants.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nor does anyone else.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, as found on page 2599 of Hansard for July 23 the minister said:
In this case there was no question about that. I not only have affidavits, if the hon. member is looking for affidavits, but I have pictures of this particular man in the hon. member's committee room, evidently in charge of the political activities there.
I want the affidavits. Will the minister produce them?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have already answered the question.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has stated that he cannot allow conduct and practices of this kind among officers of his department. Is the minister aware of any other case or any other instances other than the one on November 29 dealing with this individual?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not see what this has to do with the matter, Mr. Chairman, but I am not aware of any other case. If I were aware of any other case I would promptly discharge the man concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: Then why does the minister say that he cannot condone these practices and these gifts that were taken? There is but one instance. Why does he make it far worse than it is? I ask the minister this question. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the notice which was served on Mitchell under sections 158 to 166 of the Customs Act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I ask this final question. Has the minister seen the withdrawal notice from the Department of National Revenue advising Mitchell that they were not proceeding in the matter in accordance with sections 158 to 166?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have already gone over that point. I told the hon. member earlier that I had received information from the Department of National Revenue that they had decided not to prosecute in this particular case.
57071-3-183
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, now that this matter has been raised in the house I have a few observations I should like to make. I have listened to hon. members opposite who have bristled with righteous indignation and talked about the freedom of the individual, the rights of the individual and the right of the individual to speak in his own defence. I think that hon. members opposite are the last ones who should be talking like that because they are members of a party which, when they formed the government in 1935, fired people by the thousands without any affidavits, without so much as a yes, aye or no. They were just told they were not needed any more.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is totally untrue.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am afraid the hon. member is not actually discussing the resolution before us now. We are not at liberty at present to discuss events of 1935 and subsequent years. We must adhere to the matter before us which is a resolution providing for the voting of a certain amount of money for the Department of Agriculture. I would ask the hon. member to adhere to the matter being discussed as closely as possible.


Benjamin Cope (Ben) Thompson: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as this matter has been pursued by other hon. members I think I should have the right to pursue it too because it affects my riding and what goes on there.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but he cannot discuss at this time what has happened in former years or what is happening at present. Once again I must ask the hon. member to adhere to the matter being discussed at this time.


Benjamin Cope (Ben) Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I will bring my remarks up to the present time. In my opinion the government has exercised a great deal more restraint in the dismissal of employees than has been exercised in the past. It is quite possible that the government may have even leaned over backwards in exercising restraint because if it were me there would be a lot more people fired.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benjamin Cope (Ben) Thompson: There are people in the civil service employed by the Department of Agriculture who are and have been doing excellent and conscientious work during their term of service. There is no question about that. But at the same time there are people in the civil service who are playing politics and when they do that they are playing with fire. If a civil servant breaks the rules then that person knows what the consequences are.

Supply-Agriculture


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has no right to a hearing?


Benjamin Cope (Ben) Thompson: The minister has referred to the evidence that has been obtained against this individual and I feel the dismissal was entirely justified.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I have very few remarks to make but I should like to comment on the remarks of the last speaker. He says that if someone in the civil service breaks the rules then he knows what the consequences are. I think everybody will agree with that statement but that is not what we are discussing. What is before the committee at the moment is the dismissal of a public service employee after 16 years of service without the minister having followed the rules that protect a public servant and which provide for a public hearing of the charges against him or for the dismissal to be brought about in the other way provided according to the practice in such cases.
I must say that I was appalled to hear a minister of the crown treat the dismissal of a public service employee in this way as not being very important. That was the first remark he made which I noted and I think I did so correctly. He also referred to the matter as making a mountain out of a molehill. The principle is very important. Our public servants now number hundreds of thousands. I do not know the exact number in the Department of Agriculture but it is quite substantial. We have built up a very good public service administration and these people have been led to expect fair treatment from the point of view of security of tenure of office.
Incidentally, I know nothing about this particular case. This man has been dismissed and the minister says he has been dismissed on the strength of some affidavits. The minister said a great many things against this former employee and used very strong language in describing his activities. But the minister refuses to table the affidavits from which he purports to get his authority for the statements he has made. The minister should have done either one of two things. Either he should have refrained from making the statements he did or he should have tabled the documents from which he purported to paraphrase and quote.


Mr. McPhillips:: That is what you say but your premise was all wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We do not know what he relied on; he will not tell us.


George James McIlraith: Under our system the minister is responsible for his acts and is expected to produce the document from which he
[Mr. Thompson. |
quotes. He either should not have quoted from it or he should have produced it. It is very important in this case because the minister by his own words says that the man did not have a hearing or an opportunity to answer the charges. I think I am correct in saying that there was no opportunity to answer the charges. What I want to point out here is that this is a very important matter, that it is fundamental in the whole administration of our public service and that the minister is quite wrong in his attitude that he can come in here and not be obligated to explain his action and to defend his action and to follow the law as laid down and the procedure established over the years. It is very good procedure, the procedure developed-


Mr. Bigg:: Is that the law?


George James McIlraith: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I must say something here about the interjections of the backbenchers on the government side during this debate. Those hon. members are witnessing today a procedure on the part of the crown that would not have been countenanced by any of the leaders of the past.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Lau-rier quoted leaders of the Conservative party in the past when the law was being evolved and the practice of this house was being developed. Those are very good statements and I think they were fairly well honoured by those leaders. I am somewhat mystified as to why the backbenchers on the government side today are so quick to repudiate the former leaders of their party.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Because this fellow is a civil servant.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister said he is not. Which is it?


Thomas Miller Bell: He is not a
civil servant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So you can take away his livelihood without any question?


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: He is not a civil servant; he is just a Grit.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must ask hon. members to permit the hon. member for Ottawa West to carry on with his speech There are far too many interjections. I must ask hon. members to preserve more order in the committee.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks very quickly. However, I want to deal with the interjection made by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. He has stated precisely why this man was dismissed.

He was dismissed apparently because he was thought to have voted Liberal. Whether he did so or not, I do not know. That is precisely what the whole case is about. The Minister of Agriculture has said that he is not a civil servant. If he is not a civil servant, by that statement was the minister suggesting that he was not entitled to have the political right to vote or to have political views? I do not quite follow him in that statement. I wish he would elaborate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I must say that this statement which the hon. member for Ottawa West has just made he must know is incorrect, namely that the man was dismissed because he voted Liberal.


George James McIlraith: I was referring to the interjection.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was the statement made by the hon. member for Ottawa West. If the hon. member has not been asleep, he would know that is not the case.


George James McIlraith: I have not been asleep.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The man was dismissed because he had been engaged in activities which I think everybody will recognize cannot be permitted by inspectors of any department in this country, namely taking gifts from the people whom he is supposed to inspect. That is the essential reason why he was dismissed. In addition to that, of course, he was engaged in very definite and overt political activities which would also have been a cause for dismissal.


Lionel Chevrier: Why do you not follow the rule laid down by the department?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I also might say that the hon. member for Laurier who has made a long argument today is constantly demanding to know why we do not follow some rule that was laid down in the past to the effect that you can only dismiss people on the complaint of a member of parliament. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was taking quite a different line in connection with this matter as was the hon. member for Timiskaming. This man was a casual seasonal employee. People in his situation are laid off constantly from day to day and so on.
What all this fuss is being kicked up about is a little bit difficult to understand. As I said before, the only explanation of it is that I think the hon. member for Laurier did not know about the activities in which this man had been engaged. He had been a good political henchman of the member for many years, the member for Laurier was put out because the man had lost his government employment and he thought that he would 57071-3-183J
Supply-Agriculture
raise the matter in the house and cause embarrassment to the government. The result was that he caused embarrassment to himself and he is now trying to drag this out in order to cover up that embarrassment.


George James McIlraith: If I understood the Minister of Agriculture correctly-and I will overlook his reference to my being asleep; I think he was referring to himself in that improper suggestion-he said that this man was dismissed for taking part in improper activities. I think that was the language he used. If that is so, then surely this house has a right to ask the minister to do one of two things, namely either to produce the evidence or to give the man a hearing. He has done neither.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister concluded his remarks a moment ago by saying that I found myself in difficulties and am now trying to extricate myself. May I tell the minister that I am not in the slightest bit embarrassed by the position in which I find myself. On the contrary, I am happy to find myself defending this man who has been improperly convicted by the minister.
The minister has made another misstatement, among many that he made during the course of his remarks. The one he made earlier was that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as well as myself had been saying that this man was a civil servant. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture was asleep when I dealt with the practice and procedure laid down by his former leaders in this house. I made it quite clear that Sir Robert Borden dealt with the outside service on the one hand and the inside service on the other, and that Sir Robert said that so far as the inside service is concerned, namely the civil service itself, it is dealt with by a section of the act; but so far as the outside service is concerned, the service in which this man belonged, it is dealt with by a resolution of the house.
Notwithstanding that fact, what the house should keep in mind is that this man was a member of the public service. He was entitled to the benefits of the superannuation act. He was entitled to sick leave. He was entitled to a number of advantages which the Civil Service Act gives to prevailing rates employees and to casual workers to which the minister does not seem to attach too much importance or to give too much attention. He has lost these. Notwithstanding the repetitiousness of the minister, I urge that the procedure and the practice laid down by all the leaders of the great parties should have been followed in this case.
I can only confirm what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said, namely that

Supply-Agriculture
this man was not given the slightest chance to be heard either with reference to the first part of the accusation made by the minister or with reference to the second part. He was summarily discharged. What the minister goes on saying continuously is that he made the investigation and that he was satisfied. That is not the way in which parliament has determined that a man should be dismissed. It has never been determined by the rules and procedures of this house that the minister shall decide on his own that a man should be dismissed. On the contrary, it has been determined that he shall not be dismissed unless by the recommendation of a member of parliament or after a public inquiry by an impartial tribunal. If the minister wants to follow the other course and conduct his own investigation and conduct it ex parte without giving the man an opportunity to be heard, that is his responsibility. I am sure the people of this country will judge his conduct accordingly.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, may I appeal to the hon. member who has just spoken. It is a pleasure to hear these discussions, but just so that we might get back to the evidence itself, it will be recalled that the late Mr. Casselman did make a statement about an individual-a labourer-who was dismissed. There was great consternation in the house at that time and last session the Liberal members of the house complained to high heaven that the workman had been dismissed because of a statement made by the late Mr. Casselman. In this case the Minister of Agriculture has gone to no end of trouble not to be so criticized and not to dismiss this man after 16 years of service on simply the statement of a member of parliament.
With respect to the legal aspect of the matter, I appeal to the hon. member for Ottawa West, who is an able lawyer, and to the hon. member for Laurier, who is also a very able lawyer, and I ask them have we not a preponderance of evidence, evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt? In the first place the man was found with contraband liquor.


An hon. Member:: Where?


David James Walker: He admitted it to be contraband.


Lionel Chevrier: Who said so?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David James Walker: He admitted it. Is the hon. member for Laurier denying that the minister's statement to that effect, after a thorough investigation and not depending simply on the statement of a member of

parliament, was incorrect? He admitted it. Does the hon. member want us to go further than that?


Lionel Chevrier: Of course I deny it until the document is produced, and that is why I am asking for production.


David James Walker: This is the first time I have heard that one is required to produce a document when a person after thorough inquiry not only admits a charge but in this case also acts as his own prosecutor and turns over the whiskey. He turned over the contraband and admitted that he had obtained it from the very owners or officers of the ships he was supposed to inspect. What more damning evidence can the hon. member for Laurier want? Could we have anything more than the admission of this man? Is my hon. friend, the hon. member for Laurier, suggesting we should prosecute this man and, in the case of every person we dismiss who is either a civil servant or a casual employee, we should take action against him before he is dismissed?


Lionel Chevrier: I am suggesting an investigation.


David James Walker: There was an investigation, a very full investigation.


Lionel Chevrier: It was an ex parte examination. He was convicted without being heard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We want a public investigation.


David James Walker: There was an investigation by the officers of the department. Furthermore, we have not only the evidence to which I have referred but we also have the tacit admission of the hon. member for Laurier in connection with the second section of the evidence. He made no admission about the liquor because I think he did not know about that, but the hon. member for Laurier could get rid of the second charge that this man Mitchell did engage in political activities on his behalf by denying it. He refused to deny it in the house and he does nothing to support Mr. Mitchell in that regard.


Mr. Peters:: Is he guilty by association?


David James Walker: My glib friend who is always ready to talk on every and any subject has now expressed his opinion but I would like to ask the hon. member for Laurier if he will deny that his so-called henchman, Mitchell, did give him aid and help through political activities during the last election campaign? If he would do this I would give serious credence to his statement, but he has not done so and I suggest he will not.

On the other point, namely the question of the contraband liquor, we have been hearing a great deal of the huge investigations going on in the United States with respect to the Goldfine scandal and so on, but that is nothing compared with this inspector accepting contraband while inspecting a boat under government regulations, and also accepting cigarettes under the same circumstances. Is the hon. member for Laurier suggesting that this independent investigation by the department is not the kind of investigation he wants?


George James McIlraith: We want it public.


David James Walker: Is the hon. member suggesting that casual labourers should be called in the public domain in open court and an action launched against them before anything is found against them, or is the hon. member for Laurier suggesting that this unfortunate person be now prosecuted to prove that the government was right in dismissing him? I would like his answer to all these questions.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member started by referring to a similar case which occurred in the constituency of Gren-ville-Dundas some time last year. In that case the procedure laid down, as I outlined this afternoon, was followed and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas, the late Mr. Casselman, had the courage to rise in this house and to say that on his personal responsibility as a member of parliament this man was guilty of political activity, and so far as I was concerned I accepted that statement. If an hon. member had risen today and had said that on his personal responsibility Mitchell was guilty of political partisanship, I would at least have had the opportunity of asking him some questions. But that practice laid down for some considerable time has not been followed, and now the hon. member for Rosedale speaks of the legal aspect. It is not the legal aspect with which we are dealing at this time, it is the moral and humanitarian aspect of this case.


David James Walker: What about the immoral aspect? My hon. friend is surely trying to draw a red herring across our path.


Lionel Chevrier: I am grateful to my hon.
friend for raising the matter of the immoral aspect and I will tell him that not a charge but a notice was served under a section of the Customs Act and if he will read these notices carefully he will see that it is not framed by way of a charge; it is a notice to the individual to which he may reply by way of affidavit or by way of oral or written statement, to rebut the presumption contained
Supply-Agriculture
in the notice. Mitchell did state the circumstances surrounding this case and the circumstances were such that the officials of the Department of National Revenue decided not to proceed. They sent him a notice which the minister will not produce in which they indicated that that was the end of the case. Where is the immorality?
I now suggest, with deference, that the legal aspect does not enter into the picture at all since the charge was dropped and in so far as the question asked by the hon. member for York-Scarborough and repeated by the hon. member for Rosedale is concerned, I can only say that the onus of the discharge of an individual lies upon the person making that dismissal and upon no one else. That responsibility cannot be shifted over here by asking whether such and such was the case. If a man is discharged it is because of certain reasons which have to be supported and confirmed by the procedures laid down by resolution approved by both parties down through the years. It is because of this fact that I say this man was unjustly and unfairly treated, he was convicted without a hearing; more than that, his reputation has been attacked as a result of statements made by the minister. It is not so much the legal aspect with which I am concerned-I am concerned with the civil right aspect and with the fairness which should be dealt out to this man and which was not dealt out to him in these circumstances.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the minister has referred on several occasions to my having participated in this debate which, up to the present time, is not so. I do not object to remarks being credited to me-


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member will pardon me, I am sorry, but I meant the hon. member for Skeena.


William Arnold Peters: I have no objection to being credited with those remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena because I entirely agree with them, but I think it is surprising that this sort of matter has arisen on discussion of the administrative item of the Department of Agriculture. Such discussions have taken place under former administrations and I recall the former minister of agriculture being quite proud of the fact that he could stand up in the House of Commons and say, Yes, I laid off people because of political activity in opposition to my political party. This may be true only of the Department of Agriculture, and if so this is a good time to stop it in that department.
We have heard some discussion this afternoon on the matter of civil servants-I do not in fact know the classification given by

Supply-Agriculture
the government or the civil service commission-but I believe that anyone working for the government is a civil service employee and therefore should be classed as a civil servant.
I think one of the problems is that the federal government has not seen fit to do what most other governments have done, and that is to set up the Department of Labour in such a way that anybody working for the government may appeal, if they wish, on their own initiative to a board set up under the Department of Labour. In the province from which I come if they do not belong to any association or union, they still have a fundamental right, if they wish, to make an appeal against dismissal, and I know that is true in the case of one or two other provinces. It would appear to me that the civil service commission and the civil service associations are falling down on the job they are doing for their own people because they should be taking these people under protection, to give to the working people in the civil service the right to be protected against this vicious action. I do not think any parliament was elected here to be a judge and jury as to the rights of its peers and, further, it seems to me that not only members of parliament but others outside the house have been questioned with regard to this matter.
I think the hon. member for Northumberland and the hon. member for Rosedale should both be quite happy. I notice that the minister turned around when they were giving him support, and I presume they are going to be put on the list for parliamentary assistants.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so foolish.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but we are not at present discussing promotion from the ranks of one party or another. Similarly, we are not discussing the vagaries-the good things and the bad things-of the civil service. We are discussing one resolution which concerns the Department of Agriculture, and I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the subject under discussion; in other words, to be relevant. And with respect to this matter I must remind members of the committee of article 59, paragraph 2 of standing orders which clearly states as follows:
Speeches In committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
It is the opinion of the Chair that we have strayed away from the matter under consideration at considerable length for the last hour, so I will ask hon. members to be as relevant to the question under discussion as possible.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am in complete agreement with your ruling that parliamentary assistants cannot be discussed under item 1 of the estimates. However, I do not think it is not of interest to this committee because I think, probably, there are some who are interested in the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: Nevertheless, item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture is surely the place at which we can talk about the rights of the people working in the department, and I think that if there are two classes of employees in the Department of Agriculture something should be done to put them on the same basis and give them equal rights. I hope the house will not have to face this sort of problem again, and that some action will be taken by the minister in the near future to provide an opportunity in his department for people to answer charges that are made against them, and appeal against any action taken as a result of such charges, whether they are made inside or outside this house.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the opposition has caused enough waste of time as it is and that the house had better come back to the subject of the debate, that is, agriculture. May I therefore point out that, in the few months during which the Conservative party has been managing the affairs of this country, it has, in this very short time, brought in much legislation which, certainly, has been most useful to the farmers of this country.
Thanks to the Conservative party's progressive policy, farm revenue keeps growing. For the first quarter of 1958, farm income has reached $604 million, an increase of $29 million over that of the same period in 1957. This increase, Mr. Chairman, is mainly due to increased production and higher prices paid for cattle.
Since 1953, the number of Canadian farmers has dropped 10 per cent. Under the administration of our hon. friends in the opposition, production costs were rising and prices were on the down grade. Between 1946 and 1956, the prices of commodities and services to Canadian farmers have gone up 58.2 per cent, while farm products rose by only 1.7 per cent.
From 1951 to 1956, the prices of commodities and services to the farmers rose by 5.5 per cent and the price of their products decreased by 21.8 per cent.

As to the province of Quebec-still from the farming angle-may I be allowed to point out, Mr. Chairman, that over 88 per cent of Quebec farms now use electricity.


An hon. Member:: Invented by Mr. Duplessis.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would not like closure to be applied to me.
In the province of Quebec, in 1956 vegetable production amounted to $295.2 million, compared to $90 million in 1939. It can be broken down as follows:
Field crops	
$176.8	millionFruits and vegetables	
27.4	"Maple products	
7.8	"Timber	
78 5	**Miscellaneous	
4.7	[DOT][DOT]Live stock production, which was close to $393.6 million, was broken	down as follows:Live stock	
$137.0	millionDairy products	
186.0	"Poultry and eggs	
68^5	"Miscellaneous	
2.1	"
In dairying, Quebec leads all other provinces in Canada. Milk is the chief product of Quebec farms. Since 1950, production has gone up by 28 per cent, while the increase for the country as a whole was only 5 per cent. The province of Quebec made noticeable progress in the production of fruit and vegetables. For marketing reasons, perhaps, the farm industry in Quebec has a tendency to satisfy local consumption rather than to produce for export. That is why the province occupies a leading rank in dairying.
A fact worthy of notice is that in 1941 the average acreage of Quebec farms was 116.8 acres, while in 1956, it stood at 129.8 acres.
Mr. Chairman, this government have done more for Canadian farmers in the past few months than any other government since confederation.


Mr. Dupuis:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No. If my hon. friend wants
to speak, he can do so after I am through.


Yvon Dupuis: Did Mr. Duplessis have a hand in writing your speech? You say the same things he does.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order! I would ask the hon. members to let the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm make his speech.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, need I talk
about the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the
Supply-Agriculture
most progressive measure enacted by any government on behalf of farmers? Need I remind the house of the names of the distinguished gentlemen who make up the advisory committee of the Agricultural Stabilization Board? Among them are leading figures in the agricultural field from the various provinces of this country. The Quebec representatives are Messrs. Jean-Baptiste Lemoine, president of the UCC, and Reynald Ferron, general manager of the Cooperative Federee de Quebec. Of course, the other provinces of this country are also well represented. The people who make up that committee are leading agricultural figures; they are the best brains in the business.
Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that if this Agricultural Stabilization Act which came under such heavy criticism from our friends in the opposition during the last campaign, were not of real benefit to the farmers of this country, distinguished figures such as Messrs. Lemoine and Ferron and others would have consented to sit on the advisory committee of the agricultural stabilization board?
May I also take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Harkness) who has already, on several occasions, made remarks in French in this house, thereby setting a far better example than his predecessor the Rt. Hon. Mr. Gardiner.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to congratulate the government and the Minister of Agriculture for having set the support price of butter at 64 cents per pound, and for stabilizing the price of beef, of pork and of several other commodities.
The dairy industry is the very basis of the agricultural economy of Quebec as a whole. It is so in my constituency as elsewhere. Because of this guaranteed price, the farmer can get his fair share of the national income. May I also remind the house that, under the previous government, butter sold at only 58 cents a pound and that, while our farm organizations and farmers were pleading with the government to raise the support price on butter, our friends busied themselves with politics, paying no attention to the real needs of farmers.
Mr. Chairman, the dairy industry now ranks with the major industries in this country; in fact, it ranks among the largest because more than any other, it provides a basic food to a population of 17 million people.

Supply-Agriculture
With its production of 5,851 million pounds of milk, the province of Quebec leads all others.
Mr. Chairman, I would also ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to consider the possibility of including, in the near future- after considering the matter with his officials -pipe, cigar and cigarette tobacco, with the products coming under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I would make the same request with regard to maple products.
In my opinion, it would be logical that, in a not too distant future, other farm products be included in that act.


Samuel Boulanger: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), the would-be minister of agriculture, who never will be such in any case, wishes to take the floor, he may do so after I am through.
Mr. Chairman, some years ago, the federal government granted subsidies to those who wanted to exchange their sap buckets. That policy lasted for 15 years, from 1940 to 1955. As a result, in the province of Quebec, about 18 million sap buckets were exchanged.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, why the previous government discontinued that policy which favoured the agricultural class of the province of Quebec, when it is also well known that the federal government, through an act of parliament, forbids any traces of lead in maple products. The UCC, and several other farm organizations, had asked the former government to carry on this policy of sap bucket exchange, but the former government nonetheless discontinued this policy, probably because the province of Quebec was supporting a Liberal government.
But this situation will now cease. We have in the person of the hon. Minister of Agriculture a man who is close to the average Canadian, and to the farmer. It will not take 22 years, Mr. Chairman, for the agricultural class to benefit from the advantages of this government's policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge the government to consider the possibility of restoring this policy of sap bucket exchange. Cost to the government would be about $50,000 a year.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. Minister for Agriculture is now studying the possibility of devising some crop insurance program, to help all Canadian farmers engaged in mixed farming. Crop insurance
[Mr. Pigeon.l
legislation of this type has been in force in the United States for over 20 years. We have begun to hear about it since the Conservative government is in power. How is it, Mr. Chairman, that our friends of the opposition, who claimed to be the friends of the ordinary Canadian, never brought up the subject of crop insurance, or never as much as hinted that farmers might have it some time? I know that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is considering the possibility of developing a crop insurance program, and I might say to the would-be minister of agriculture from the opposition, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, that it will not take 22 years for such a program to be applied in the various provinces of Canada.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture to introduce crop insurance legislation, and I would advise him also to consider the possibility of applying such legislation, first of all, to specialized farming such as, for instance, the growing of pipe, cigar and cigarette tobacco, since such crops are very important, not only in my constituency, but also in Ontario.
Do you know how much it costs a Quebec farmer to set up a cigarette tobacco-growing farm? He must first of all pay $50,000 and, each year afterwards, he has to spend nearly $10,000 on labour, fertilizers and all sorts of services, to obtain a good crop.
Quebec tobacco growers, and those of Ontario too, feel they are entitled to crop insurance legislation. They are anxious that such legislation be put into force. That is why I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider the possibility of applying such legislation first of all to specialized farming, even if it has to be improved afterwards, and extend it as far as possible to other crops, all over the country.
Well, Mr. Chairman, each year, in the federal constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, considerable damage is caused by hail or frost, with attendant loss of farm income. Only recently, farmers of my constituency came up to me and said that hail had wrought havoc in their cigar tobacco fields at St. Esprit, St. Lin and St. Roch-West, in the county of Assomption and that of Montcalm.
Crop insurance is essential to the future and success of the farmers of this country. Before putting in his crop, the farmer needs to have some idea of the price he will receive for his commodity, but he also needs protection

against hail, drought, wind and frost. The farmer has to be in exactly the same position as the worker who, before taking up a new job, inquires about the wages he will get and asks $1.50, $2.00 or $3.00 an hour, according to his trade. Before starting on a job, he finds out how much he will get out of it, before trading his skill for a wage.
Likewise before a farmer begins working his land or putting money and labour into it he must be assured of a profit from what will grow out of his land. I know that the Minister of Agriculture, in co-operation with the government, has made extensive studies into the possibility of implementing steps to the benefit of the farmers of this country. Crop insurance is absolutely essential to the future of specialized farming and of Canadian agriculture in general.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the Minister of Agriculture, more than anybody else, is concerned with the needs of the farmer and has made very careful study of that legislation. The member for Drummond-Arthabaska, pseudo-minister of agriculture-who in any event will never be minister of agriculture -would like this government to bring in within the space of a few weeks or a few months all those measures which his party failed to introduce during the 22 years they were in power, in spite of the representations of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, for instance, or of farm groups in the province of Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. Instead, his party chose to ignore the needs of the people, and preferred to use closure rather than take heed of the needs of the farmers of the province of Quebec, and of the country.
Mr. Chairman, I am also happy to note that the Minister of Agriculture is proceeding to put an effective end to dumping of American farm produce. I know that one New England senator at least has stated that Canadians had some reason to be annoyed at the United States and asked that more attention be henceforth directed to economic policy so as to contribute to the improvement of relations between the two countries. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture-and this did not take 22 years-has already started putting a stop to dumping of farm commodities from the United States, a thing which our opponent's administration had never managed to do. What was done to attain these results? Well, the Conservative government has imposed a customs duty of 13i cents per pound on American strawberries.
57071-3-184
Supply-Agriculture
The Conservative government has also prevented dumping of American cheddar cheese. Severe restrictions were enacted with regard to the import of skim milk powder from the United States or New Zealand. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will continue along those lines. This does not mean that we will be persecuting the Americans.
May I be allowed at this point to quote an example of what happened on the Montreal market. Right in the middle of the production season, hundreds upon hundreds of carloads of vegetables from the United States were dumped on that market at the very moment our truck gardeners were attempting to market their produce on the same spot. This is also the case on the Toronto market and, indeed, when they arrive on this market with a truck full of vegetables, American farmers are just dumping their products here. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to pursue his action to stop that dumping. That doesn't mean that anyone should be persecuted, but we have to think of the average Canadian, that is the Canadian farmer. Just imagine: In a British Columbia camp the government of our opponents served United States potatoes to Hungarian refugees! That is how our farmers have been treated;-American potatoes served to Hungarian refugees.
That is what our opponents did to our Canadian farmers Mr. Chairman, and to-day they are defending the cause of our farmers in a tremulous voice, like an offended maiden. Well, they also served United States potatoes. ..


An hon. Member:: What about eggs?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Also, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska wants to make a speech let him do so after I am through. I will not have closure applied to me.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister of trade (Mr. Churchill) announced some time ago that the government, following some representations made by Canada, was going to allow more fresh apples to be exported to the United Kingdom than at the present time.
The new policy with regard to the exportation of fresh apples to the United Kingdom will give us a chance during July and the next eleven months, to sell 1,500,000 hundredweight of that farm product, i.e., 300,000 hundredweight from July to the end of December 1958, and 1,200,000 hundredweight from January to the end of June 1959.

Supply-Agriculture
The Conservative government had been in power only a few weeks or a few months when it began to reclaim this lost market. I might say in all sincerity and frankness that the English market is vital to us, as England imports about 60 per cent of its farm products from abroad. Let us help them get the necessary Canadian dollars, and, in return, Great Britain will buy our surpluses of wheat, eggs and dairy products.
I strongly urge the government to reclaim that market, Mr. Chairman. What happened during the war? The Liberal government rationed the Canadian people and sold to Great Britain our farm products like wheat, meat, eggs, milk, butter, cheese, apples, etc., at a rebate.
We had obtained by contract a privileged market in return for this sacrifice. Our hon. friends then in power lost the English market, the best farm market in the world. However, following a request from the Liberals, Canadians organized themselves in order to increase production, they capitalized in order to meet the needs of that privileged market. The government of the day has not been able to keep the English market for them so that they might export their farm surpluses there.
At one time, England bought Nova Scotia apples. Having lost the English market, the federal government granted subsidies so that our apple trees could be replaced by other crops. England, which used to buy its lumber in British Columbia, now buys it elsewhere. It is also getting its newsprint, its eggs, its dairy products, its wheat and its meat in other countries.
I strongly urge the hon. Minister of Agriculture to consider, in co-operation with the Minister of Trade, whether it might be possible to go further ahead with the sale of our Canadian apples in the United Kingdom. I trust that the apple growers of the province of Quebec and elsewhere in the country would rejoice in seeing such a policy applied.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal now with the experimental farm of l'Assomption. What happened in 1956? Discontinued was the agricultural information service, that of soils analysis, that of bacteriological analysis of milk, and of purebred dairy herds. I charge the government of the time with sabotaging that experimental farm. Farmers in my riding are dissatisfied with the way the experimental farm of l'Assomption was dealt

with. Yet, my riding is perhaps the largest dairy farming area in this country, being so close to the Montreal market. Dairying is its chief industry, followed by tobacco, poultry raising and truck farming. Under the former Liberal administration, the experimental farm of l'Assomption has been disorganized to a point where it no longer is able to give the important services it used to provide for the farmers and dairy producers of my constituency. The former administration has sabotaged the experimental farm of l'As-somption. The farmers have complained many times over about that behaviour of the former Liberal regime, but no one paid any attention to them. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to consider the possibility of reorganizing the experimental farm at l'As-somption. I also ask that the necessary grants be made to enable that farm to carry on the research needed to discover brands of tobacco which are milder than those the producers of my riding are now marketing.
A country can prosper only if its farmers prosper. As a rule farmers are heavy buyers of all sorts of goods, and they contribute to the wealth of the Canadian nation.
I want now to say a few words about the prices of farm machinery. I find the price of implements exceedingly high in relation to farmers' income.
The price of farm machinery has skyrocketed since the war.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
(Text):


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to see that we have finally got back to the agricultural estimates because I am sure that if the people of my constituency were to read the debate that has taken place so far today they could not help but feel that we have wasted a lot of their time and our time as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Defending civil rights.


Edward Nasserden: In dealing with the agricultural situation as it exists today and looking forward to what we hope for in the years to come, one cannot help but look back to what has taken place in the years that have gone by. If we do that we cannot help but remember the men who have played an important part in the Canadian agricultural scene. All of us will recall the work of the late Hon. W. K. Motherwell who for many

years was minister of agriculture. As one who comes from the province of Saskatchewan I know that the people of that province appreciate the wonderful work that he did and although he was a member of the party that is in opposition today we feel that he continued the work begun in years gone by to build a better agricultural economy for Canada as a whole.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One of the many good Liberal ministers of agriculture.


Edward Nasserden: Following him, of course, came Robert Weir who in many respects was responsible for placing upon the statute books of the country much of the legislation that has endured to give agriculture those things that today are becoming even more important in our day to day living. One must also remember the Right Hon. James Garfield Gardiner, also a resident of the province of Saskatchewan. I have been surprised that members of the opposition have not referred to him very much in discussing agricultural matters but regardless of what they may think of him I want to say that he made a very notable contribution to the agriculture scene and, considering what he had to work with, I think he did a wonderful job.
I can pay tribute to him, to Mr. Motherwell and to Mr. Weir because today we have in the Minister of Agriculture a man who is following in the same tradition and placing upon the statute books of our country legislation that will give the farmers right across the country a little more security and stability than they have had in years gone by. We remember the improvements that were made by other governments and other parties but while they were and are good in themselves we say that they can be improved upon. I recall the prices support act brought in following the war which was supposed to be written in such a way to give to those engaged in agriculture a fair share of the national income. Well, we waited for a great number of years. I believe it took some 13 years for us to realize the extent of the fair share of the national income provided by that legislation as a result of the way in which it was interpreted. Because of this situation things happened in June of 1957 and again in March of this year. Farm people right across the country are looking to the government with a measure of expectation never before known as between the electors and a government.
I believe the reason they are looking to the government and to parliament is the legislation that was placed on the statute books 57071-3-184J
Supply*-Agriculture
in the last session of the House of Commons when Bill No. 237, having to do with the marketing of certain agricultural products, became the law of the land. This legislation, in the language in which it is written, gives to the agricultural industry those things that farmers and farm organizations have fought for and sought for more than 50 years. The notable exception, of course, is that it does not do anything for the people engaged in the growing of wheat, oats, barley and other grains in western Canada.
All members of the house know the record in that regard. All members know that representations were made by organizations in the province of Saskatchewan and elsewhere in western Canada that wheat, oats and barley should not be included under the act. In what I am about to say I am speaking for myself and not for the government. I think that the farm organizations made a mistake. I also think that the government made a mistake in listening to the farm organizations and not placing wheat, oats and barley under the price stabilization act. History alone will show whether that view is right or wrong. One thing is certain. Those who produce livestock products and other products covered by the legislation can look forward today with a little more confidence than at any time in the past.
I speak as a grain grower, one who knows what it was like to sell our product during years when people in other parts of Canada were enjoying an increasing measure of security and stability in their jobs, at a lower price than we should have received because of regulations enacted by the parliament of the country. I think too of the years following when the price of our product gradually dropped while the price of everything that went into the production of the product kept on rising. On this occasion I cannot help but remind the Minister of Agriculture and the other ministers on the treasury benches, as the people of western Canada do not need to be reminded, that the grain growers are in a desperate situation today, a situation brought about not by an administration that lasted for one, two, three or four years but by an administration that over many years failed to face the problems associated with the production of this commodity which has made Canada known all over the world as the home of the finest protein wheat that people can buy. The people of the world choose Canadian wheat if they have the money to buy it. Other countries have subsidized their agricultural industries in an effort to make themselves self-sufficient but still require some of the wheat we grow in western Canada. Despite that fact we saw

Supply-A griculture session after session go by with nothing being done by a party that said it stood for the farm people of the country, that it stood for agriculture and free trade, a party that said it was guaranteeing our farmers a fair share of the national income and whose minister of agriculture came from the province of Saskatchewan, the greatest grain producing area in Canada. Yet they allowed that industry to sink to the depths that it reached a year ago and is still in today.
During the election campaign the leader of the Liberal party, who is Leader of the Opposition in the house, had occasion to come to Rosthern constituency to deal with agricultural policy and at that time he had certain things to say. I dealt with some of them the other night when the question of deficiency payments was brought up and I am not going to repeat what I said then. But I have a press report of his speech here and among the many things he had to say he said this:
We propose to raise the initial price of oats to farmers from 60 to 65 cents per bushel for No. 2 G.W., in store Fort William; and the initial price of barley from 96 cents to $1.00 per bushel basis No. 3 C'W. in store Fort William.
When the people of my constituency heard that they said that if any one should increase the price of oats by five cents per bushel it was the party that had reduced the price by five cents at a time when farm costs in western Canada were rising as they had never risen before. But the interesting thing is. that he went on to say:
These increases would be promptly reflected in increased payments to farmers. They would not, however, add to the cost of feed grain to livestock producers in any part of Canada.
In one breath he was going to raise the price five cents. In another breath it was not going to cost anyone any more money. That is about as empty a promise as I ever heard during any election campaign in any part of this country. There was really one interesting thing he had to say and it was this and I quote:
The traditional or historical pattern of low incomes of most farmers has made for poor housing -far below urban standards.
I should like to emphasize that statement. What a statement that was to come from a member of a cabinet that on three occasions at least came to the farm people of this country with the slogan "You never had it better", then we find the statement being made that the traditional or historical pattern of low incomes of most farmers has made for poor housing far below urban standards. We have that statement coming from the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of a party that has appealed to the people on those terms and

has said that their agricultural support program was based on those principles which would assure to the people of Canada in agriculture their fair share of the national income. Then he says that the traditional or historical pattern of low incomes of most farmers has made for poor housing.
I just wanted to read that into the record because, after all, Mr. Chairman, we hear a great deal about the promises that have been made and the promises that have not been made. But above all these things we know that whoever is in power, whoever is charged with responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture tries to do his best for the people of this country. All I want to say is that if that was the best that the Liberal party could do, it was surely time that we had a change of government here in Canada and gave someone else a chance to try to do better.
In so far as Bill No. 237 is concerned, may I say that I have heard people in the house here say that it is not giving to some producers what they had expected. All I want to say about it is that I believe the people of my constituency are willing to give the bill a chance to work and are willing to give this government and the Minister of Agriculture and also the Minister of Finance a chance to feel their way in order to find out what measure of support they can justifiably give to the people engaged in this most important segment of our industry.
In passing from Bill No. 237 I should like to say that I think it is an improvement over the old legislation. If anything detrimental can be said with regard to what has taken place so far under the bill, the only thing I can say about it is that we have not had wheat, oats and barley under it. While that is my personal opinion, it is an opinion not shared by some of the people in agriculture in western Canada. However, it is still my opinion and I wanted to get it put on the record today.
During this session we have noted many amendments to existing legislation dealing with agriculture and the problems of farmers right across Canada. What I like is the national approach that this government is taking to the many problems affecting this important industry. For the first time people in all parts of Canada can come to the government and, upon the basis of what is taking place in other parts of the country, justify their demands for like treatment. That is something that has been wanting in the administration of the Department of Agriculture for many years.
We have seen the development of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in western Canada. Some amendments made this year may

solve some of the problems. 1 think they will possibly solve many of them. However, in the application of them I think it may be found that one or two things were overlooked, although not intentionally.
There is another part of the agricultural policy to which I wish to make reference, namely the freight assistance policy on grains moved from western Canada to feeders in eastern Canada. I have heard some people say that that is a subsidy to the western Canadian farmer. The western Canadian farmer figures that it is a subsidy to the eastern feeder. I am not going to try to say who is right and who is wrong in the matter. All I am going to say is that it is a policy for the moving of grain from the west to the east and also to round out a little bit sounder agricultural policy for Canada and for Canadians.
The board of grain commissioners handle the grain act in this country. I think it is a tribute to all who have been associated with that department that we have been able to establish ourselves in the world markets with a name in so far as the quality of our grain is concerned. All of us who produce grain in western Canada like to haggle with the elevator agent about grades, weight, dockage and all of these other things but every one of us is proud of what has been set up and has given us a chance to enjoy our share of the world market for this important commodity that perhaps is more powerful than any other single thing used by people in any part of the world. When I think of that, I cannot help but think-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but, it being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was dealing, among other things, with the growth of a national agricultural policy in Canada which would give to all our farm people equal recognition. I went on to commend the present government and particularly the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture for the part they have played in pursuing this objective, but there is another minister of the crown, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who constantly bears in mind the people engaged in our agricultural industry. Trade and agriculture are complementary to each other, and I do not wish to turn the minister's head but
Supply-Agriculture
I would like to say I think he has done a notable job during the last several months in increasing the sales of western grain, particularly wheat. This also applies of course to grain sales in eastern Canada.
I have already mentioned the amendments passed by this house and I did not name them singly, because that would take too long. The problems in respect to agriculture all across this country do not differ very much. We all share, wherever we farm in Canada, the need for improved credit facilities. We all share in the benefits of increased markets for our products and the benefits accruing from legislation introduced to take care of disasters from time to time. We all share in the benefits of a proper price relationship between our goods and those of other industries and I have in mind particularly cereal grains, potatoes and fishing industry, which are the most important industries presenting problems to us at the present time.
These industries still appear to require the attention of the government with respect to some definite legislation, and I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to his department that at the Brussels fair Canadian fish and chips might be served and a bun made of good Canadian grain might be thrown in for good measure. Such a scheme might do something to develop interest in Canadian products. The minister might make a note of that suggestion because I may ask a question one of these days in order to discover whether those items have in fact been served at the Brussels exhibit.
In regard to the credit situation I notice that some members, particularly those in the C.C.F. group, have maintained that what we require is credit available for a 40-year period. In this connection I would point out that other workers expect to retire after a period of 20 to 25 years, during which time they hope to build up a pension in order to make this possible. I think, therefore, it is stretching it a little too far to say that if you agree other labour groups should be able to retire in 20 to 25 years that you expect at the same time the agricultural workers will be labouring under conditions which will prevent them from paying back the mortgages on their farms in less than 40 years. After all, the farm people are entitled to the same things to which others are entitled and I think, therefore, that a 25-year term would be a sufficient length of time to set for a farm mortgage. Why should we want the farmer to retire and have to hand over to his sons and daughters a heritage of a 15-year mortgage?
Another aspect of the matter with which I would like to deal is a possibility of something which might happen on a farm-I do

Supply-Agriculture
not think it will happen in Canada but there is always the possibility. I have in mind that some day the Canadian farm loan board under such a set-up as has been suggested would acquire the bulk of our agricultural land and no matter from what province a farmer may come, I do not think he would want to think that at some time in the future he would be able to secure land only on a lease basis.
The first responsibility of any government is to build a national program which will eliminate inequities such as those which plague certain sectors of our economy from time to time. The second responsibility as I see it is to ensure some measure of assistance to those sectors in case of disaster which, because of national trends and policies, might mean that certain districts might find themselves in great difficulty and be unable to continue as effective and efficient productive areas.
The people in agriculture today are well informed, generally speaking, and one cannot place before them a proposition based on a false premise. They know the prices exacted by industry, labour and capital in the national scene, no matter in what part of the country they may live, because they have to pay those prices in order to remain a working partner in the Canadian nation. That is why I urge upon this government, which has already set the pace, to continue towards the objective I have outlined of providing a fair share of the national income for agriculture.
The administrative branch of the Department of Agriculture has a notable tradition and like everything which is notable the passage of time has left some marks upon this tradition. One thing is certain and that is that this government will never go wrong if it continues to build upon the foundations which have been laid legislation designed to complete a truly national policy for our country, one which will strengthen Canada from coast to coast and, what is more, will encourage and exemplify that spirit and understanding of freedom, that love of the soil, which constitutes the way of life in the Canadian agricultural industry.
I was in the reading room this evening and I noticed an article in the Star-Phoenix of July 26, which referred to Dr. B. M. Craig of the prairie regional laboratory of the national research council. He speaks of the strides that are being made to make rapeseed available for use in margarine. We know today that many of the firms in eastern Canada are exhibiting quite an interest in this subject and I merely wish to say that the research program undertaken by the Department of Agriculture is one of the most important services being rendered to Canada.

It is important not only to the farm people but to every consumer because every stride forward in connection with new varieties, increased yields and advances along those lines, benefit every person in this country.
I am not going to say anything further because like all other members I would like to get on with the job of going through these estimates and I hope we will soon get back to our constituencies so that we may meet the people who produce these goods.


An hon. Member:: That is a smart
observation.


Edward Nasserden: I believe someone said, "That is a smart observation", and I hope that hon. member will take his advice to heart when his turn comes. I wanted to put on the record some of the things that I believe the people of my constituency would like to have mentioned, some of the things that I believe the farm people right across this country believe in; some of the things, too, that I think should have been said to the administration for the tremendous job that they are trying to do at this time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, when the debate on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture was adjourned on Friday, July 11 at five o'clock in order to revert to private and public bills, I had just stated that the prices received by small farmers for pulpwood was far from satisfactory and barely met the cost of cutting this pulpwood and taking it to the roadside. I had also placed on record the statement by the Prime Minister, as reported in the Toronto Star of February 27, 1958, which was made in Summerside, P.E.I. where the Prime Minister had said that he hoped the advisory committee and the stabilization board would give consideration to including farm produced wood in the provisions of the act so that farmers would know for at least a year in advance the lowest price they would receive.
This evening I have another statement which was made by the Prime Minister in Charlottetown, P.E.I., and I wish to place this statement on record. I hope the Prime Minister is listening on the other end of the line and will come rushing in to confirm or reject this statement. The statement, as reported in the Toronto Star of February 28 reads as follows:
Mr. Diefenbaker . . . gave audiences at Charlottetown and Summerside an interpretation of the Agricultural Price Stabilization Act which would come as news to members of parliament.
"The day will never come in Canada, no matter how great the crash (in agricultural prices) in other countries, that prices will fall to the same

level here," he asserted. "There is a distress price in Canada below which all agricultural prices cannot fall," he said at Summerside.
The Prime Minister maintained here and at Summerside that there was a provision in the bill to provide a minimum support price "under all agricultural products" of 80 per cent of the price over the previous 10 years.
The act introduced in parliament by the Conservative government last year appeared to provide this protection by statute for only nine agricultural products-butter, eggs, cheese, hogs, sheep, cattle and non-prairie produced wheat, oats and barley.
Parliament was certainly never given the impression that the legislation would provide protection for all the commodities produced by the farmer in the event of the bottom falling out of the world market.
Last night, the Prime Minister charged the opposition parties with misrepresenting the Conservative farm bill. On the face of it, he appears to have been guilty of misrepresentation on his own account.
Yesterday at Rimouski, speaking of the same bill, Mr. Diefenbaker hinted that pulpwood cut by farmers might be eligible for price supports. Last night he indicated that producers of potatoes a major crop here, might also apply to the price stabilization board to have supports put under that crop.
Now this statement was made by the Prime Minister over five months ago and our farmers are still waiting for pulpwood to be placed under price support.
On May 28 the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska asked the Minister of Agriculture the following question as reported in Hansard at page 580:
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture advise the house if it is the intention of the government to establish floor prices on maple sugar and pulpwood.
He received the following answer from the Minister of Agriculture:
In so far as maple sugar is concerned, I replied to a similar question last week, and the hon. member will find the answer in Hansard. In so far as pulpwood is concerned, we are giving some consideration to that matter but to date we have made no decision.
Two months have passed since then, and no decision has yet been taken by the department or by the prices support board in this regard. Our small farmers in eastern Canada depend largely on the sale of pulpwood from their own wood lots for ready cash to meet their obligations, and it is important that they be given the same advantages as are being offered to producers of other farm products throughout the country.
When a farmer is being paid as low as $8.50 for rough pulp out of his own wood lot, as was paid in some of the eastern provinces last winter, there is something wrong somewhere and the government must intervene to remedy such conditions. We have all heard those words "disastrous floor prices for agricultural products which should not exist in our country". I know of no price which is
Supply-Agriculture
more disastrous than the one being paid our small farmers for the pulpwood cut from their own wood lots.
Another problem which seriously affects the operations of our small farm owners is the financing necessary to ensure that these family farms are preserved intact. The application of the farm loan board regulations has not been of too valuable assistance to our small farm owners. The last report published a few weeks ago shows that out of $69 million made available as loans in the last fiscal year, only $680,000, less than 1 one per cent, went to the province of New Brunswick. Loans to small farmers have been difficult to obtain and on many occasions our farmers were told that it was useless for them to even apply. The establishment of a farm loan bank would facilitate loans to farmers and make it possible for them to purchase land, to obtain equipment and to make their farm operations worth while.
Such a plan would certainly extend the borrowing facilities now available through the farm loan board. It would assist young Canadians to establish themselves on land, thus enabling them to take full advantage of the opportunities available to our farming population.
The establishment of a farm loan bank, operating under regulations somewhat similar to those of the industrial development bank, with agencies in every province and with lending facilities extending to individual farmers and fishermen would be a great advantage to the farm population of this country and to our fishermen. Such a farm loan bank, or even proper amendments to the National Housing Act, could also provide loans to young farmers to build new homes. I know I should be out of order if I began to speak about the need for housing in rural areas at this point, but I would urge the minister to have a special survey made in this regard with reference to the need of better homes for farmers. Our small farmers in eastern Canada need new homes, new buildings and better equipment. Our farmers cannot finance such improvements on their own, and it is the duty of the government to make adequate provision for such financing.
On Friday, July 11, in the course of my remarks, I mentioned that we from the maritime provinces wanted to know why potatoes were not included on the permanent list of commodities coming under the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act or, alternatively, we wanted a firm statement of policy from the government with regard to potatoes. Interjecting in these remarks, as

Supply-Agriculture
reported at page 2174 of Hansard of July 11, the Minister of Agriculture said:
They have had a great deal of protection; a lot of money has been paid out to them.
The minister referred, of course, to the potato producers. On different occasions during the present session we have heard hon. members on the government side of the house criticize the previous administration for not doing anything for the farmers. It may be well for them to know that in the last 20 years over $2| billion has been paid out of the federal treasury to the farmers of Canada. This evening I should like to place on the record what has been done by the previous administration for the potato farmers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Potatoes were supported under the Agricultural Prices Support Act for the crop years 1946, 1948, 1950, 1955 and 1956 previous to the support given in 1957. In addition, potatoes have come under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act which act is basically not designed for support but payments were made which had the effect of providing some support in connection with the 1950 and 1953 crops.
For example, the 1946 program indicates that potatoes delivered for processing bore a guaranteed price of $1.65 per barrel at factory for Canada No. 1 grade. Potatoes delivered for export or other shipment bore a price of $1 per 75 pound bag on car at shipping point bagged, tagged and inspected. The total cost of this program to the government was $170,748.48.
Under the 1948 program potatoes bore a price of $1.15 per 100 pounds in bulk on the grower's farm. The total cost of this program to the government was $1,646,739.34.
Under the 1950 program potatoes bore a guarantee of 60 cents per barrel when delivered under the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act guarantee, which guarantee also amounted to 60 cents per barrel. The total cost to the government of the support of 60 cents per barrel amounted to $218,687.79. The cost under the co-operative marketing act was approximately $50,000.
In 1953, under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act the government guaranteed an initial advance of 45 cents, 50 cents and 55 cents per bushel in Prince Edward Island and 40 cents, 45 cents and 55 cents per bushel in New Brunswick for different time periods. The total loss under this program was approximately $5 million.
The 1955 program consisted of the payment of $1 per barrel of 165 pounds for potatoes delivered to starch plants less whatever the government could recover from

the starch plants. The total government cost of this program was $4,830.77.
In 1956, under the program followed in that year, the support price was based on $1.65 per barrel provided the consumer market remained at a price of three-quarters of a cent per pound or higher on the average up to June 15. This was based on potatoes delivered for processing, with the government to pay the difference up to the figure of $1.65. The total cost of this program to the government was $449,279.16. As these figures will show, the previous administration certainly looked after the interests of the potato farmer.
What has been done this year by the present government for the potato growers of Prince Edward Island? We learned in this house that an application was made on May 16 by the potato growers of Prince Edward Island for assistance from the agricultural prices support board. The official offer by the federal government, or the confirmation of an offer, was made on June 24. On July 18 I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture as reported at page 2364 of Hansard of that date in the following words:
My question is based on a press report in the Charlottetown Guardian of July 12 concerning price supports for potatoes, to the effect that all hope of receiving aid had vanished in so far as island growers were concerned. What factors have prevented the application of the provisions of the agricultural prices stabilization legislation to this important class of agricultural producer?
The Minister of Agriculture replied to my question as follows:
Nothing has prevented it. As a matter of fact an offer was made by the stabilization board, which was approved by the cabinet, to the Prince Edward Island potato producers to give them support on the same basis as it has been given in New Brunswick as far as potatoes which are diverted to starch in that province are concerned. The potato association there accepted the offer but subsequently discovered that the potatoes had sprouted to some extent and therefore there was difficulty in so far as determining the grade was concerned. We are carrying on further discussions at the present time to try to overcome this difficulty.
I asked a further question in these words:
May I ask as a supplementary question whether the delay of the government in applying this measure is not an example of the weakness of the agricultural stabilization program?
The Minister of Agriculture replied:
Mr. Speaker, since this statement has been made I think I should have the opportunity of answering it. Any delays which have taken place in regard to the potato situation in Prince Edward Island have been due to the provincial government and/or the potato association in that province not being able to make up their minds, not accepting the offer when it was made to them, and not putting the plan which was offered to them into operation.

The reply made by the minister was not exactly according to the facts and in it he placed the blame on the government of Prince Edward Island and the potato growers there.
I have in my hand an excerpt from the Charlottetown Guardian of July 12, 1958, which I wish to place on the record. It bears the title "Department Ruling Kills Potato Support Program" with the subtitle "Ottawa Refuses to Relax Regulations on Firmness" and it reads as follows:
Even while producers' applications for assistance under the prices support program continued to pile up in the office of the potato marketing board yesterday, official word came through from Ottawa that virtually all hope of receiving aid had vanished in so far as island growers are concerned.
William MacLennan, chairman of the potato marketing board, stated yesterday evening that L. W. Pearsall, chairman of the agricultural stabilization board informed him that no relaxation in the quality of Canada No. 1 grade potatoes could be entertained. Mr. Pearsall said he was making his statement after consultation with federal Minister of Agriculture, Douglas Harkness.
Further on the article states:
The potato board was conscious of the fact that very few island potatoes would qualify as Canada No. 1 in so far as firmness was concerned and informed Mr. Pearsall accordingly. Mr. Pearsall told the potato board that he was sending Mr. Eardley to the island "with the purpose of making the plan work".
Yesterday Mr. Eardley denied that he had come here to "make the plan work". He said he was merely a fact finding committee of one to appraise and report on the situation as he found it.
Further along the article reads:
Mr. MacLennan said the industry felt that the offer was not satisfactory either from a monetary standpoint or from a quality restriction angle. "However", he said, "we were forced to accept it with the hope that some of the restrictions would be lifted. The matter has now been finalized and we know where we stand."
Mr. MacLennan estimates that by the rate applications are reaching the potato board office it would appear that about 600 carloads remain unsold.
He said every effort to move the potatoes has been made.
As we can see from this report, the fault was not with the potato growers of Prince Edward Island, nor with the provincial government of the island; the fault was that the offer made by the federal government was not acceptable and would cover only about 15 per cent of the potatoes which were then available for sale.
I have a letter from a Prince Edward Island farmer which also appeared in the Charlottetown Guardian on Monday, July 14, 1958, and I feel that this letter should be placed on record to show the attitude of the Prince Edward Island farmers toward the offer which they received from the federal government. The letter reads as follows:
Supply-Agriculture
Sir:
May I have enough space in your column to say a word about the potato problem which is causing unprecedented consternation throughout the province at the present time.
For more than two months now, we in the potato industry have been trying to get some satisfaction from the federal government at Ottawa which promised in the last election that the interests of our potato growers would be protected.
Our growers know by now that the assistance we have been offered is completely worthless. Many of the growers, including myself, are caught with large quantities of potatoes still unsold. And the assistance that has been offered has been made worthless because of the restrictions.
Can you imagine, Mr. Editor, how anyone would expect a bin of potatoes to pass Canada No. 1 right now. None of them will. Yet the government at Ottawa refuses to consider our potatoes unless they do.
Three of our Conservative members are in the province today and I suggest it is their problem. They told us glibly and emphatically at election time that their government and its legislation would look after such an emergency. The emergency is here now and they are doing nothing about loosening the grave restrictions.
The way I see it is either one thing or the other. These members must fight for us and get our just desserts or else they had better resign and let someone else take over the job who may be able to serve us efficiently.
Fellow potato farmers I suggest you see your member today and impress this upon him. I have already seen mine.
Their leader, Mr. Diefenbaker, is the man who made the promises right here in this province that our potato crop would be protected under such an emergency. Now is the time for our members to see that Mr. Diefenbaker keeps his promise.
I am glad to see the Prime Minister now in his seat. I see the line is working. I continue:
At that time Mr. Diefenbaker was all for the farmer. At least that is what he told us. Now his government orders two potato inspectors to inspect a potato bin and warns them that two more will follow. Does this look as though it is the farmer he wants to help.
Those same inspectors were capable of inspecting potatoes to go to our best seed and table stock markets all over the world. But now when there is a chance to help the farmer, Mr. Diefenbaker wants four inspectors to do the job where growers with large holdings are concerned.
I am, sir, et cetera,
Neil Bradshaw,
Searletown.
There, Mr. Chairman, is the opinion of a farmer of the island on the help which was offered by the present government.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Is he a farmer who raises third-grade potatoes?


An hon. Member:: Not in Prince Edward Island.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If my hon. friend only knew something about potatoes he would know that by the 26th day of June and early in July it is just not possible for the ordinary farmer to have all Canada No. 1 potatoes in

Supply-Agriculture
his potato bin. He is just showing his ignorance of the potato situation.
The statement which was made in this house on July 18 by the minister blaming the potato grower and the government of Prince Edward Island, was rightly challenged by Hon. Eugene Cullen, minister of agriculture for Prince Edward Island. Here again I have an article which appeared in the Guardian on July 19, and I feel that part of this article should be placed on the record of this house to challenge the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. It reads:
Agriculture minister, Hon. Eugene Cullen, yesterday took strong exception to statements made by federal Minister of Agriculture, Douglas Harkness, in the House of Commons, regarding the implementation of a price support program for island potatoes.
Mr. Harkness was credited with saying "the delay in giving assistance to potato growers of P.E.I. was due to the growers themselves in not making up their minds whether to accept the government offer."
Mr. Harkness further stated that the plan offered to island growers was the same as that offered to New Brunswick growers in the starch diversion program. He concluded by placing all the blame on the government of Prince Edward Island and the growers in not deciding early whether to accept the offer.
In a prepared statement issued last night, Hon. Mr. Cullen said: "I find it difficult to believe that the Hon. Mr. Harkness made the statement attributed to him in a Canadian Press dispatch yesterday.
There are many potato growers in Prince Edward Island whose continued existence as farmers depend on the amount of assistance they receive in the disposal of the balance of their 1957 potato crop.
This unfortunate situation puts a grave responsibility on those whose duty it is to administer the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and we therefore expect from them statements which are carefully considered and supported by the record."
The record is as set out in this report:
"1. On June 3, I told the agricultural stabilization board that the province was prepared to provide for the administration of any plan that was acceptable to the growers.
2.	The first definite offer of a diversion program for P.E.I. was received on June 26 which was two days after Mr. Harkness announced in the press that we had been offered 36 cents a bushel for a feed diversion program.
3.	The application for a guaranteed price was made by a committee consisting of representatives of Prince Edward Island potato producers' association, the Prince Edward Island potato dealers' association, the potato promotion committee, the federation of agriculture and the P.E.I. marketing board."
No one would dare to say that those people do not know the condition or quality of the potatoes on the island. I continue:
"4. After receipt was confirmed by wire on June 26, any delay in accepting the miserable offer was due to the fact that the committee wished to make every effort possible to secure a better agreement before accepting an offer which at best would give the grower only a small part of his cost of production and which under present conditions proved to be worthless.

The only reason that the offer was accepted on July 7 was that the committee did not wish to deprive any grower of a chance to receive assistance, however small it might be.
In regard to Mr. Harkness' statement that island growers accepted the proposal, then discovered that the potatoes had sprouted, I wish to say that four days before the offer I sent Mr. Harkness a wire which stated that his offer was practically worthless because less than 15 per cent of island potatoes were firm at that date.
The offer was accepted only after I received an answer to my wire which stated that Mr. Harkness could see no reason for changing the conditions."
Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, a few hours after the minister had made this statement in the house an announcement was made in Charlottetown that the department, after representations were made from the potato growers association and from the government of Prince Edward Island, had modified their offer and I understand that now 75 per cent of the potatoes will be covered by this price support. My reason for putting on the record the information which I have placed there tonight was to answer the statement made by the minister, putting the entire blame on the government of Prince Edward Island and on the potato growers of the island.
(Translation):


Mr. Racine:: Supply-Agriculture
That is why I feel that if the Department of Agriculture were willing to give an adequate publicity to that product, not only in the springtime, but the whole year round, we could hope that part at least of this product, if not all of it, would sell at reasonable prices in this country.
If it was required that all maple syrup marketed be clearly labelled "pure syrup", "artificial or falsified syrup", whatever the case may be, we could hope that the consumer, seeing the difference, would be inclined to secure pure syrup, even if its price were a little higher, and we are convinced that after one try, he would always insist on buying that delightful product of matchless flavour. If maple syrup were advertised to the same extent as cane sugar from Cuba, we do not see why it would not sell at a price satisfactory to the producer and why its consumption should not be increased.
Maple syrup production in this country has now passed the $10 million mark. I feel therefore that the government should bring an immediate solution to the marketing of this product, in close co-operation with the Quebec maple producers co-operative and the newly formed syndicate.
I also would like to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture to include in his credits some money for subsidizing the purchase of chemical fertilizer.
In various areas, the soil is not quite suitable for farming, and it is only with great effort and a great deal of pains that the settler, and later the farmer, succeed in making their land profitable, which often takes several years. That is why I feel that a subsidy of this kind would not only be an incentive, but a genuine help to all who have anything to do with farming.
I also believe that subsidies on the transportation of seed grain from the west to the east of this country should be increased, as an incitement to our farmers who would buy this grain. We would thus kill two birds with one stone, for while helping eastern farmers, we would promote the disposal of farm products from the west.
I could submit many more requests on behalf of our farmers, but I shall limit myself at this time to those I just mentioned. I must admit that I was somehow disappointed this afternoon when I heard the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm deal with farm problems in the light of political partisanship. To my mind, farming brings up issues important enough to be treated seriously by setting up the proper legislation that would help our farmers to solve them.

(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to deal briefly with the suggestions I wish to bring before the committee tonight I wish to express the appreciation of this group for the courtesy, competence and good work of the departmental officials and the staff of the department throughout the country. These well-trained men and women perform a vital and essential service for Canada without any fanfare and, in most cases, without any publicity. I suppose we all recognize that major improvements in farm efficiency and production to a great extent depend on their intelligence, training and industry.
I think everyone will say that in the Department of Agriculture we have on the staff a good percentage who have all three of those requirements. Still, Mr. Chairman, our sense of values in this country is so unbalanced that in many cases a peanut vendor or a hot dog pedlar receives more compensation for a year's employment than do some of these highly trained, well-qualified and loyal public servants.
I am somewhat interested in this question, Mr. Chairman, because as a matter of fact I went to college in 1909 with a good number of former officials of the Department of Agriculture, and the forestry branch of another department, but unfortunately most of those officials have retired. I am one of the ancient remnants of that class still surviving in this house and who will survive for some time yet, I hope. Anyway, I urge the minister to do all he can to correct any salary injustices that are brought to his attention by the agricultural institute of Canada or by any other appropriate organization concerned with the welfare of these people and this staff.
Whenever I think of the good work done by these people who carry on their services largely unheard of, largely unsung and to some extent underpaid in some cases, I cannot help thinking of those lines in Gray's "Elegy in a Country Churchyard":
Full many a flower is bom to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
I think Mr. Minister, you will recollect the fact that you have two rather tall flowers in the department in Ottawa.
I am very much interested in these estimates because I come from generations of farmers and foresters in Great Britain primarily and in the last approximately 50 years in British Columbia. I have experienced all the vicissitudes that a green Englishman experiences in entering a virgin forest and converting it to orchards, grass-growing land, tillable soil and so on. I could tell you of some most

interesting experiences but I would rather do that when I am not taking the time of the house. However, I should like to say this in order to illustrate the tenacity, the purpose, the vigour and the intelligence of the early settlers who came out in my district in the upper Arrow lakes with very little money but great hopes, some of which have been shattered in the years succeeding. We were greatly interested in raising a fine breed of poultry and none of us had the money to invest in a really topnotch rooster. Do you know what we did? We all clubbed together and we had something that was very rare in Canada, on the upper Arrow lakes in the early days-we had a travelling rooster and we used to put him in a crate and transfer him from place to place, as the poultry farmers' requirements demanded.
In any event, I am speaking tonight on behalf of this group because this group is greatly concerned about the preservation of the family farm in the agricultural economy of Canada. This group views with concern the devitalization of our rural life in some areas, the decline of the family farm in other areas and the lack of opportunity provided for young people on the family farm, the lack of opportunity for the sons and daughters of Canadians who wish to farm and are capable of farming-and I have personal knowledge of a good number in my constituency-but who, owing to the conditions that prevail today, are unable to give vent to their desires and their hopes in that respect.
When we come to contemplate the millions ol dollars spent on defence and the millions of dollars spent in subsidizing industry-for instance, the gold mining industry; and that has been a necessary and temporary expedient in recent years-we cannot understand why we in this country cannot do something for the thousands of young Canadians who wish to farm at this time and are denied that opportunity. In the remarks I wish to make this evening I intend to suggest the necessity for national rational planning as the result of federal-provincial co-operation to undertake certain policies that we think are necessary to bring together our idle resources in land and our ambitious people who wish to take advantage of those resources.
The first requirement when you come to establish a farm is land. We have an abundance of that commodity in this country. Before passing on I want to say that I support very strongly-as does this group, as a matter of fact-the proposals of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for a national conservation and rehabilitation act, to be applied for the purpose of moving people
Supply-Agriculture
from marginal farms on to good soil and developing the thousands and thousands of undeveloped and unused acres in this country.
Before proceeding further I want to say that I have followed with interest the committee in the other place which has been studying land use for some weeks, a continuation of the studies commenced last session. I think that committee is doing excellent work because they are hearing evidence from people who know something about this question. I advise any hon. member who is interested in this subject to read the minutes of the committee on land use that is being carried on in the other place.
To illustrate briefly-and this has some local application and no one can ever accuse me of talking for the folks back home; I am talking for Canada in general but I use local illustrations because I have personal knowledge of them-and to mention the opportunities in the thousands of acres that can be brought under cultivation, we have in the Kootenay district a valley known as the Lardeau valley. In that valley there are at the present time 16,000 acres of first class land that could be brought under production. At the present time a great amount of it is covered with timber. Quite a large extent of it requires draining. But under some national conservation or rehabilitation act there is an opportunity for the development of a large area of land, as a result of the co-operation between the federal government and provincial governments, for the placing of young Canadians who will live their lives as farmers.
Another valley is the Slocan valley which is over 31 miles long and with thousands of acres of land. Some of it requires draining, some of it requires irrigating and some of it requires clearing of a poor species of timber. This valley is very suitable for agriculture. It is about one and a half miles wide and 31 miles long and there is a paved highway down the centre. There is also a power line right through the centre of the valley and there is quite a large river of about a hundred feet in width flowing through the valley. It is good land with good roads, power and water, and everything required for successful agricultural development. All that is necessary is some co-operation on the part of the governments to bring it into production.
In this connection I would say that the Slocan valley agricultural and conservation association, of which I am very pleased to be a member, is very interested in this development and wrote to ask if I would take up with the minister the question of having

Supply-Agriculture
surveys made to determine the possibilities of the valley. This I did, and I want to express sincere appreciation on behalf of all those settlers of his interest in the matter and of his willingness to consider undertaking something of that sort if the provincial government would also show their interest in the matter and would make some representation in this connection to the federal government. I do hope the people back home will be able to get the provincial government to take the initial steps in this direction.
We also have the Inonoaklin valley which is 15 miles long and has thousands of acres of available land, in this case mostly under cultivation. All that is required there is transportation. They have the soil, they have the production, they have the farmers on the land and a good many farmers' sons who are anxious to farm. I know dozens of these young fellows who are not interested in going to university or gaining an academic education but who want to farm. However, because of the amount of capital required under present conditions they are unable to do so.
We also have some smaller areas throughout my constituency along the Kootenay lakes, the Arrow lakes, and Slocan lake which present opportunities for agricultural development. I have mentioned this matter as an indication of what we have in Canada. These areas I have outlined are in one constituency which is largely a mountainous constituency, so what opportunities must there be in other parts of this country? The first requirement is, of course, land and we have that in abundance -good land. The second requirement is young people who wish to farm, and we have those in good numbers. The third requirement, as I see it, is a satisfactory form of agricultural credit on a long term basis which will permit these young people to undertake a farming life without being oppressed by the necessity to repay loans in a relatively short period of time. There has been much experience in this connection in Great Britain and other European countries and anyone who has knowledge of long term agricultural credit knows that as far as land is concerned it can rarely stand an interest rate higher than 3 per cent to be repaid over a term of 30 years or more.
In that connection I would like to quote briefly from a document I received from the director of the Veterans' Land Act administration with respect to supervised farm credit. I want to give Brigadier Rutherford every credit for exercising some imagination and I think anyone with any knowledge

of what is being done under his administration, within the limited scope of the act and within the limited amount of credit permitted under the act, will agree that the administration has blazed a trail which we might follow with respect to the development of a sound agricultural policy in Canada.
I would like to read three paragraphs from this document, which are as follows:
Supervised Farm Credit for the Family-Sized Production-Line Farm by T. J. Rutherford
Supervised farm credit is not an entirely new idea. Something of this nature was tried out in western Canada by an association of lending institutions who were having serious difficulties with their farm accounts during the depression period. It has also been tried to a limited extent by some lending agencies in the United States. However, it remained for the veterans land administration to give it a name, and to put the idea to work on a wide base and in a manner which has demonstrated how very effective it can be made in "putting agricultural credit to its highest and best use, and in ensuring its repayment in the ordinary course of business and without tears."
Since the amount and value of the land, livestock and equipment required as components of an economic family farm unit continue to increase, the need for carefully supervised credit in just the right amount-no more no less-and made available at just the right time to competent and progressive farmers capable of using it to good advantage, becomes more and more urgent. In fact, it has now become a necessity if agriculture is to again take its place with other industries in the matter of income to those who work, manage and, at the same time, largely finance its production units-
Adequate Supervised Farm Credit a Necessity today
The provision of adequate supervised farm credit is undoubtedly the most effective way in which various levels of government can assist agriculture to correct the income differential as related to other industries and, at the same time, bring production more in line with future market requirements. While industrial corporations finance their production to a considerable extent with funds supplied by holders of bonds and preferred stocks- who, though not actively engaged in the business, have a first claim upon its assets and income as security for the credit advanced-farmers generally have no such source of credit. This disadvantage is one which government, at all levels, can help to remove by making adequate credit available to this basic industry under a type of supervision that will minimize risk of loss and ensure its highest and best use in the building up of economically sound family farm units-which are the backbone of a permanent, prosperous agriculture.
The capital requirements of those now engaged in agriculture are nearly three times greater, on a gainfully employed worker basis, than they are in other industries and at least three times greater than they were when the Veterans' Land Act was enacted in 1942. The lack of available capital is unquestionably responsible for much underemployment and uneconomic labour on Canadian farms-
And I can endorse that from experience.
-for the reason that many of these farms are too small and/or inadequately equipped and stocked to constitute sound, economic units. Larger and better units would, of course, mean fewer units, and also the taking out of agriculture and putting

back into trees of considerable submarginal land and, in some cases, packets of reasonably good land that are too small, badly situated or scattered to be assembled into economic farm units under present conditions.
I think Brigadier Rutherford has stated the case very well indeed and I would just like to quote briefly from the table he mentions which shows the value of supervised farm credit. This table is as follows:
Net worth-The average net worth of the settlers, including the conditional grant of $2,320 as if earned at time of settlement	$5,117
The average net worth, December, 1957, an average of 8.3 years after settlement	$13,433
In view of the limited capital available and the situation under which many of these men commenced farming, I think this is very creditable indeed and is a clear indication of what could be done by an expansion of this form of supervised farm credit at low interest rates over a period of up to 40 years which is very badly needed.
The other day when the Canadian Farm Loan Act amendment was under consideration I did not take advantage of the opportunity to discuss this question because I thought I would be ruled out of order and my remarks on that act, therefore, were very few indeed. It was however obvious from the debate-and this applies to the remarks of many members from all parties in this house-that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with respect to the adequacy of the present Canadian Farm Loan Act. I am not criticizing the commissioners or the officials-they are there to administer the act and the regulations-but the whole basis of the act makes it necessary that they administer it as a mortgage company would administer a loan, on a strictly, shall I say, mortgage company basis, expecting practically the rate of interest required by a mortgage company without any direct supervision of the operation of the farm and the attitudes towards loans are the attitudes of the mortgage companies, investment houses and institutions of that sort.
I am sure that during the debate the minister will be convinced of the necessity for exercising some imagination to bring together the land and the young people who wish to farm, many of whom are the sons and in some cases the daughters of men who fought for this country in the first world war, or the second world war, or both, because we have some pretty vigorous war veterans from the first world war, as evidence given before the veterans committee has shown.
Further, I think we need a national form of crop insurance. I was pleased to hear the minister say recently that the matter was being given close study. I do not for
Supply-Agriculture
a moment underestimate the difficulties, particularly when one has to deal with all the ten provinces and take into account the different attitudes towards this type of legislation. But the need is obvious, the matter is urgent, and it is one which requires the co-operation of federal and provincial departments of agriculture and governments if this problem is to be met.
I am not suggesting for a moment that crop insurance will cure all the ills of agriculture. Some of the present ills can be cured by irrigation, some by satisfactory under-drainage, some by better tillage, but regardless of a farmer's efficiency in these directions there are still the hazards of weather, disease and insects. I see no reason why we should not, as Churchill said on one occasion, make the law of averages come to the rescue of millions in this country with respect to crop insurance which is so necessary.
I am quite sure that if the Minister of Agriculture wants to have some evidence of the success of crop insurance in a limited sphere he could do no better than study the hail insurance plan introduced by the British Columbia fruit growers association. I might say that this is not the only progressive step which has been undertaken by this association. We were the first fruit growers organization to fight for marketing legislation on a provincial basis, and the first agricultural organization of this type, I think, to establish a form of crop insurance with hail insurance. While that act is limited in scope I think it shows what can be done and if we can get the federal government and provincial governments with the farmer's associations and the farmers, whether wheat growers, or fruit growers or hog raisers working together, surely we have the intelligence to devise an act which will protect the farmers of Canada against the vicissitudes of nature.
Another field which I think is certainly
worthy of investigation by the minister and by the government is the need for more satisfactory transportation. As I mentioned before, I have one valley in my area, the Inonoaklin valley which has a very good production record, but which lacks direct access to the markets by road. I do think that the federal government together with the provincial government of British Columbia should give thought to the development of such highways as are required to bring agricultural commodities to the centres of population. We hear a lot about the tourist trade and the necessity for building highways to assist these visitors, but I do think that the needs of farmers in certain areas

Supply-Agriculture
deserve more attention by federal and provincial governments on a co-operative basis so that they may be provided with transportation facilities which up to now have been denied.
One other matter which I should like to discuss is the question of unemployment insurance for farm workers. As the minister knows, the British Columbia fruit growers association has repeately passed resolutions in recent years urging that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended so as to provide unemployment insurance for farm workers. I know that the failure of the government to do that has resulted in hardship to farmers in Canada. I have personal knowledge of a number of farmers who are unable to obtain labour for short periods, for which they are willing to pay industrial wages, because the men who might have accepted employment would not be building up unemployment insurance contributions. As a result, labour was simply not available for gathering fruit, making hay, and harvesting other crops, because, as I say, workers on farms are not covered by unemployment insurance. I would urge the minister to discuss this matter with his colleague the Minister of Labour.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has been done.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You have already discussed it? Well why in the world do you continue to hide your light under a bushel?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was always a very modest fellow.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that these discussions have been undertaken, and I hope that at least in the course of next session-I am not one of those who are advocating that too much legislation should come forward during this session from now on-the minister will introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to deal with the points I have raised. I am happy to know that we have had such a good influence on the minister.
In addition,-and I know this is primarily a matter for the provincial governments-I hope consideration will be given to making workmen's compensation available to farmers under better circumstances than now exist in most provinces at the present time.
An investment in rural life will, I am certain, pay dividends in national stability, in happiness for many people, and in cash for those concerned as well as for the governments who have control over the affairs of this country. I am a great supporter of rural life because I believe that for a nation to be strong, progressive and healthy and to continue to be democratic in every sense of the word we must have a strong, well organized
TMr. Herridge.]
rural population who are making their living on the land, not only because they love to do it but because the return provided is a fair share of the national income.
We have an excellent staff in the Department of Agriculture. I know that so far as British Columbia is concerned they have excellent people there. I have met a good many of these chaps at different times and they would be only too willing to feel that they were taking part in a well-designed, well-planned national policy with a particular purpose in mind, as a result of co-operation between the federal government, provincial governments, farmers' organizations and the farmers themselves.
Every one in the chain of responsibility should accept some responsibility in support of a national plan. As far as this group is concerned it is the only road we should travel in the future if we are going to achieve the success that is necessary. These things are required to ensure the continued operation, preservation and development of this very vital sector of our economy, the Canadian family farm.


Mr. Milligan:: Mr. Chairman, I feel I would not be performing my duty at this time if I did not make a few remarks concerning agriculture. The subject of agriculture has always been very close to my heart. I am the third generation in my family to follow agriculture and I have three sons engaged in it at the present time.
I have been connected with farm organizations for about 15 years and as a result of this experience I have learned something of the problems that affect agriculture in every province in Canada including Ontario. We have heard a considerable amount of discussion about agriculture and particularly about western agriculture but not too much has been said about the industry in the east.
I listened with much interest and a certain amount of pleasure to the Minister of Agriculture when he made his remarks on Friday, July 11, 1958. At that time I was prompted to ask myself if agriculture is in the rosy haze of prosperity about which we have heard so much or, on the other hand, if there are some very important aspects of agriculture in a critical position to which we are attempting to blind ourselves and make ourselves believe they do not exist. I should like to explain what I mean by these statements and perhaps I can best do so by asking this question. Are we, as members of parliament, satisfied with the over-all picture of agriculture today? We must remember that agriculture is the oldest industry in

the world. It is the life blood of this generation and of generations still unborn. It is the foundation upon which we have built up this land of ours.
I quite agree with the statement made by the minister when he said the total income of agriculture is much higher than it was a year ago. It is gratifying and a source of some satisfaction to know that this has occurred under the able leadership of the present minister but obviously it could have a detrimental effect on all agriculture if we do not explain to the consuming public the exact position in which agriculture finds itself. Most people scorn the thought of any assistance being given to agriculture. When we talk about increased protection from imports the consumer feels that agriculture is already in a prosperous condition and not in need of further consideration. I believe it is the responsibility of those who are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood to present a true picture of the industry and the position in which we find it.
When discussing the position of the farmer and his wife and family with an intelligent consumer a few days ago I was informed by him that there was plenty of money on the farm and that farming was a secure position. The consumer suggested that if the farmer did not like his position in agriculture he should get out of it and take up something else. I believe that is the feeling of a great many people who are not engaged in the agricultural industry. Those engaged in the industry must remember that they represent only a small percentage of the total population, about 12 per cent at the present time. There are, therefore, eight people looking for cheap food as compared with one who is trying to secure a fair return for his labour in this field of endeavour.
We have heard a great deal about the wheat situation and I can assure you that wheat is an important part of Canada's agricultural industry but there are other sections of the industry which are equally important. As long as we have a surplus of western grains we are going to have trouble in agriculture. We want to make it prosperous for the wheat farmer to be able to sell his wheat and continue selling wheat. Just as soon as it becomes unprofitable for him to do that he will engage in some other line of production such as livestock in which we have a surplus at the present time.
I fully agree with the following statement of the Saskatchewan wheat pool taken from one of its publications:
Other exporters, such as the United States and France, directly subsidize their exports of wheat and flour. More recently the United States has
Supply-Agriculture
offered a variety of inducements such as long term credits, barter deals and give-aways to Induce importers to buy their wheat.
The combination of import restrictions and export subsidies which are now almost universal in the wheat trade force the Canadian farmer into competition with foreign governments. So far, the Canadian farmer has met this competition virtually unaided. In requesting deficiency payments he is asking the government of Canada to help bear part of this burden of unfair competition.
At the present time the wheat farmer should be given some sort of support in selling his wheat at a profit to enable him to remain in the business of growing and selling wheat regardless of how this is done. I feel that every one from eastern Canada should be concerned about the situation and offer the western farmer every support.
The September 1957 issue of The Rural Scene published by John Atkins Publishing Company Limited in Midland, Ontario, contains an interesting article, a portion of which I wish to place on the record:
We believe that Mr. Diefenbaker is actuated by a sincere desire to give Canada good government, and by an equally sincere desire to preserve Canadian agriculture as a self-dependent, self-respecting industry.
We believe that, if he discovers that some of his pre-election promises were hastily made and without a clear realization of all they implied, and if a closer study of the problems convinces him that some of his promised remedies are likely to do more harm than good, he will not hesitate to do what is in the best interests of the country and of the farming industry, rather than what is closest to the letter of his promises.
In this he should have the full support of all parties in the house.
I am sure there are not many hon. members who feel that agriculture has been promised too much. Another article in the same issue bears the title "The Market Price is Starting Point" and reads in part as follows:
Minister of Agriculture Harkness is said to be studying the question of a fair price-cost relationship for farm products.
In such a study the first thing to determine is what would be a fair price for any product.
The answer to this question can be found in the decision of Mr. Justice W. J. Schwenger last December in a dairy arbitration case. The item reads:-
"The gross value of 100 pounds of milk is not its cost of production under normal conditions, but what it will bring on the available market. The net worth of 100 pounds of milk must be this gross return less all expenses of shipping and processing."
If that applies to agriculture, why should it not apply to every industry? How many industries today throw their products on the market at whatever prices they will bring? Agriculture should be in a position no different from that of any other industry. The farmer must have his cost of production plus a reasonable rate of return on his investment. It is this kind of thing that is poisoning the

Supply-Agriculture
consuming public against the thought of giving any consideration to agriculture. I continue reading from the same article:
No article of commerce has any value other than what it will bring on the market. The government's duty is to see that nothing interferes with the free functioning of the market, for the judgment of the market is the judgment of all interested parties.
In the same issue of this publication under the heading "Time to Define Farm Prosperity" we find this significant statement:
The question arises: If the Canadian taxpayers have to furnish 75 per cent of the capital the farmers need, and also have to give the farmer-controlled marketing hoards monopolies in the Canadian market, and, on top of that, if they have to pay higher taxes to support farm prices at levels satisfactory to the farmers, of what benefit would the agricultural industry be to the country? It would be a mendicant industry, living on what it could get out of the government and not on the value of its service to the people.
By no stretch of the imagination could it be called a truly prosperous, self-supporting, self-respecting industry.
I am sure no one in the agricultural industry is looking for a handout or for any support that is not due to him. These statements should be corrected so that the consuming public will know the conditions we are facing at the present time. I have another quotation that I should like to put on the record:
We have all heard of the recently discovered Parkinson's law, which says that, in the government service, work will always be stretched out to occupy all the time available for its completion.
The same law seems to apply to costs when the government is paying them.
The article goes on to say that agriculture is a high-cost producing industry, unable to compete in the free market without help from the government. I continue:
More and more our farmers are looking to the governments to solve their problems for them. More and more they are depending on their political influence and less on their farming abilities.
I do not think there are many farmers who try to drag out the cost of production so that they will have more grounds on which to apply for assistance from the government.
I would like to say a word about the stabilization bill that was brought in last year. It is one of the things that we should be proud of. I think it is the answer to our agricultural problem but there have to be amendments made to it from time to time. We have adopted some support prices. In some instances some of us think they are not high enough; others think they are too high. However, it is a step in the right direction, and if it is carefully handled it can prove to be of great assistance to agriculture.
We have heard a great deal about inefficiency. To me it has got to be a poor excuse for not giving consideration to agriculture.

Most of our farmers are efficient. I feel that there are many other industries that have not proved as efficient as agriculture. It is true that we have the odd farmer who is not so efficient, but by and large our farmers are certainly producing as much as and probably more than anyone in any other industry.
I did say something about wheat, but we must consider that world wheat trade is down. It has been dropping year by year not because of the fact that we have not been getting markets but because other things are affecting us along this line. According to the IFAP News one of the reasons for:
-reduced wheat imports needs in many countries, especially western Europe; reduced export supplies in several countries including-
Many of the larger producing countries have give-away and barter programs that are being conducted throughout the world. We have assisted through the Colombo plan a number of those countries which were importing our wheat a few years ago. Through better agricultural programs, tile draining, draining of land, insecticides and many other things, they have increased the yield of food in those countries many, many times. It is good that we have done that, but in doing that we have reduced some of our wheat exports. Again, the consumption of wheat, or of the products of wheat, has undergone a change. The eating habits of people throughout Canada today have changed. They are not eating as many products made from wheat flour. Therefore, a change should be made in the program but we must be careful that we do not bring it on too quickly and upset our whole agricultural program.
I would like to say a word about the beef industry with which I have been connected very closely for a number of years. It is quite true that we are getting a fair price for our beef cattle today but there should be a word of caution to those people who are thinking of getting into the beef industry. As long as we can export our surplus beef to the United States, as long as there is a demand for it, we are going to have a fair beef price; but just as soon as they get enough of our cattle the price will fall back to where it was before. Most of us realize that the United States would not be importing quite as much as they are importing at the present time if it were not for the drought conditions they have experienced in certain areas. Because of that their cattle population has been dwindling and therefore they want our cattle. But I would caution a number of people who are thinking of getting out of the dairy industry and into the beef industry. They might find that it will not be so profitable in a few years time.

I wish to say something about our hog production and our hog industry. We have been favoured with a good price for pork in the last year. I hope it will continue, but I am very doubtful whether we are not going to get into over-production. One of the greatest difficulties that we have in the agricultural and livestock industry at the present time, and that includes the hog industry, is the vertical integration and the contract feeding. We have quite a trend toward it in the province of Ontario and if something is not done to correct it we are going to put most of the small farmers out of existence. According to the pamphlet on hogs which I hold in my hand, in the United States 60,000 farmers with 100 sows, each farrowing twice a year, could produce 96 million hogs and the total consumption there is around 89 million hogs. In Canada we are consuming about 6 million hogs in a year. About 375,000 sows, averaging eight pigs twice a year, could produce all the pork that we need in Canada or about 3750 farmers would supply all the needs we have for pork products.
We had a vote in Ontario last Friday. There are 78,000 registered voters in Ontario alone. When we talk about setting up support prices I wonder who we are going to support. We talk about the cost of production. Nobody knows the cost of production. Most of us who have been engaged in agriculture for a number of years do not need too many economists to tell us what it costs to produce a hog, or the cost of production of most of the products on our farms; but if we are to set up a support price that will be an incentive to the large producers or to the feed dealers or the man who is setting up a hog farm, who can buy his grain at wholesale prices, who can buy his concentrates at wholesale prices, he will not care whether he makes too much on a hog. If he makes a dollar apiece and produces 5,000 hogs he will have $5,000; whereas the average small producer who produces a hundred hogs at a dollar apiece will receive only $100. I have heard something along that line. I know one producer in my own area who is building today and setting up a contract for 10,000 hogs a year with one of the large packers who will supply the feed. This is something that we must take a look at and not wait until the industry is in trouble before we correct this situation.
I would like to say a word about the dairy industry which is very important in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. We are very proud that we have a stabilization board. We have a support price under butter and cheese. Sometimes we have found that the support price becomes the ceiling. I have had numerous complaints and requests from
Supply-Agriculture
the cheese producers this year when they were in trouble. The Ontario cheese producers association was able to get a licence to buy cheese and in the past few weeks they have been stepping on the market and buying cheese. At the present time they have been able to raise the price to 35 cents, which is only a cent above last year. If they had not been able to do that the result would have been that the cheese price would have been one cent below last year.
The minister has suggested that they reduce the price of powdered milk from 17 cents to 15 cents. Seventeen cents was the price arrived at last year as the cost of a pound of powder and it seems to me that with the cost of production going up the price should have remained at that figure. I do not think many industries would have accepted a reduction, and with the experience I have had in agriculture I quite agree with the statement made by Lord Boyd Orr, a former FAO director general, when he said that it is difficult to prevent surpluses by reducing prices because the farmer with capital increases his output to compensate for the reduced price in an attempt to maintain his income. I quite agree with that statement because when I was farming in the thirties I know that to meet my expenses and taxes I had to produce a little bit more when we were producing at a very low figure. In those years I produced hogs for $3.25. I think we have got to adopt some policy that will give a fair return to agriculture. We can control our surplus position by other means than reducing prices.
In the dairy industry you have a complicated set-up because you have the whole milk producer enjoying prices that range from $4.90 to $5.60 a hundred and on the next farm you have a farmer producing milk for cheese for $2.40 or a farmer producing milk for butter at about the same figure. I hope we can find some way of putting a guaranteed price under all manufactured milk. Maybe that will bring us closer to the pooling of all milk so that everyone in the dairy industry can get a fair return. There are a lot of people in the whole milk business who would not like that. However, I am a whole milk producer myself and I am quite convinced that if we had that type of program the farmers in the whole milk industry today would be getting more money because they would not have the extra surpluses they are dumping into some other product causing other surpluses and their over-all picture would be much better than it is at the present time.
I want to say something about the fruit and vegetable growers because a number of people in my riding are involved. We had

Supply-Agriculture
a problem there a few weeks ago in connection with the dumping of raspberries on our market. There are a number of canning factories in my area which were canning raspberries. They had negotiated a price of 28 cents with the producers. I have a telegram I received from these people about a week ago which reads as follows:
-processor gave marketing board till 12 noon today at Brighton to decide to take 22 cents a quart which is below cost of production or they would import balance of pack. This means a reduction of 13 cents from last year.
They were going to import from New York state. The marketing board, rather than lose the opportunity of disposing of the berries, reduced the price to 22 cents. That is not going to result in jam or berries being a cent cheaper to the consumer. The price was negotiated at 28 cents and it is on that basis that the retail price will probably be decided. On the other hand, we cannot blame the processor too much because we allow canned goods to come in from the United States and he has to compete with them. Therefore, in order to compete he must secure his pack as cheaply as he can.
In my riding we have seven canning factories in Prince Edward county that are closed. Many people will say they are closed because they were inefficient. That is not the case. These factories were efficient. When they were Canadian Canners' factories they were efficient but when they were bought by California Packers they were immediately closed and the farmers lost their contracts. Each one of these factories had a payroll of some $200,000. That is gone and these people have nothing else to turn to. I understand that today Canadian Canners are operating two factories east of Toronto and two factories west of Toronto. They are importing whatever they need from California Packers and most of our stores today have the Del Monte brand of canned goods on their shelves. These are some of the things we must try to guard against.
Under the former government we lost many privileges because of the fact that concessions were given to other industries at the expense of agriculture and it is the former government that is responsible for the conditions we have today. It is very difficult for the present government to correct the situation in a short time. At the same time the opposition criticizes higher protection. I think it is up to all of us, whether on the government or opposition side of the house, to take a look at this picture.
It is not a small group that we are trying to protect but part of our agricultural industry. It has increased in size considerably

in the last two years. The increased consumption of canned fruits and vegetables in Canada has not resulted in benefits to the producer in this country. The benefit of increased consumption has gone to United States canners who have been able to dump their product in this country.
I discussed this matter some time ago with Mr. West, the assistant United States agricultural attache. We discussed ways and means of correcting the situation and I quite agree that we should sit down with these people and discuss the situation. It is not a case of increasing our tariffs to the extent that we will restrict trade but I think we should sit down with the United States processors and producers and negotiate ways and means of correcting this situation. I understand that the processors over there will have a surplus and some jobber will come along, buy a job lot and then, because the door is wide open, dump it into Canada and make a large profit. That kind of thing is hurting us considerably.
I can remember very well sitting down last year with a delegation in the United States and discussing some of the problems affecting our trade. I think the discussion went a long way in helping to understand the situation. Mr. West mentioned this when I was talking to him not very long ago. That is one suggestion I should like to offer that might help to improve the situation.
A lot of people are criticizing subsidizing everything, but when we take a look at what is happening in every country in the world with which we have to compete we see that the picture is quite different. I have here the newsletter published by the dairy farmers of Canada in which there is reference to the United Kingdom price of butter. Butter in Great Britain is the cheapest it has been in some 30 years and the price of butter in Britain is seriously affecting the New Zealand producer. Why is it affecting the New Zealand producer? The New Zealand producer is affected because Finland is putting her butter into Britain at a much lower price than before. The price of butter in Britain was 32 cents a year ago and now it is down to 23 cents. I should like to read hon. members an extract about the high dairy and poultry export subsidies in Finland.
USDA Foreign Crops and Markets reports that export subsidies paid by the Finnish government for dairy and poultry products-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to offer with regard to agricultural research. If I am not mistaken, the Department of Agriculture has a division with two research services included. The science service is concerned with purely scientific research, where specialists carry out, for instance, research in entomology, to prevent destruction of crops by insects, or on weeds, so as to improve the quality of crops, etc. The experimental farm services is concerned with research in more directly agricultural matters, experts in these fields carrying out research, at experimental farms, on improved methods of production of certain commodities, for instance on the most economical way of producing eggs or milk, soil specialization, etc.
If I understand correctly the annual cost of these two services is $10,000,000 in each case, which is $20,000,000 in all.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) a very important point. I feel that if we are to improve the efficiency of agriculture in this country, in the west as well as in the eastern and central parts of this country, we should at once adjust our research procedure. Let us set up a new co-ordination of existing services and give a new, bold and forward looking impulse to these research services, so as to develop ways to increase the income of the farmer who is now caught in the cost-price squeeze.
I will now proceed to put a few suggestions forward for the benefit of the Minister of Agriculture. These suggestions appear to have a great deal of interest for agriculture in general. However, before doing so, I would like to pay tribute to the former minister of agriculture in the preceding government who has, during his term of office, put into the hands of the farmers of this country production facilities which are without parallel anywhere else in the world.
When we were in power, we had, first of all, to look after the production problems, but we have also established a research system. And I note today that, since the Conservatives have been in power, no improvement has been made to that research system which was an initiative of the Liberal government.
Today, the selling at a loss of our farm products on the world markets is perhaps the most serious problem in Canada. The time
Supply-Agriculture
has come, I believe, to consider the situation realistically. We should not hesitate a moment to spend millions of dollars more to find, by means of all known scientific methods, the various uses to which our farm products could be put, in addition to ordinary consumption, local and foreign.
Only scientific research applied to our agricultural products under new forms, could, in my opinion, considerably contribute to increase our agricultural production. The day is coming, and very rapidly-and I believe we should hasten the coming of that day- where industry will become the greatest consumer of our agricultural products.
Thanks to scientific research, Mr. Chairman, there is no limit to our hopes. However, when we consider our achievements in this field, compared to what is being done in some foreign countries where production is similar to ours, we have to admit that we are lagging behind. It is interesting to consider what the United States are achieving in this field.
I should like here to quote an extract from the Manitoba Co-Operator of November 21, 1957. It is from an editorial entitled:
(Text):



AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
Some months ago the United States Department of Agriculture announced its decision to increase its agricultural research budget to $50 million, an announcement welcomed by agriculture and industry alike, but one greeted in some quarters by criticism that the amount was too small and nearly twenty years too late.
The article proceeds further, talks about larger crops and surpluses and then continues as follows:
These mounting surpluses in both Canada and the United States point to the very great need for increased research, to find new uses for farm products. As one United States research worker points out "Science has given agriculture an almost limitless productive capacity, and therewith one of its biggest problems-control or utilization of surplus production. At the same time, it is on its way to solving that problem by finding not only new uses for agriculture products, but new farm crops that will be used only in industry".
Progress reported.

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the government leader what the business is for Friday and Saturday? Also, could he project his mind forward to Monday as well?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with the Department of Agriculture estimates. When they have been passed, we shall take

Business of the House
the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs and of the Department of Justice. This procedure will apply for Saturday as well.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will not be here on Saturday.


Lionel Chevrier: You are not very hopeful.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not a matter of not being hopeful.


Howard Charles Green: On Monday we intend to move to go into supply. That will be the sixth and final supply motion. Earlier on Monday we plan to move that, commencing on Monday, August 11, the house will sit at 11 a.m. instead of at 2.30 p.m. on each day of the week
and that Mondays, commencing with that day, will be devoted to government business.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the government be giving any consideration, within the next two days, to the bill which was sent today to the veterans affairs committee, namely the one having to do with the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act? I understood that was coming back tomorrow or Saturday.


Howard Charles Green: There will be three bills dealing with veterans affairs. I expect they will all be taken on the same day but I am not yet in a position to say what day that will be.


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

Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	r.c.a.f. crash, juniper, n.b., 1939
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Carter: 1.	With respect to families of the following ranks: brigadier, lieutenant colonel, sergeant, private (a) with wife and three children; (b) with wife and five children, what is the net reduction in family income, during a four year tour of service outside Canada due to loss of family allowance after adjustment for any tax saving?
2.	What is the average reduction in family income in each case?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	Under the Family Allowances Act, administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare, family allowances are not payable to children residing outside of Canada. The loss of income would depend on the age of the children and the total income, including any income from sources other than employment in the forces. It is not possible, therefore, to provide a specific answer with respect to loss of income for each of the cases listed.
2.	Foreign allowances and living allowances paid to servicemen overseas would in the majority of cases exceed any reduction in family income due to discontinuance of family allowances while the children reside outside of Canada.

Question No. 165-Mr. Bell (Saint John-
Albert):
1.	Has an official investigation been conducted into the recently discovered wreckage of a small Royal Canadian Air Force aircraft near Juniper, New Brunswick, believed crashed on September 14, 1939, an a flight from Megantic, Quebec, to Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what is the official report of this investigation?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	Yes.
2.	Following a report of the sighting of a wrecked aircraft on July 9, 1958, an investigation was conducted by personnel of the R.C.M.P. and the R.C.M.P. It was established that the wreckage was Northrop Delta aircraft 673 which apparenty crashed on September 14, 1939, 40 miles from Fredericton, N.B.
Investigating officers have conducted a thorough ground search of the surrounding area and they have located a number of items which indicate that the crew, WOI Doan and Cpl. Rennie perished with the aircraft.
It is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by a further technical investigation into the cause of this accident because of the long interval, the condition of the wreckage and the lack of information on the flight.



Friday, August 1, 1958



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) presented the seventh report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Sixth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.
Fourth report of standing committee on mines, forests and waters.-Mr. Murphy.