1958-08-01

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as action is required to complete the confederation agreement, can the Prime Minister advise the house if the government proposes, at an early date, to implement the report of the royal commission on the terms of union with Newfoundland?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The report in question is being given very careful examination and study at the present time. Just as soon as the government is in a position to report the house will be advised.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister give the house any idea when he expects the interim report of the Borden commission to be presented to the government dealing with petroleum and natural gas?


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have no definite information in this regard. As I stated the other day, the Borden commission adjourned with a view to giving consideration to and making an interim report. However, I will communicate with the chairman at once with a view to ascertaining the approximate date when that interim report will be ready.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question coupled with a suggestion.
57071-3-185
There is every possibility, we are led to believe, that an interim report might be made available on natural gas in advance of the report on the marketing of petroleum products. Perhaps that suggestion could be contained in the request as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the hon. gentleman will be brought to the attention of the chairman of the commission.
(Translation):



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton).
Does the Minister of Justice intend to proceed against the companies found guilty of price fixing in respect of pulpwood, as indicated in the report of the commission on restrictive trade practices with regard to the purchase of pulpwood bought from farmers or settlers in certain areas of eastern Canada?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. In answer I will state that this case has already been referred to Quebec lawyers who have been instructed to institute legal proceedings unless, in preparing the case, they should arrive at the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient.
(Text):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General issued a directive asking post office employees to report on their part-time work in outside jobs, and do postal employees wishing to engage in outside part-time work have to first obtain permission to do so from the postmaster or any other official of the Post Office Department?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. No such directive has been issued by this Postmaster General. However, in 1951 such a directive was issued under the authority of the deputy postmaster general, and it was repeated in 1956 by one of the senior officials of the department. In each case it referred specifically to staff offices, that is those where the entire staff comes under the control of the civil service commission. The directive was not sent to the semi-staff or revenue offices which are smaller in size.



FABRE STATION, QUE.  PROTEST RESPECTING CLOSING OF POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General tell the house if he has received a petition signed by the majority of residents of Fabre Station protesting against the closing of the post office, which had been in existence for 33 years?


William McLean Hamilton: I will be glad to look into the matter and give the hon. member an answer next week.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a Canadian Press dispatch from Victoria dated yesterday to the effect that Premier Bennett proposed a meeting of himself, the Prime Minister of Canada and President Eisenhower to speed development of the Columbia river? While the procedure indicated by Premier Bennett appears somewhat irregular and unusual, would the Prime Minister care to comment on Premier Bennett's proposal for a North American summit meeting to deal with the problem of downstream benefits related to the development of the water resources of the Columbia valley, in order to arrive at the plateau of mutual understanding?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I will give a more serious answer to this question than the wording would suggest I should. In so far as our relations with other countries are concerned, those relations are conducted as between the Department of External Affairs or other departments of government and the
(Mr. Argue.]
government of the other country. Any representations that the premier of British Columbia has to offer will, of course, receive the fullest consideration, as we desire at all times to co-operate fully with any province directly affected in respect of any matter that comes under the responsibility of the national government. Further than that I cannot go at this time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my
absence the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska asked whether or not I had given an assurance to the municipality of Sherbrooke that an underpass would be built. When the mayor and members of the council of Sherbrooke were here they did not see me; they had an interview with the chairman of the board of transport commissioners about this matter, and I understand from the board that everything possible will be done to work out a mutually satisfactory solution to this problem.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester asked the following question: What action ha- been taken by the government following the recent request of the Halifax board of trade, . . . 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?
All possible methods of dealing with the situation were considered at great length by both the management of the company and by the government before the decision to dispose of the ships was reached. In the circumstances I do not believe there is anything I can usefully add to what has been stated previously on this matter.



SUGGESTED TRANSFER TO FEDERATION OF WEST INDIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister if the government has given any consideration to the suggestion put

forward on the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and on another occasion in the house that Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships might be transferred under some lend-lease arrangement to the Federation of the West Indies?


John George Diefenbaker: No consideration has been given to that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Papineau asked me the following question:
-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?
I have not been able to find any record of a decision by the previous administration to build a third bridge over the St. Lawrence river in the east end of Montreal. Various representations relating to this subject have been received from time to time and the matter, of course, will be kept under review.



WELLAND CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon member for Welland asked me the following question:
Is it the intention of this government to make any contribution toward the cost of the proposed three overhead bridges to be built by the Ontario government over the Welland ship canal at Homer, at Welland and at Port Colborne, as reported in today's Toronto Globe and Mail? Also, are tolls to be charged on those bridges?
I have no knowledge of plans for the construction of the three bridges concerned over the Welland ship canal by the Ontario government, other than the announcement on this subject which was contained in the daily press recently. I am not, therefore, in a position to give the hon. member any further information in this regard.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF WITHDRAWAL OF SPECIAL PERMITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the 57071-3-185J
Inquiries of the Ministry minister contemplating any early announcement with respect to withdrawal of special permits from NAFEL?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I arrived a minute late. May I have permission to revert to motions in order to make this announcement?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister permission to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada the statutes relating to the marketing of Newfoundland salt fish were to remain in effect for a period of five years from the date of union. Under this arrangement the exclusive right to market salt fish, including export to the mainland, was given to the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited. This was continued without change for five years.
In the spring of 1954 an extension of three years was granted to the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited, with the modification that export permits for wet salted fish were to be issued freely for movement to the Canadian mainland and the continental United States. This arrangement was extended on a temporary basis.
The exclusive right to export the products of a single province has no counterpart in the administration of the fisheries of any other province. However, it has been recognized by the government of Canada that a suitable period of time was desirable in which to effect a transfer to the normal practice of marketing. As nine years have now elapsed since union, one more year is considered ample for the completion of the transition. Therefore, the government has decided that the exclusive right of export held by the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited shall terminate on July 31, 1959.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can ask the minister-I recognize there was no constitutional obligation-if in fact there was any consultation with the government of Newfoundland before this step was decided upon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I had a very useful conversation with the minister of fisheries of the province of Newfoundland some time ago.

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



REFERENCE TO SALE OF &quot;QUEEN OF THE NORTH&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which notice has been given to him. In view of the fact that the C.P.R. has sold its ship, Queen of the North, will the minister indicate what is the position of the C.P.R. and of Northland Navigation Limited, the purchaser of the ship, with respect to the subvention which originally was being paid to the C.P.R. for certain up-coast runs?


George Harris Hees: Although the hon. member says he sent me notice, unfortunately it has not reached me yet. Consequently I will look into the matter and give an answer on Monday.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked three questions with regard to Hungarian refugees. I took the questions as notice in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and said I would bring them to her attention for an early reply. I should explain that the minister is away today as the minister of the federal government in attendance on Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret, and in view of her continued absence I should perhaps give the answer now.
The first question related to the number of Hungarian refugees coming over to Canada this year, and I can advise the hon. gentleman that 1,100 is the correct figure. The second question asked for the number of Hungarian refugees in Canada seeking employment who are still unemployed and being cared for by the department, and also how many of those who came here have returned.
The answer is that according to the records of the immigration branch, on July 25, 1958, there were 151 Hungarian refugee workers unemployed and on the same date the branch was providing subsistence to 500 Hungarian refugees. The 500 figure includes the 151 workers already mentioned. In answer to the last part of the question, 449 Hungarian refugees are known to the department as having left Canada.
(Mr. Churchill.]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached by the government with regard to the recognition of the government of Iraq?


Hon. Sidney E. Smiih (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement later in the day with respect to that matter.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the other day I directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries with respect to Japan's fishing boundaries in the Pacific. I wonder whether the minister has had a chance since that time to inquire as to the authenticity of the report and whether what is indicated therein has in fact happened?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: There has been no change in the tripartite agreement among Japan, the United States and Canada with regard to the north Pacific fisheries. However, we are aware of the fact that the industry in Japan have apparently undertaken to place further restrictions on their own activities, greater restrictions than required by the convention. We presume this is on a temporary basis.

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


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Translation):
Mr. Deschatelets:: When I adjourned the debate yesterday evening, I had mentioned the fact that we do not give our agricultural research services the leadership and scope we

should. I had also pointed out that in 1957 the United States had spent $50,000,000 on such services, an amount which has been found inadequate by several American commentators who have dealt with the matter.
Some time ago I read that no European country had done more than France, since the end of the last war, to apply specialization and scientific methods to the various aspects of its agriculture. We are told that the remarkable economic recovery of Europe has an intimate relationship with that research work.
Over the last few years, northern European countries not only have considerably increased their areas under wheat, barley or oats, but have found new consumer uses for their agricultural surpluses.
Those are the reasons for our surplus problems, and I suggest that, unless immediate development facilities are made available to our research services, a few years hence we will be unable to dispose of our surpluses.
When from time to time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) tells us that Canada has sold or has given large quantities of our farm surpluses to underdeveloped countries, either on the basis of a long term loan or as a grant under the Colombo plan, we welcome the news. But, there again, it provides merely temporary relief to our difficulties.
In Pakistan and in India I had the opportunity to inspect huge dams which, in 10, 15 or 20 years, through irrigation of lands which are now marginal, will yield a large crop of grains, and it could be that, by that time, those countries will give us stiff competition on the world markets.
Therefore, through scientific research, we should find new uses for our farm products. Science is now finding the answer to the problem of the use of farm surpluses. Let us follow suit in this field. We already have a first-rate research bureau, and it is up to us to give it the necessary leadership.
Accordingly, we on this side of the house, feel that the government should immediately implement a vigorous program of scientific research, and if we were in power today, we would set up, starting this very year, a large scale research organization.
We also believe that our government experts and specialists should have much more frequent contacts and exchanges with
Supply-Agriculture
their counterparts abroad, so that the latest methods available be applied without delay.
We also believe that on a strictly federal-provincial basis, conferences should be frequently called with experts and specialists from the provincial governments so that all the provinces could have access to recent information and use it.
I do my best to keep abreast of problems which our farmers and producers have to face. I think our approach to those problems should be altogether different. Canadian agriculture should be reformed from top to bottom.
The Liberal party is a party of reform. At present, all it can do is to point out the facts to the government and make some suggestions as to policy. But the day will come when we shall put before the farmers and rural producers of our country a bold, original, new and revolutionary program of farm reform, and our friends from the western provinces certainly shall return to us much sooner than hon. gentlemen opposite think they will, and no doubt in far greater strength than they imagine.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I shall mention that I read with great interest the long list of election promises made by the Minister of Agriculture throughout the country during his last campaign. He has about promised everything, except that he ignored the most important field, that of research. This is an indication that he doesn't appreciate its real significance.
In any case we called his attention to this field, and during the next session, we shall not forget to ask about the progress, if any, made in this field.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, as they see me rise this morning, a number of hon. members may think I will bother to answer the speech delivered by the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). Let them have no worry on this account. I will certainly not give any publicity to a speech which is hardly worth it.
I am happy to have the opportunity of taking part in a debate on the work done by the Department of Agriculture.
In talking of Canadian agriculture, I know only too well that I shall be speaking of that sector of our population which constitutes the main element of stability in our economy, which offers the best talents that a nation can be endowed with, and whose right-minded philosophy and understanding

Supply-Agriculture
of things have always shown that it remains the country's main strength.
I have carefully read the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture when his estimates were brought down. With all due deference,
I must say that I was not greatly impressed by the minister's eloquence. And I believe that my impression is shared by the overwhelming majority of Canadian farmers who have read this speech.
As indicated on page 2074 of Hansard, this is what the minister said:
The farm situation has improved steadily in late 1957 and 1958, to a considerable extent I think since this government came into office and instituted new policies in connection with agriculture.
On the following page, the minister returned to the attack, in the following terms:
As I have said, I think a great deal of the improvement has been as the result of policies followed by this government, including the introduction of the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
The minister thinks highly of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I would like to have the time to show in detail that, up to now, the application of this act is far from having provided the farmers with the great advantages which the minister boasts of; but I shall touch briefly on this during my remarks. For the moment I will simply say that for all the minister's bragging, the few minor successes which he has achieved are due, in the overwhelming majority of cases, to the implementation of acts passed by the Liberal government, and to the fulfilment of the program which the Liberals launched when they were in office.
Mr. Chairman, in speaking of Canadian agriculture, some facts must be analysed if one is to grasp the complexity of the country's agricultural problems.
Thus, out of 623,000 farms in Canada, we find that the average area of farms in Newfoundland, in 1951, was 23 acres, whereas it was 527 acres in Alberta, and 550 in Saskatchewan.
Then there is the problem of our farms on the southern and south-eastern coasts of Nova Scotia, of Cape Breton, and of the centre and the northeast of New Brunswick, as well as the farms of the Gaspe district and northern Quebec and Ontario, which provide a meagre livelihood for their owners.
There is a world of difference between many of these farmers who sell $500 worth of produce and who have to eke out a living by taking on outside work and the farmers on the outskirts of large cities where milk is sold at $4 per cwt., or the western farmers who own a half section or a full section of land.
The same difference exists between the young farmer-even if he has obtained a farm loan-who starts off in northern Quebec and Ontario and the one who has a flock of
100,000	to 200,000 fowl and who is near thickly populated centres which offer a ready market for his produce.
The farmers do, however, still have one thing in common. That is the interest they have in the income they obtain from their work, and their attitude of looking upon their work as a professional calling rather than a way of life.
With the ever increasing commercialization of agriculture, a whole array of problems arise which affect both domestic and foreign markets.
Several factors bring their influence to bear on the domestic markets, and the prices of agricultural products depend on such factors as the weather, diseases of plants and livestock, outbreaks of contagious diseases and other factors, resulting in unpredictable fluctuations in the rythm of production and the prices of some foodstuffs.
While these factors are not the only ones which affect the income of farmers, the fact remains that, unlike his counterpart in industry, the farmer does not have a steady income year in and year out.
The impact of foreign markets is another factor which has a great deal of influence upon stability in agriculture and the country's economy as a whole. Actually, Canada exports a wide range of agricultural products, including cereals, potatoes, grass seeds, tobacco, apples and livestock products consisting almost exclusively of beef, pork, bacon and cheese. Of all the products, the most important is wheat. For quite some time, Canada has been exporting 60 per cent of her overall production, i.e. 300 million bushels annually.
It is easy to understand the difficult position in which a country finds itself, in the face of ever increasing competition from other countries which want to corner the world market

sometimes in a way which seems to us like hitting below the belt.
But these are not the matters I intend to deal with today, my aim is rather to deal with the agricultural program which we shall have to work out to meet the ever-growing need for food products.
These needs are unequivocally illustrated in the report on an inquiry into the progress and the prospect of agriculture in Canada.

This shows that in the future, the available individual income will have risen by an average of approximately 18 per cent by 1965, and 70 per cent by 1980. This increased buying power will be accompanied by a population increase resulting from the birth rate and controlled immigration. We see from the report that the index of the volume of over-all production should rise to 232, based on an index of 100 for the period 1935-39. The most significant increase will be in production of livestock and livestock products, which will reach an index of 265. How will the country meet the need?
Assuming that the increase in the acreage of cultivated land will be offset by the transfer of land from agricultural use to industrial and housing uses, the area will not rise in proportion with the increase in the demand for foodstuffs. The Gordon report forecasts that, by 1980, the cultivated area will be 176 million acres compared with 174 million obtaining today. From this we must conclude that these needs will be met mainly by a more rational use of land and by the adoption of a progressive agricultural policy, worked out and carried out to encourage our farmers and enable them to draw the same benefits from our country's wealth as people in other callings.
Mr. Chairman, there are several ways of increasing soil productivity, and I do not wish to dwell upon the technical details of production and soil improvement. Usually, a well-balanced agricultural policy like the one we had during the 22 years of Liberal administration gives good results in that respect.
That does not mean that changes are not called for. Never did our legislation require amending more than it does today, and it is precisely because of that fact that the Liberal government, in 1955, appointed a commission to make an inquiry into the country's agricultural progress and prospects. The commission brought down its report in 1957, and its findings should be used as the basis for making the changes which are necessary. The Liberal party understood this, and that is why novel concepts for agriculture were outlined to Canadians during the last election campaign. As for the Conservative party, it made a few vague promises whose implementation seems conspicuous by its absence. Just because the government enacted their Price Stabilization Act, they think they have found the solution to all the problems of agriculture. Although this act does not usher in any improvement
Supply-Agriculture
on the Price Support Act adopted by the Liberals, it was nonetheless as necessary as that act.
This act-a frequent subject of controversy during the last session-is still being widely criticized. It does not answer the need which gave rise to it. All you have to do to realize this is to look through the preamble, which reads as follows:
In order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income;-
This preamble looks fine on paper; but, for all practical purposes, what does it mean for the farmer. For many, it is a disappointment.
I have already informed the house of the meaning of this act for producers of milk intended for the manufacture of milk powder. I said then that the farmers got 10 cents less per cwt. of milk. I repeat at this time that in the province of Quebec farmers have been getting 10 cents less per cwt. since that legislation has been enacted. Moreover, manufacturers have lost $200,000 on the stocks they had on hand when the minister decided to lower the price. The price of milk in most Quebec areas as well as in the maritimes and in northern Ontario where milk powder is manufactured ranges from $2.75 to $2.80 per hundredweight. I may say that in the province of Quebec milk sells for $2.79 per cwt., whereas last year it was selling for $2.90.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Samuel Boulanger: Does the hon. member wish to put a question?


An hon. Member:: No, he is putting a question to himself.


Samuel Boulanger: Although this act was a temporary one when it was passed in 1945, it seems to achieve the aim of the Conservative government in agricultural matters.
An appropriate policy would be one based on full understanding of an economic principle not dissimilar from the one which applies in industry.
This principle, in agriculture, implies getting the most from a given acreage with a minimum of effort and expense.
The government must always strive to translate this principle into reality in formulating its agriculture legislation.

Supply-Agriculture
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue my remarks in English because I want to be sure the Minister of Agriculture will understand what I have to say about the program I wish to submit to the government.


Mr. Ricard:: He understands French also.


Samuel Boulanger: I wish to make some suggestions which I am convinced would improve the lot of farmers, especially those who are in the low income group, if only the government would consent to putting my proposals into practice. This program could be implemented in two stages, the first in the immediate future and the second as opportunities arise. In this way the implementation would be simply a matter of time.
The first suggestion I wish to make which could be implemented immediately concerns the necessity of increasing the income of farmers in the eastern provinces and in northern Ontario and Quebec. As we are aware, the farmers of those regions produce chiefly milk, potatoes, tobacco and other crops of lesser importance. I do not wish to be repetitious in referring to the level of income of farmers, so, I shall merely say that in 1950 out of the 623,000 Canadian farms, 387,000 were selling products worth $2,500 or less, the average being $984. I might add that 80 per cent of the farm products came from 236,000 farms and 20 per cent came from the remaining 387,000. Nobody can establish that some of the farmers of the areas I have mentioned are not included in those 387,000 farms.
It is an established fact that in the east we could appreciably increase the yield of the harvest by the rational use of chemical fertilizers. A number of experiments have been carried out by the experimental farms and by the universities. Here is what one of our great specialists said. Mr. S. Cha-gnon, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Agriculture, several months ago wrote the following comment:
Once again our farmers claim that the cost of fertilizers is too high. Yet the work carried out on the experimental farms has shown that every dollar's worth of chemical fertilizers applied to pastures brings in $3.00 to $5.00 worth in the form of milk production. Although we have invested on our farms non-productive capital at a lightning pace, we have neglected to invest productive capital such as chemical or commercial fertilizers. It is most important to turn to a more intensive use of chemical fertilizers.
Dr. Ernest Mercier, superintendent of the Lennoxville experimental farm, says for his part:

Every dollar invested in chemical fertilizers applied to pastures brings in $2.00 to $4.00 in the form of beef.
Chemical fertilizers are complementary to manure and are indispensable to the maintenance of mineral balance. Chemical fertilizers are the best capital investment that the farmer can make.
An experiment was made by the New York state experimental farm to compare the production cost of one ton of milk by herds receiving various feeds and the cost was seen to be as follows: $12.10 when the animals were on pasture; $17.05 when they were fed corn silage; $25.35 when they were fed locally produced grain, and $34 when they were fed grain imported from the west.
I hope I have given a sufficiently comprehensive account of the experiments which have been carried out to prove the necessity of using chemical fertilizers, and the Minister of Agriculture should study the possibility of increasing their use by all possible means. One method which was used with success in the province of Quebec at a time when the province had a minister of agriculture who was interested more in agriculture than in electoralism was to grant a subsidy on every ton of chemical fertilizers purchased, in order to improve pastures. Another method would be to grant a certain quantity of fertilizer to the farmers for every milk cow they had on their farms. The money which the implementation of such a program would cost would be negligible because the program would increase production and, indirectly, lower the production cost of milk.
We of the province of Quebec and of the entire eastern part of the country consider these requirements to be justified to compensate for the loss caused to milk producers by the Minister of Agriculture when he brought down the support price of powdered skim milk by 2 cents a pound.
Another suggestion I wish to make to the Minister of Agriculture is that a special board be entrusted with the administration and implementation of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I will not claim credit for this proposal, for it is set forth clearly in the report of the Gordon commission in the following terms:
This is an undertaking of such importance and delicacy that, in our opinion, it should be entrusted to a board of full-time members who would be relieved of other duties so that they could concentrate on anticipating the occurrence of emergency conditions and on determining the effects of particular prices on production and incomes.
In addition to recommending the level at which the prices of particular farm commodities might be supported from time to time, such a board might be left free to recommend also how this should be done. In general, two methods are available: the government can either purchase agricultural commodities when the prices fall below the stated support level, or it can allow farmers to dispose of their products at the prevailing market prices even though these may be below the support level.

and then make up the difference with deficiency payments. The latter procedure would avoid the difficulties in which the government would otherwise be involved in selling, storing, and disposing of surplus commodities. It would also have the advantage of letting the producer see the return that his products would bring him in a free market; and this knowledge might be expected to lead to a more realistic pattern of production. In our opinion, however, it is not possible to say that deficiency payments in all circumstances are to be preferred to direct price support; and an advisory judgment on this point, as well as on the level of support, might well be sought in each particular case from the board. Finally, we are convinced that neither the government nor the board in administering the price support program should be bound by any automatic formulae.
The prices stabilization board, which could be entrusted with finding new outlets for our products, would be able to perform much more valuable work than that done so far for the farmers by the adoption of the Agricultural Stabilization Act introduced in the house last January.
Since the Conservative government came to power, Mr. Chairman, the conditions of agriculture in general have been maintained due mainly to the commendable acts passed during the Liberal regime. In his speech on July 9 the minister stated that the improvement which has occurred arises out of the program adopted by the government, namely the adoption of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I have shown that this act has had some very paltry results; that it has even brought about a loss for the skim milk producer. As for agricultural products, the prices of which have been stabilized, the minister knows as well as I do about the discontent which exists among so many producers.
Therefore we are far from the realization of the promises which the Minister of Agriculture, anxious to obtain votes in the province of Quebec, dangled in front of the farmers in a statement to the annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Montreal, reported in Le Devoir of January 30, 1958. The minister stated:
I am at present studying the possibility of setting up a form of insurance which would protect the farmers against calamity, floods, hail or drought.


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


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps some hon. members, including the minister, will be surprised to see a lawyer by profession rise at this time and speak on agriculture. Last night we had a very good example of what a lawyer can do. I will try to do the same as he did.
It has been said that lawyers should know everything. I do not agree with that statement, but I do say that like any other citizen in this country or anywhere else, a lawyer 57071-3-186
Supply-Agriculture
has to try to learn something about almost everything, and this is what I tried to do about agriculture.
Sir, I would like to take this opportunity on the first item of the Department of Agriculture estimates to make a few remarks about agricultural problems and also to offer some suggestions which, if studied and implemented, would in my opinion be of some assistance to some of the farmers of our country.
(Translation):
During the few remarks I made in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity of speaking about employment, unemployment insurance and also on certain angles of education. However, I did not, at that time, mention any matter connected with farming. I therefore think I am justified to do so now.
As the minister knows, no doubt, I represent a semi-urban and semi-rural riding. As a matter of fact, there are three towns in my riding; all the rest consist in rural municipalities where a number of farmers try somehow to subsist and make both ends meet.
As everybody knows, our farmers in the province of Quebec, like in every other province of this country, work 16 to 18 hours a day when weather permits, and more especially in spring, summer and fall.
We might wonder whether our farmers in any area get a fair and equitable return for their labour. We should not forget that, in Canada, farming is mainly a family concern. The farm is a fundamental economic unit; and it is a sound one. But we should also keep in mind that farming is, to a certain extent, about to lose its character of a family concern in order to become a real industry.
I think that the government, in whom the voters showed their confidence on March 31 last, should concentrate on this problem and realize that the farms of our country might cease to be an economic family unit in order actually to become an agricultural industry.
It is up to this government, which has now assumed the responsibility of this country's business, to consider the situation and do whatever is required to protect our family industry and also to see to it that this farm industry develops at the same pace as other industries in this country.
The Liberal party had, in this matter, advocated a program which would have the

Supply-Agriculture
advantage of preserving the family character of farming, while providing for its expansion as an industry. Thus, during the last election campaign, we had undertaken to administer a new and bold program with a view to bettering the lot of our farm population in co-operation with the provinces.


Mr. Tremblay:: It is a bit late now.


Gabriel Roberge: With this aim in mind, we said that farmers, and particularly young farmers, should obtain the credit they need, i.e. long term credit to help finance the purchase of a farm and to make permanent improvements, as well as medium term credit for the purchase of farm animals and farm machinery.
Such, Mr. Chairman, was part of the program set up by the Liberal party with regard to farming. I sincerely believe that this program-I mean the setting up of this farm development bank-would have, as I said, the advantage of protecting the family character of our agriculture and, at the same time, provide for its development as a farming industry.
There is, Mr. Chairman, a particular subject I would like to deal with this morning. It was already mentioned last night by my friend, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine), and some hon. members have heard about it during previous sessions: I mean the problem of maple products. You know, Mr. Chairman, and I do not doubt that the Minister of Agriculture is also aware of the fact, that the maple product industry is of great importance to farmers in the province of Quebec. I should add that is also a significant part of farming development for the rural population in my riding of Megantic.
The hon. member for Beauce said last night that his riding was the main producer of maple products in the province of Quebec and, therefore, in the whole country. I might add that, according to statistics supplied by the agricultural division of the bureau of statistics of the department of industry and trade of the province of Quebec, the riding of Megantic is the second largest producer of maple products.
In 1951, Megantic had 2,497 occupied farms, including 1,332 reported to turn out maple products. In 1951, the number of suspended buckets was 1,823,602 i.e. an average of 1,369 buckets on each farm. The total production of maple syrup was 194,082 gallons in 1951, while the production sold or to be sold reached 170,598 gallons.

As to the total value sold or to be sold in 1951, it amounted, in my riding only, to $544,747 and the total value of maple product also for my riding only, reached $728,484. I am speaking of the riding of Megantic in its provincial boundaries, because the hon. Minister of Agriculture certainly knows that my riding of Megantic also includes part of the riding of Wolfe and part of the riding of Frontenac on a provincial basis. In the constituency of Frontenac, the value of maple products in 1951 was $495,778 whereas, for the constituency of Wolfe, it was $130,508.
It is impossible to obtain accurate data for those parts of the constituency of Megantic, since those statistics are strictly provincial.
Last year the attention of the government was directed to the maple products situation in the province of Q'uebec as in Canada as a whole, that is including parts of Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This was done by members for the province of Quebec, notably by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Landry) and by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme). I believe and suggest that the hon. members representing those constituencies should consider those problems and make constructive suggestions, instead of spending their time commending government action, without knowing whether that action can be of any help to our people.
The Liberal government had recognized the importance of maple products, the oldest industry in the province of Quebec, and indeed in the whole country. Besides, that was the opinion expressed by the hon. senator Cyrille Vaillancourt in 1955. The Liberal government of the time had introduced subsidies to allow the exchange of sap buckets, because those buckets were then considered unsanitary, and their continued use might have harmed our export markets.
Here is, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Portneuf, Dr. Pierre Gauthier, had to say on May 2, 1955, as found on page 3343 of the official report of the House of Commons Debates of that day:
A provision of the Food and Drugs Act of Canada bans the presence of lead in any kind of food. Therefore, regulations have been adopted to do away with soldered tins as containers of all kinds of canned food: pressed tin containers are now being used. For the same reason, tea, chocolate and cigarettes are wrapped in waxed or aluminum foil; no more lead paper Is used to wrap them.
That legislation had been enacted by the Liberal administration of the time. And,

while the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm may not know it, that provision was always opposed by Conservative members at the time. May I just remind you that Mr. Frank E. Lennard, a Progressive Conservative member, fought the measure so strongly on June 14, 1950, that a rather acrimonious debate ensued, because at that time he objected to those grants being made particularly to the province of Quebec, where there are more maple products growers than anywhere else in Canada.
It is a well known fact, Mr. Chairman, that the maple product industry, in the province of Quebec, is now in a slump.
The production of maple sugar has greatly decreased from 1937 to 1957. In fact, it has dropped from 4,020,000 pounds in 1937 to
536,000	pounds in 1957.
It will probably be said that this is a consequence of the indifference of the government of the time, but I want to emphasize that those matters relating to agriculture, especially in the province of Quebec, come under provincial jurisdiction, and that all the assistance the government of the time could give maple products growers was given them, as I have just said, when any farmer who wished to do so could replace his sap buckets.
Last night, I heard one hon. member say that the present government should keep up that policy of exchange of sap buckets. However, hon. members from the same party opposed this policy, and it was probably due to their action that the program was abandoned in 1955. There were, at the time, a considerable number of farmers who had benefited from this legislation and made the necessary changes.
With regard to maple syrup, the situation is just the opposite, and understandably so. The consumer who wants maple products prefers to buy syrup rather than sugar. As a matter of fact, in 1937, maple syrup production was only 780,000 gallons; in 1957, it reached a volume of 2,705,000 gallons. The gross value of that production for the year
1956-for we have as yet no statistics for 1957, amounted to $8,566,000 for all maple products, both syrup and sugar.
Mr. Chairman, this situation creates a problem which the government has to face, and I think it should more particularly study the issue raised with regard to maple products in the province of Quebec, in the eastern 57071-3-186J
Supply-Agriculture
part of Ontario, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The yield of maple products represents, for those who deal in them, an annual revenue varying from $1,000 to $2,000 and I can assure you that this revenue is welcome when the producer is able to get it. However, the situation offers a particular angle; quite a few farmers do not want to tap-and I know some in my riding who, last spring, right in the middle of the election campaign, refused to tap their maple trees because they did not know what conditions would obtain on the market and they also were in the dark about production costs and sales prices. This is probably no fault of the farmer himself, nor of the government. I do claim, however, that the government must study the matter and bring at least temporary solutions to these difficulties in order to assist those farmers, both in the province of Quebec and in the other three provinces who are engaged in the maple products industry.
My colleague from Beauce offered a few suggestions yesterday evening which are in all respects similar to those I had intended putting forward myself.
In fact, I have realized that the best way to facilitate the marketing of maple products was to carry on a proper sales promotion campaign on a national scale, not one limited solely to the province of Quebec. The campaign might also extend beyond our own borders.
It is an admitted fact that there is nothing more delicious than desserts prepared with maple syrup or maple sugar. That is why I think that every Canadian citizen should be able to buy those maple products at their local grocery or supermarket. No better way can they find of satisfying their palate. In doing so the consumer would help to a considerable extent those farmers who, each spring, are engaged in this particular phase of agricultural operations.
Mr. Chairman, the central government should take particular interest in a sales promotion campaign of this type. This matter could be considered at meetings between provincial and federal agricultural ministers. In this way an integrated sales promotion effort could be launched in all provinces to the advantage of farmers engaged in the production of maple syrup or maple sugar.
There is another way of helping the maple producer and that is through price support.

Supply-Agriculture
This might not perhaps be fully efficient, in view of the ups and downs of the market, but it would be a good thing, in my opinion, and not later than this year, to establish a support price for maple products. This would allow farmers engaged in maple product industry to make both ends meet and earn enough to meet their production costs. If the support price I am suggesting were inefficient-as I fear it would-it could be replaced by an adjustment grant or a deficiency payment.
In my opinion, it would be proper to extend throughout the whole country the price adjustment legislation enjoyed by prairie farmers.
As I see it, it is not just the western farmers who should derive benefit, as at present, from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; all our farmers should enjoy these adjustment grants. This would not only mean that the maple producer would be just as sure of obtaining deficiency payments for his maple, but also that during unproductive years he would have the incentive to work on his maple trees-and also to hire helpers (for it is only fair to bear in mind that often, in such years, he works around the clock). In this way he could increase his annual income, and could more easily make ends meet.
It is my conviction, Mr. Chairman, that these suggestions are sound, and that the present government has the duty not only of giving them serious consideration, but of working out an appropriate formula for giving assistance to the farmers and producers of maple products in Canada.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the dark outline of the fate of the farmer which the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) gave us last night, I considered it my duty to make some remarks and to bring to the attention of the house a report which appeared in Le Droit of June 23, 1958, under the heading:
Farmer fares better this year. He is recovering from last year's drop in income.
The average Canadian farmer probably found the going a bit rough in 1957 but, according to statistics of the first quarter of 1958, he is faring better now.
In 1957, farm income in Canada decreased by $403,300,000 to $1,053,900,000, the lowest figure in three years, as compared with $1,457,200,000 in 1956, the dominion bureau of statistics reported today.
For the first quarter of 1958, figures are more encouraging and it is estimated that, for that period, farm income will reach $604 million, an increase of $29 million over the corresponding period of 1957.
Those are the facts, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member took great pains in an endeavour

to show that agricultural prices stabilization was a failure. I wonder why, last year, the Liberal party supported the Conservative party by voting in favour of that legislation.
I would like to give some advice to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. Instead of spending his time talking against the beautiful province of Quebec, he should prepare his speeches more carefully, look for the facts and show them in their true perspective.
Those are, Mr. Chairman, the few remarks I wished to make following the gloomy speech of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.
(Text):


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I think
perhaps I should comment briefly upon some of the statements which have been made in this debate and I could perhaps summarize my remarks in this way; that most of the criticisms made by the official opposition are criticisms of their own government, which was in power for 22 years and had done nothing about any of the things they now suggest should be done.
On the other hand, the major suggestions they have made I would say have been taken almost directly from the speeches which I and other members of this party have made during the last year in regard to what we were prepared to do and what we were making plans to do in connection with an improved farm credit system, a system of crop insurance and a soil and water conservation scheme. As I say, the major suggestions made from the other side of the house were along those three lines, and in many cases might well have been taken from the speeches I have made during the past year. In fact I think perhaps they were taken directly from those speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is a general summary of the criticisms we have heard during this debate, but I would just like to mention a few specific points.
The hon. member for Russell made, I think, quite a good speech, and he mentioned the way in which he himself had engaged in or had encouraged the production of flax.
I know he did a very useful piece of work from that point of view. But as to the hon. member for Timiskaming, I do not really think I should say very much about his comments. His knowledge of agriculture is indicated by this statement to be found at page 2173 of Hansard:
Mixed farming takes more from the soil than does the type of farming that is done in the west.

No statement could be more inaccurate than that, and it very well typifies and is an example of all the statements he made in his speech with regard to agriculture.
The hon. member for Gloucester went into the potato situation in Prince Edward Island in some detail. What he did really was to read into the record press statements from the Charlottetown Guardian of July 19, which I have here, and statements by Mr. Cullen, minister of agriculture for Prince Edward Island in which he was naturally trying to defend what he or the government of Prince Edward Island had or had not done in connection with the potato situation there.
I have here a compilation which is really a chronological case history of the potato situation in Prince Edward Island. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Gloucester put on the record this long statement by the minister of agriculture for Prince Edward Island, which is not correct, I think I had better correct it and the general false impression which may have been created by the statements made by the hon. member for Gloucester.
The first time this matter of potato support for Prince Edward Island came up was on May 20 of 1958-that is May 20 of this year-not on June 3, as was stated by Mr. Cullen. A letter was given to Mr. Pearsall, the chairman of the agricultural stabilization board, dated May 16-it arrived on May 20- requesting consideration of a guaranteed price for potato stocks remaining on hand as at July 1 or July 10 or July 15 at a price of $1.25 per hundredweight bulk for graded stock at loading point, or at the farm, if disposal for livestock feed from the farm was more convenient. A general discussion followed that proposal with representatives from Prince Edward Island, and no specific request was made by them for immediate action.
Then on June 3 and 4 Messrs. Cullen, Mac-Lennan and Burge, with one other representative, met the stabilization board. At that time the board proposed, following a study of the previous letter, a feed diversion program; that is, to divert these surplus potatoes into livestock feed. This proposal was rejected by the representatives as unworkable and on June 4 an offer of financial assistance, equivalent to what was being paid to New Brunswick on their starch diversion potatoes, was made although the specific amount was not stated.
On June 12 Mr. Pearsall called the island representatives on the long distance telephone, since they had claimed they were waiting for a further offer from the stabilization board. In this telephone call the board offered specifically 45 cents per bag with the
Supply-Agriculture
specific understanding that it was up to the Prince Edward Island potato growers either to accept or to reject this offer. On June 25 a wire was received-I may say this was 13 days later again-from Messrs. MacLennan and Burge accepting the offer on behalf of the potato marketing board but requesting that the total appropriation available be increased.
On June 26 there was a wire from Mr. Wright, the deputy minister of agriculture for Prince Edward Island, to Mr. Pearsall requesting details of the price support program. This wire was acknowledged the next day, on June 27, enclosing application forms.
On July 3 there was a wire from the minister of agriculture, Mr. Cullen, to myself raising the question of the quality of the potatoes and requesting relaxation of grade standards. Right up to this time they had not done anything about any of these things. This had been going on since May 26. Now they are making the claim that there was no delay on their part. If there was not delay there, where was it? It certainly was not here.
We received this wire on July 3 which raised the question of the quality of potatoes and requesting relaxation of grade standards. That wire was replied to in the negative at that time, on July 4. Then on July 11- in the meantime I may say there were a great many more representations-Mr. Eard-ley of the department's fruit and vegetable division, was sent down to Prince Edward Island to make an investigation on the spot and report back. He reported back to the board that indications were that about 300 cars of potatoes had not been marketed and that, based on a sample check, less than 10 per cent of these potatoes would qualify for Canada No. 1 grade.
After further discussion, on July 18 we advised these people that we would accept 75 per cent of the potatoes they still had on hand as having been eligible as first grade after inspection as to size and so forth, on the date on which this procedure should have been put into effect, say at the end of June. This was actually an extremely generous way of dealing with this relatively small amount of surplus potatoes in Prince Edward Island.
I might just point out the potato marketings for the last four years;
Crop Year	Marketings
(000) cwt.
1954-	55	
3,9231955-	56	
5,1231956-	57	
4,7351957-	58	
6,387
The year 1957-58 is the year about which we are talking and about which the hon. member was complaining. That figure of

Supply-Agriculture
6,387,000 was far more than had been marketed in any of the previous three years and the total value of the marketings of those potatoes was the highest in any of those years. The figures for value of marketings are as
follows:	
	Total Value
Crop Year	of Marketings
	$(000)
1954-55 			 8,233
1955-56 		
1355-57 			 6,991
1957-58 			 8,404
In other words the total of marketings in
1957-58 was the highest that it has been for years, and the total amount of money received was the greatest that it has been. The request made to us really was to take the tail end of the potato crop and pay something for it. As I say, we made an offer. That offer was played around with, it was not accepted and so on and so forth. Then finally a great deal of complaint was made that we were not supporting the price of potatoes in Prince Edward Island. As I say, the actual situation is that more money was received for potatoes this year and more potatoes were marketed this year than in any year during the last four. There is certainly no cause for complaint.
I noticed that not only the hon. member for Gloucester-this evidently had been prepared in the Liberal head office by someone -put forward a great many figures as to the money which had been paid out for potatoes and that two hon. members in the other place who come from Prince Edward Island have written letters to the papers. In them is to be found exactly the same line of stuff as the hon. member for Gloucester put out here with regard to the amount of money which has been paid out for potatoes in various years past by the Liberal government. This is Liberal propaganda which comes from the office of the Leader of the Opposition, undoubtedly, and is intended to try to create the impression that the Liberals treated the potato growers of Prince Edward Island extremely well and so forth.
Actually as to the amount of money which was paid out for support may I say this, and I think I had better make this clear.
These amounts outlined by the hon. member for Gloucester and in the letters of hon. members of another place were not the amounts which were paid out for Prince Edward Island potatoes. Very little was paid out for Prince Edward Island potatoes in most of these years, and in many years nothing was paid. That was the amount paid out to support potato growers across the country as a whole, and I may indicate that under the agricultural prices support act, as it was, and the stabilization act as it is now, in only

one year, 1948-49, was more money paid out for potatoes than in the year we completed a year ago this spring-no, less than a year ago-that is, for the crop of 1956-57. What the figures will be for the year 1957-58 we do not know yet, because a great many of the claims have not yet come in. So much for the potato situation in Prince Edward Island.
The hon. member for Beauce brought up the matter of maple sap buckets. I should like to point out to him that the party to which he belonged when they were in power were the people who did away with this subsidy. Why come complaining to us because the subsidy has been removed? It was done away with by his own party.
The hon. member for Kootenay West dealt particularly with farm credit, and paid a very well deserved tribute to the work the Veterans' Land Act people have done in connection with this. I fully agree with the remarks he made in connection with how well the credit facilities extended under the Veterans' Land Act have been supervised, how high a degree of repayment there has been, and how satisfactory that scheme has been, and as I have said on many occasions previously I hope and expect that we will be able to incorporate something along these lines in the improved farm credit scheme and legislation which we expect to bring forward.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont needs to look up his history. He made the statement that our great research facilities had been instituted by the Liberal government. If he will look into the matter he will find that these research facilities were started long before the past Liberal government came into existence. In fact they were started shortly after confederation in the way of some experimental farms and things of that kind, so he does not need to think the former government can take credit for the research facilities we have in agriculture, because these have been built up under many administrations over a long period.
And his criticisms, again, of the organization of the research facilities and the experimental farm service is a criticism of his own previous government. I may say that we are taking steps at the present time to reorganize the Department of Agriculture, and I will have a statement to make in that connection before this debate is over.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska complained about the support price of skimmed milk powder having been reduced from 17 cents to 15 cents, as though this were a terrible thing. I wonder if he has heard about the fact that before the price of milk

powder was reduced from 17 cents to 15 cents, the price of butter was increased from 58 cents to 64 cents, an increase of 6 cents a pound.
The less he or any other Liberal member says about the price of skimmed milk powder the better off they will be, because they, and the previous Liberal government, created an absolutely impossible situation as far as skimmed milk powder was concerned. They put in a support price of 17 cents, which was about 5 or 6 cents higher than the world market price, and took no steps whatever to prevent skimmed milk powder coming in from any country in the world where there was a surplus.
The inevitable result was that when I became Minister of Agriculture I found a terrible accumulation of dried skimmed milk powder which had been coming in from the United States, New Zealand, Holland, and even Great Britain, which is a deficiency area with regard to dairy products. It was an example of terribly bad administration and policy on the part of the previous Liberal government. We, of course, had to put in import control in order to stop that flood of powder coming into this country and completely disrupting our market.
Those, I think, are the only points about which I need say anything now.


Mr. Regier:: I can assure the minister I am not going to hold him up for very long. However, I do wish to raise one point, and I hope I will get a better answer than the answer he gave just now to the hon. member for Timiskaming. I think the minister would be well advised to look at the record with regard to the hon. member for Timiskaming. He may well be listed as a labour organizer, but he lives on a farm and was born and raised on a farm. Half the people of Timiskaming are farmers, and the hon. member for Timiskaming received tremendous support from them, over half the agricultural vote. I do not think they will be very happy with the brush-off the minister gave the arguments presented by the hon. member for Timiskaming.
I note that on July 9 the minister reviewed the condition of agriculture and stated that there had been in 1957, as opposed to 1956, a decrease in agricultural production of 22 per cent which he himself labelled a very sharp decline. He admitted that part of this was because of the poor prairie grain crop.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Most of it.


Erhart Regier: Yes, I realize that; most of it. The statistics issued by the dominion bureau of statistics on June 20 underlined that the great decline was because of the
Supply-Agriculture
poor grain crop on the prairies. I noticed also that both the net and gross income of Canadian agriculture in all the various provinces in 1957, as compared with 1956, 1955, 1954 and 1953, are shown in one of the tables of statistics. The gross and net incomes of farmers in Quebec declined only by a small percentage; in the province of Ontario there was a rise in net income as well as in gross income, but on the prairies, as was to be expected, there was a very serious decline. In British Columbia there was a small increase; I believe the net and gross incomes of farmers rose by some 4 per cent.
I know the minister was Minister of Agriculture for only half of 1956, so what I intend to ask him will, I hope, not be considered on a political basis. Would the minister care to offer an explanation to the committee of why there was a decline in Prince Edward Island in the gross income of farm operators of $4.1 million, which represents, roughly, a decline of one eighth? In the province of Nova Scotia it declined by $3.9 million and it declined in the province of New Brunswick by $7.3 million.
We very much regret the lack of industrial development in the maritime provinces. We have always looked upon agriculture as a part of the backbone of the economy of the Atlantic provinces, but those provinces did not have the great crop failures that were sustained in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The agricultural pursuits in the Atlantic region are more like those in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
I wonder if the minister would care to comment on why there was such a serious decline in the gross income of farm operators in the Atlantic provinces as well as in the net income of that section of Canadian agriculture, and he might indicate what over-all measures either in the field of research or in the field of aggressive action he is intending to implement as a result of the situation in the maritimes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the reduction in income in the maritimes was due largely to a decrease in production. They had a very dry year in the maritimes, and particularly in Nova Scotia. The hon. member may not be aware of the fact that we put into effect a relief program under which we shipped hay to Nova Scotia. They had not produced enough hay even to look after their own needs for the winter. Hay had to be shipped in, on which we gave assistance. Therefore the general reduction in income in the maritimes was largely due to a bad year and reduced production. The total value of the potato crop, which is one

Supply-Agriculture
of the big cash crops, of course, last year, as I indicated, was something in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000 or $2 million less in Prince Edward Island than it has been so far this year.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister care to say that agricultural conditions are reviving in the maritimes as a region in the year 1958?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly conditions are
better. For one reason, they had a considerably better potato crop this year than last year. Potatoes are one of the big cash crops and the producers received more money for their product. I also think income from dairy products and beef cattle will be better this year. The general answer to that question would be that all the indications are that this is going to be a considerably better year for agriculture in the maritimes than last year was.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted in the course of my remarks on the agricultural program which I was suggesting to the government, I was about to explain a policy which should be adopted by the government and whose results would be far-reaching.
First of all, there is the inquiry into soil utilization and conservation, launched in 1955 under the Liberal government.
As compared with seven meetings held during 1957, there have only been three or four since the Conservative party came to power. I feel the present government should instil some vigour into this work so as to introduce a program which would go hand in hand with the soil study that will have been accomplished, especially in eastern Canada. Everyone versed in agriculture says it is necessary to classify our soil so as to put it to the best use in the various areas and to formulate the most fitting conservation recommendations.
Agricultural experts have noted that 46 per cent of the soil at Lake St. John has been seriously affected by erosion (350,000 acres out of the total of 860,000 acres of reclaimed soil). I deplore that the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) is not present in the house to benefit from this information in the interests of the farmers of this area.
The same phenomena can be observed in the Joliette area. Producers of flue-cured tobacco there are only too well aware of the destructiveness of wind in these sandy regions.
Indeed, the same phenomena arise everywhere in Canada-perhaps on a bigger scale in flat country.

One can get a good idea of the damage done by erosion in looking at our rivers after a heavy rain. The water becomes dirty and muddy and carries away the best elements of the soil. Such damage caused by the constant erosion of our lands may bring upon us the calamity of which a poet has said: "Old empires have been destroyed as much by the loss of their soil as by the sword of their enemies."
Mr. Auguste Scott, a distinguished professor at the Agricultural College of Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, had this to say about the steps to be taken to control soil erosion:
We should first of all undertake a thorough study of our soil and its fertility. At the same time, an education campaign should be organized among the farmers, additional meteorological stations should be created and research centres established.
More specifically, Professor Scott advocates the improvement of the fertility of poor soils or of soils which have lost their fertility through erosion. Among the most efficient means of warding off that danger, he suggests crop rotation and the use of lime and of chemical and organic fertilizers. He also recommended the establishment of a soil conservation board. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to take note of my observations concerning this soil conservation board.
The work of such an organization should be carried out as soon as possible so that its recommendations may be implemented without delay.
The second step would consist in improving the Farm Loan Act to increase the assessment value of the property given in guarantee, in raising the maximum amount and in establishing a supervision service made up of competent agricultural experts who would direct and advise the borrowers.
As I have had the opportunity of making a few brief comments on that matter, I will not add anything more for the time being.
A third step, which would certainly bring results although over a longer period, would be the expansion of our farm research services.
I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) who dealt thoroughly with that question and with whom I agree wholeheartedly.
The United States announced a few months ago that they were increasing their agricultural research budget by $50 million. At that time, many Americans criticized that measure, stating that the amount was inadequate and was lagging 20 years behind.

We could easily say the same thing about Canada. We are lagging behind 20 years, since most of the discoveries that we are applying to our agricultural and processing methods come from the United States.
This research should not have as its sole aim to increase the yield by acre or by livestock unit; it should also seek means of applying our products to other industrial uses.
All who are interested in agriculture recognize that, if we adopted all the new methods to increase the yield per acre, the development of new varieties of cereals, new fertilizers and chemical products to fight those plagues brought about by insects and plant diseases, our farmers would double the yield of their farm. Is not such a possibility of increasing the yields of our farms a sufficient reason to vote more money for research work?
The director of the federal research laboratory in the prairie provinces, in Saskatoon, Mr. Ledingham, made an interesting statement last November. I quote:
(Text):
He suggested, among other things, that land capable of producing high quality bread wheat was now being used for oil seed crop production while land in northern sections of the prairies, where oil seed crops could be grown effectively, is being used to produce low quality wheat. He mentioned recent developments in the laboratory in finding industrial uses for agricultural products, one of them the production of a fibreboard from wheat straw.
In Canada the cost of agricultural research, when measured against its contribution to the national welfare, has never been high. But there is a need for intensification of such research. There seems to be a valid argument for spending increased funds on research that may provide permanent solutions to the problem of agricultural surpluses rather than invest ever-increasing amounts on support of plans that in the United States particularly have only worsened this particular farm problem. (Translation):
The Minister of Agriculture said on July the 11th that he would deal extensively with the research work of his department. On reading his speech, we find that he gave this topic a fifth of his review of the agricultural situation in this country. We were led to believe that the importance he was giving to that matter in his speech indicated that the government would spend tremendous amounts this year on research work.
However, on examining the estimates of
1958-59, I found out that no increase had been provided for research work on the experimental farms of this country, except perhaps for an increase of half a million dollars for the central experimental farm in Ottawa. In this instance, as in many others, is not the minister just attempting to make us believe that the government
Supply-Agriculture
achieves great things, whereas it is satisfied to implement the programs and methods of the former Liberal administration?
Some hon. members who spoke before me maintained that the Liberal government had achieved nothing during the 22 years it had been in power. I would like to list briefly several projects carried out by the Liberal government: the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which cost the sum of $185 million from 1935 to 1956; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, $110 million; the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $10 million; the Farm Price Support Act, $89 million; the Farm Loan Act under which approximately 600,000 loans were awarded, totalling $653 million; the Farm Improvement Loans Act under which 653,000 loans were granted, totalling $723 million; the Western Grain Transportation Assistance Act under which $257 million were paid out by the former government to February 1957.
I could mention other figures-for instance I could tell you that the sale of farm products went up from $950 million to $2,400 million from 1936 to 1955; that the value of farm equipment and machinery rose from $19 million to more than $153 million; that the value of land and buildings rose from $3 billion to $5,500 million; that the value of farm animals which amounted to $579 million rose to $2,010 million. I also could add that the net farm income advanced from $536 million in 1935 to $2,655 million in 1956.
I could recall other things which the Liberal government accomplished in the 22 years it was in power.
To quote but one other figure, the value of exports of agricultural products jumped from $400 million in 1936 to $1 billion in 1956.
Had Liberals remained in power, we would today have a new improved farm credit plan, which would allow farmers to borrow a larger sum of money for a longer period and at a lower interest rate than is the case today. We would also have crop insurance. We would have better research services. Experimental farms would be expanding. I could not list all the things the Liberal party would have done in two years.


Mr. Pigeon:: You had a chance to do them in those 22 years.


Samuel Boulanger: I know that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm does not understand anything about agriculture, especially when I judge by the speech he made yesterday.
2954	HOUSE OF
Iraq-Recognition of New Government
Although the Liberal government accomplished a great deal, much remains to be done. We ask the Minister of Agriculture to fulfil at least one tenth of the promises he made in the last election campaign and I would ask hon. members from the province of Quebec, who were elected on the strength of those promises, to stand up in the house and to insist that those promises be carried out. Boastful speeches about the policy of the government will not make us achieve anything worthwhile. Conservative members from Quebec are as sound asleep as are members of the Union Nationale in the province of Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: How can we help going to sleep, listening to you?
(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall item No. 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall item No. 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Charles Edward Rea: Order. Do I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs wishes to make a statement?


Sidney Earle Smith: Yes.


Charles Edward Rea: May I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs leave to revert to motions to make a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to revert to motions to make an important statement with respect to recognition of the government of Iraq. Formal notification of this act of recognition of the new government which was established in Iraq on July 14, 1958, will be conveyed to the new government. In response to communications which have been received from their official representatives in several capitals of the world the Canadian government has taken the step of recognizing the Iraqi government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the house, what there is of it, will have heard with considerable interest this important announcement. As far as we are concerned it is satisfactory because we think it is the right course to have taken. My own surprise at the announcement has been modified by the fact that the C.B.C. news at one o'clock today informed me that the Canadian government had recognized the government of Iraq.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs must have thought this a most important announcement to have taken the procedure he has in the house. May I say on behalf of this group that we believe he has taken the right action. We hope the action taken by other governments and now by Canada will help to lead to a possible settlement of the Middle East situation, and that Canada will go even further in making recommendations with respect to that situation.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Science service-
Science service administration-
4. Operation and maintenance, including an amount of $136,475 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada, and an amount of $45,000 to assist in defraying the costs of the ninth international botanical congress to be held in Canada in 1959, $1,313,662.
Samuel Boulanger: 1 should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question.
Would the minister tell the house the amount spent for agricultural research and the results of that research? Furthermore, how are the results of that research made available to individual farmers?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As to the amount spent on research, it is listed here in the estimates

book to which the hon. member may refer if he has that book before him. The science service involved an amount of $11,426,000 for this year, and the breakdown is shown; the central experimental farm service is $15,678,000, and the total amount spent on these two services is essentially for research purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
11. Experimental farms service administration, $276,462.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on item No. 11, the experimental farms services including the central experimental farm, I wonder if the minister could tell the house whether in regard to the central experimental farm it is the policy of his government to maintain that farm in its present location in the city of Ottawa for further scientific research, and whether there is anything to the rumour one hears from time to time that because of extensive city development and increasing property values some other use in the future may be made of part of the property now occupied by this farm?
I would express the hope that the central experimental farm may be kept in its present form and its present location. I think it is doing tremendous work and is, amongst other things, a most valuable tourist attraction in the capital city. I think it would be in keeping with the view of the Canadian people as well as the people of Ottawa that the central experimental farm be maintained in its present location.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am very glad to tell the hon. member for Assiniboia that the central experimental farm is going to be not only retained but expanded. The plans we have, of which there has been some indication in the press, are that the present experimental farm will be used entirely for plant breeding and plant research activities. The animal husbandry branch of the experimental farm service will be established at a new experimental farm which will of course still be part of the central experimental farm, a few miles south and west of the present farm property in what will be the green belt surrounding Ottawa.
We expect to secure from the federal district commission something in the neighbourhood of 4,000 acres of land in the green belt, and the animal husbandry activities of the experimental farm will be established there. The amount of land will provide us with sufficient grazing and sufficient area on which to raise forage for the animals, so that we can very considerably extend the
Supp ly-A griculture
animal husbandry research activities. The present farm is much too small to enable us to carry on nearly as much research in the animal husbandry field as we feel necessary and as is desired to be carried out.


Hazen Robert Argue: I very much appreciate the minister's statement, but does he mean that the present acreage of the experimental farm will be retained and that the 4,000 acres to which he refers is entirely in addition to the lands now held?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; that is correct, Mr. Chairman. The present acreage will be retained and, as I say, will be used entirely for plant breeding and associated activities, such as horticultural activities and so on of the science service and the experimental farm service.


Mr. Forgie:: I would like to ask the minister if he would give consideration to having funds allotted for research on soybeans, because as a result of discussion of this subject with the officials of the central experimental farm and also the provincial government and scientists, it is apparently felt that there are great possibilities of a bean being developed which will mature in sufficient time to perhaps provide the answer to the situation so far as the rotation of crops is concerned in western Canada.
The minister probably knows that at Morden there are about 4,000 acres now being cultivated, and that there are also some plantations outside of Saskatoon and Prince Albert. I would like the minister to give consideration to the allocation of funds for research in this connection, as the scientists and provincial governments in both Ontario and Manitoba are convinced that this research would have a very satisfactory effect, especially for western Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we are
presently and have been for some time carrying on very extensive research programs with respect to soybeans. This has been going on at the central experimental farm and at Harrow in Ontario, and also in Winnipeg. As a result it has been possible to produce a certain type of soybean which matures earlier than in the case of older varieties. Some of these are being used at the present time in Manitoba, and it is hoped that an earlier maturing variety which will be better adapted to the particular climatic conditions which exist in the west may be developed.


James Moffat Forgie: I might say to the minister that it is not easy, because even 14 years ago I was in conversation with Dr. McRostie and at that time the Mandarin and Ogama brands of soybeans were being crossed. It had just then started, and it has taken all this time to

Supply-Agriculture
develop a bean at Morden which has a yield of only about 12 bushels to the acre. The oil content is lower than in the beans grown in the province of Ontario. For instance, at Pelee island I understand they are growing 69J bushels to the acre at a price of $2.38 a bushel, which is quite a different proposition.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think what the hon. member for Renfrew North has said points up the fact that experimental projects in agriculture are very long-term projects, and in many cases the work has to be carried on year after year without any visible results. People then say, "Oh, they are wasting our money, and they should not be doing that; they should be doing something else." As I say, what the hon. member has pointed out illustrates the fact that it does take many many years of research work to get any great results, and sometimes even after many such years of research you still do not get any great results. Nevertheless, it is only by these long-term series of experiments that you do produce better varieties and superior animals in the long run. As I stated when the estimates first came up for discussion, it is only by carrying on this research work that we do produce improved varieties of plants and animals which will eventually mean a great deal more money in the pockets of individual farmers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
13. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $573,680.
Samuel Boulanger: I see there is an increase of $289,000 over last year, which means it is double the amount shown for last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the hon. member explain what he meant by double? I did not quite understand what he meant.


Samuel Boulanger: Last year the figure was $284,000 and this year it is $573,000, so there is an increase of $289,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This increase in expenditure is for the new buildings for the animal husbandry work which will be built on the extension to the central experimental farm of which I spoke a few moments ago. There will, of course, be a considerable building program on this new farm, which will be spread over a considerable period of time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
Health of animals-
17. Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $6,676,108.
Mr. Robinson:: I doubt if I have any questions to ask the minister, but I would like

to make one or two observations on this matter. The act, as we know, is there to protect us as well as the farmers, and with respect to cattle-and here I am referring to tuberculosis-there is some background information I would like to give the house in order to make myself clear. I have in mind a recent incident in Bruce riding.
A large dairy herd in a restricted area had been accredited for quite a number of years and had a clear bill at each inspection. Recently it was found, however, that there were 12 reactors in the herd, which was quite a surprise to the owner and no doubt also to the veterinary surgeon who discovered this condition. I understand there was some discussion with the veterinary people who did the testing and also the inspector for the district but nothing could be done, apparently, or was not done. These 12 valuable cows went to Toronto and had to be killed, although there was no visible sign of tuberculosis in any of the 12 animals.
In Toronto they went through the ordinary channels in the packing houses and the owner of the herd is still not convinced that a mistake was not made. He does not know, of course, but he is not convinced that the veterinary surgeon was correct, and in speaking to the officials of the health of animals branch I was informed that there are certain cases where an animal is infected, yet it does not show after it has been killed, but that if a more thorough examination of the carcass was made the probabilities are that such a disease would show up. In fact I am assured it would though it would take a lot of research work on the carcass to be sure
The suggestion I would like to throw out to the minister is that in the first instance these 12 animals should have been quarantined and re-tested later on and that in the second place if they had to go to Toronto as a group of 12 and did not show any sign of infection, I think there should be a regulation that the inspectors should have tried to go further and confirm that the animals had really been infected. In these circumstances this owner has suffered a considerable loss, and everything should be done to find out whether or not a mistake has occurred. I am not saying the veterinary surgeon made a mistake at all, but it does look as though there was some doubt. If such was found out, namely that such cattle were taken out and slaughtered, I think in all fairness the owner of the cattle should be recompensed for his loss, at least in part.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have had a few complaints along this line with regard to cattle which were tuberculin tested and showed as reactors and then, when they went in for

slaughter, there was found on post-mortem examination no definite sign of tuberculosis, but I understand from the experts in this line that this happens fairly frequently. If the tuberculosis is in the early stages the test which is made is very reliable in indicating that tuberculosis is present in the animal, but post-mortem examination quite frequently will not show that any definite deterioration has taken place. The test picks out the t.b. infected cattle before what are known as gross lesions develop which would be detected on post-mortem.
The fact that no gross lesions were found in these particular cattle does not mean that they did not have tuberculosis. One of the great values of the test is that it picks out animals before the disease has developed sufficiently so that the risk of infection to other cattle is very greatly increased. I think also we must be fairly stringent if we are to have a tuberculosis testing program such as we have, and which has resulted in tuberculosis in cattle having been reduced from something like about 4 per cent in 1923 to less than one-tenth of one per cent at present of cattle tested that are reactors. In order to be able to export our cattle, particularly dairy cattle, freely to the United States and other countries we must have a tuberculosis testing program of this kind in effect. It is hard on a particular farmer who has a large part of his herd go down. Nevertheless, in the interests of farmers generally in this country and in the interests of the general economy I think we must be fairly stringent as far as these tuberculosis testing programs are concerned.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 17 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. I understand this would be the appropriate vote under which to ask any further questions one wished to ask about the matter that was dealt with on item No. 1. If that is not correct I would ask the minister to tell me under which item they should be asked.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What item are we on now, Mr. Chairman?


Charles Edward Rea: Vote 17.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The place at which the question should have been asked was on item No. 16, the one with which we just finished. This item deals with the contagious diseases act. However, as far as I am concerned I am quite willing to have questions of this kind asked here instead of on item No. 16, seeing that the hon. member missed item No. 16.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-
Supply-Agriculture


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the committee to revert to questions on vote No. 16?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have several questions I should like to put to the minister. As reported at page 2899 of Hansard the minister yesterday said this:
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.
Would the minister tell us what were the complaints that came to his attention at that time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The complaints I received were that this man had been engaging in political activities on behalf of the hon. member for Laurier, in fact in very extensive political activities on his behalf; also that the man had been engaged in certain smuggling activities. That was the information I received.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Had the minister received both those items of information at the same time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not certain that they were received at the same time but they were received either at the same time or practically at the same time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think a good deal turns on this question, Mr. Chairman. We have been told that the minister received personal and confidential letters which he says were affidavits and which were marked secret.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So there will be no misunderstanding may I say this. The first information I received on this matter was verbal. It was not in written form at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister
would like to tell us what this verbal information was and from whom he received it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have already told you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: From whom?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. I am not going to tell you from whom I received it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, Mr. Chairman, what the minister is saying is this. He is saying that the House of Commons is not entitled to know from whom he received the information on which he deprived this man of his job and his livelihood. That is what the minister is telling us now.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: No, he is not.

Supply-Agriculture


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, this man has an accuser, a secret informer, and the minister is not going to give us the name of this secret informer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member, of course,
with some of his colleagues has been attempting to make a major issue out of this matter and to twist it out of all recognition. The actual fact is that right at the moment I do not recall who gave me the information verbally. But if I did recall who gave it to me, Mr. Chairman, I still would not give the hon. member the name, because it would merely expose the people who gave the information perhaps to unfortunate attentions from some of the henchmen of the hon. member for Laurier.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, Mr. Chairman, the situation is this; and I may say that I am seeking to be as fair as possible to the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I put this question. Considering the fact that a Canadian citizen has been deprived by the minister of his livelihood-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: How many times was it done by your government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that some of the backbenchers would be well advised to listen quietly and to assist in the defence of the civil rights of Canadians about which their leader was so eloquent not so very long ago.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You have been doing it all the time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I say, I want to be completely fair to the minister. I understand, then, that the minister received hearsay evidence from someone he cannot remember, and on the basis of that hearsay he has taken away this man's livelihood. Is that what the minister wants us to understand?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has had a full account in connection with this matter. He knows that the statement he has just made is absolutely incorrect. About a month and a half elapsed from the time I first received any information in regard to this matter before the man was discharged. There was quite a full inquiry made in connection with the matter. I satisfied myself that there was no question as to the reprehensible activities in which this individual had been engaged.
What the hon. member is trying to make out is that this matter involves civil rights. He might just as well say that an employee of any business concern in this country who

happened to be caught, say, with his hand in the till could not be discharged unless he had been taken into court or some other kind of tribunal. In effect that is what the hon. member is trying to maintain; and he is trying to maintain that there was some loss of civil rights or something along that line because this man was discharged, having been detected, as I say, in activities which I at least am not prepared to countenance in employees of this department whilst I am minister.
The hon. member is trying to say that nobody, not even a casual employee of the department, can be discharged unless his case is taken to a tribunal of some sort. I suppose the idea is to take him into court or something along that line. This sort of statement is completely ridiculous. You could not carry on any business in that way, and you could not carry on a government service in that way; you must have some discretion so far as discharging people is concerned if you find they are carrying on activities that cannot be countenanced, and that was the situation in this case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have quite a number of other questions I should like to ask the minister. First of all, does he think that he was vested with the right to discharge employees without giving an account to this house, to which he is responsible, of all the circumstances in which he did so? Does he think that because he is sitting on the treasury benches he is elevated to such a height that he does not have to account for this conduct to the duly elected members of parliament; because that is what he is saying.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When the deputy minister here was superintendent of the experimental farm at Swift Current he has just indicated to me that he fired all kinds of men without referring it to the minister or anyone else. In other words this sort of thing has to go on in any institution which hires casual labour.
So far as the question about not being accountable to the house is concerned, and not making a full disclosure, I have made a full disclosure to the house. We have spent, now, several hours on this particular matter, and I do not think that there are any further details I can give.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The mere fact that the hon. gentleman does not think there are any further details that we are entitled to have does not destroy our right of freedom of speech in this house, I hope; though I would not be surprised, if the minister continues in the line he is now following, that this would be his next attempt.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And you said you were trying to be fair. Nothing could be less fair than the statement you have just made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have sat quietly here without interrupting the minister, and yet when I attempt to utter a single sentence he interrupts me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not true. Read Hansard and you will see that it is not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has just done it again to demonstrate the truth of my statement. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman what was the precise status of this man Mitchell. The minister talks about casual employees. Was he a casual employee?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I stated yesterday, this man was a casual employee. He had been employed on a seasonal basis for some 12 years before this incident took place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yesterday the minister said 16 years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There was a period of about five or six years before that when he had not been employed, and then four years in which he had, which makes up a total of 16. The hon. member talks about my interrupting, but he cannot allow me to finish my statements even if those statements are correct, as his statements are not in most cases, and as a result need some correction for the record.
As I say, the man was employed for four years, then for five years he was not employed. Perhaps his services to the Liberal party were not considered of such worth that he was kept on after these four years. Then he re-established himself and was put on again, and was there for some 12 years until this incident came up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says this man was a casual employee. He also said he was employed seasonally. Was he not a seasonal employee? Did he have any superannuation benefits?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am informed by my
officials that the proper classification is "casual seasonal employee", just as I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister answer the other question I asked? Did he have superannuation benefits?


An hon. Member:: He took it out in whisky instead.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have no definite information on that. The situation is this. People in these circumstances, if they have requested that they should be able to pay into a superannuation fund, are ordinarily
Supply-Agriculture
permitted to do so, but whether this man had done so, or what the situation was, I do not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So in the minister's detailed investigation of this man's case he did not trouble to find out whether or not he had any superannuation benefits. That is not a question; it is just a comment on the minister's answer.
I wish now to put another question to the minister. Did the minister have drawn to his attention any other case where this man had received or had in his possession liquor and cigarettes on which the tax had not been paid, except the one to which the hon. member for Laurier referred last night? Were there any other cases?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There were no others to my knowledge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And when did the minister first learn about this matter. In other words after May 1, the minister told us yesterday, he received certain information from the Minister of National Revenue about this case. Did the Minister of National Revenue tell the minister why a decision was reached not to prosecute this man?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I answered that yesterday. You are merely being repetitious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister
would do me the courtesy of recalling the answer to my mind, because it has slipped my memory.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I suggest that the hon. member should read Hansard. He will find answers to all those questions there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have read Hansard, and I have been able to find nothing by way of an answer to that question. The minister did not say when the Minister of National Revenue spoke to him about this case. He did not tell us when it was decided not to prosecute. The minister told us originally-


Mr. Smallwood:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We reverted from item 17 to item 16 so the hon. gentleman might ask a question, not make a speech, and I think it is quite unfair.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was abou, to point out that it was the hon. member for Laurier who gave us the only facts we have on this situation. I would remind you that the minister has given us none. The minister has not told us what this man did.

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I protest against the hon. member making statements that are absolutely contrary to the facts as reported in yesterday's Hansard. I gave the full facts in connection with this matter. The hon. member has just said I did not give any facts. Hansard is there for anybody to read, and I protest against him taking up the time of the house with repetitious statements and questions the answers to which are already on the record.


Charles Edward Rea: I think the committee has been very generous in allowing the hon. member to revert to item 16 so as to be able to ask questions, and I think he should confine his remarks to questions as closely as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest possible deference it seems to me that when we are discussing the dismissal of a public servant whose category the minister has not been able to give us precisely-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I gave it to you. Don't keep making these incorrect statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said at one point he was a casual employee, and at another point that he was a seasonal employee. I am informed that there is a difference in status between seasonal and casual employees. And the minister has said, on his own unsupported testimony, that he satisfied himself that this man was engaged in political activities, and that he had broken some law. I am seeking to find out some of the facts on which the minister reached this conclusion,-facts which, I submit should have been given frankly to the committee. I want the minister to tell us on what date-no, first of all, I want to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Make up your mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -whether it is true he stopped the prosecution, as he told the house he did in his answer to the first question of the hon. member for Laurier.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Once more, if the hon. member had paid close attention yesterday and the other time this matter was discussed, or if he had read Hansard, he would know the answer to that.
I had nothing to do with the matter originally. When it came to my attention- as I say, six months after the offence had taken place-I considered the matter as to whether or not the man should be prosecuted and decided, as far as I was concerned, that after this lapse of time and in view of what the unfortunate results of that would be as far as confidence in our

inspection services was concerned it would be undesirable for me to initiate a prosecution, especially after the lapse of that length of time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate requested permission to ask questions, and no one else has the right to do so at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether or not it is true that the Minister of National Revenue or the officials of his department had already decided not to prosecute before this matter was drawn to his attention?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have
already answered that question in my remarks yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, that question, I am sure, has never been asked before. I am asking whether or not the Minister of National Revenue or his department had decided not to prosecute before the Minister of Agriculture ever heard of this case?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is entirely repetitious. If the hon. gentleman will read the record he will see that I stated yesterday that at the time the liquor and cigarettes were found in this man's possession-I do not know how long afterward but almost immediately after that-the enforcement branch of the Department of National Revenue decided not to prosecute and-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The question of whether or not a prosecution should have been undertaken by the Department of National Revenue has nothing whatever to do with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and I would ask the hon. member not to pose any more questions along that line.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think your point of order is very well taken, sir, and I accept it without question. However, I should like to ask the minister this question. We have been told that the liquor and cigarettes were found in this man's possession on November 29. The Minister of Agriculture said the first time he ever heard of this case was on May 1. Did he learn about the liquor and cigarettes from the Department of National Revenue or from some other source?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, once more I say that if the hon. gentleman would read the record he would know the answer to

that question. I have already said this afternoon that I first learned of this orally, and certainly it was not from the Department of National Revenue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, sir, this offence of which the minister has convicted Mr. Mitchell was never brought to the minister's attention at all by the Department of National Revenue. This offence which was discovered on November 29 was not considered by the Department of National Revenue of sufficient importance to bring to the attention either of the minister or of his officials. The minister has now told us he learned of it from some other source, and not from the Minister of National Revenue, and evidently it was considered by the Minister of National Revenue and his officials of no importance-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member is supporting a smuggler in his remarks.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I understand that the committee gave unanimous consent to the hon. member asking a question. He has already asked 29 questions and at the moment he is no longer asking a question but making a speech. His remarks have become nothing more or less than a harangue and a cross-examination of the Minister of Agriculture. I suggest that the rules of the house are being flouted in a manner which is typical of my hon. friend, but which is nevertheless a disgraceful violation of the rules of this house.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The committee did give the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate the right to ask questions. I must ask him again to confine his remarks to questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, with the very greatest deference I submit-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking on the point of order.


Thomas Miller Bell: The point of order has been ruled on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order despite the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who does not seem to like this discussion very much.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You cannot raise a point of order on a point of order, either. Mr. Supply-Agriculture
Chairman, I understand that we are not yet precluded from raising points of order in this house, even with the restrictions the hon. member for Rosedale is seeking to impose on our liberties.


Some hon. Members:: Question. Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is this. As I understand it I was given unanimous consent to revert to item 16 of the estimates. I do not believe it is competent to the committee to put any strings on what I may say in committee as long as it relates to the item. Once unanimous consent has been given I do not think it can be taken away, and I do not believe that my freedom of speech about this matter can properly be restricted under the rules in any way whatsoever. That is my submision.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. No one, of course, has any idea of taking anything away from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate with reference to his freedom of speech.


Thomas Miller Bell: You cannot take something away from nothing.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. gentleman asked if we could revert to item 16 in order that he could ask questions. I, as chairman, asked the committee if he could have unanimous consent to revert to item 16 for the purpose of asking questions and the committee gave unanimous consent. I feel, therefore, that the hon. member should confine his remarks as closely as possible to questions in accordance with the thoughts of the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest possible respect I simply cannot submit to a form of censorship of that sort, and I shall desist at once from asking questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 17 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
20.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council. $411,000.
Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister tell us under what terms and conditions eggs are destroyed, and in what quantity?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is an old classification which has been in the estimates for some years. It is due to the fact that Newcastle's disease and fowl typhoid can

Supply-Agriculture
both be transmitted through the egg. Therefore provision was made for the destruction of eggs at a time when these diseases were prevalent. They have not been prevalent in recent years and no eggs have been destroyed for approximately three or four years, I am advised by the director-general of veterinary services.


Mr. Mcllraith:: There was an outbreak of Newcastle disease about three or four years ago, and some discussion occurred at that time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Livestock and poultry-
21.	Livestock and poultry production, including premiums on pure-bred sires and contributions for livestock improvement, $1,938,438.
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word about the production of lambs and wool in Canada. I saw a recent estimate which indicated that Canada imports 15 million pounds of lamb a year. Canada raises 1,500,000 sheep, but this production could be raised to 10 million. Could the minister tell us what he intends to do to improve the production of sheep in Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we have already taken very definite steps in order to increase sheep production in Canada. We put into effect under the Agricultural Stabilization Act a support price of 60 cents a pound for wool. A two-day conference of sheep producers from all over Canada was convened in Ottawa, and this action was taken in response to their request concerning what effective steps might be taken in order to improve and increase the production of sheep in Canada. They were unanimous in saying that a support price for wool was the most important thing to be done, and as a result we put into effect this support price for wool.
I might say that of all the measures we have taken to improve agricultural prices in Canada, and all the steps we have taken under the Agricultural Stabilization Act and otherwise, this particular step of putting this support price under wool has resulted in more letters of thanks than any other single thing we have done. Sheep men from all over Canada have written thanking me most sincerely for having taken this step as far as the sheep industry is concerned.


Samuel Boulanger: This policy was indeed necessary and I too thank the minister, but it is not what we want to increase the production of lambs. We have a considerable area of marginal land in Canada in crops which could be put to better use as pastures. These pastures could be improved at little

cost. They should be classified for this purpose following an investigation of land use. That is why I wish to ask the minister whether the land use investigation is being pursued by the special committee of the other place?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member that we could have and should have a great deal more sheep production in Canada. That is why I called this meeting of those sheep people in order to get their advice as to what steps to take. As I say they, unlike the hon. member, were unanimous in saying that the most important thing was to put this support price under wool. In addition they recommended various other steps of a less important nature. In order to carry on this work we have asked for a special grant in order to set up a sheep committee, or an advisory group, so there can be a continuing body during the next year to carry on the investigation of the sheep industry and to make recommendations as to the best steps to take to improve and enlarge that industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
22.	Supervision of race track betting, $279,988.
Samuel Boulanger: This is an appropriation having to do with racetrack betting. As I understand it, this item is under the control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I wonder why this item is not in the Department of Justice estimates, because the R.C.M.P. come under the Department of Justice. There is an increase of $20,000 in this vote, and I would like to know why?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite incorrect. If he will refer to the Criminal Code he will see that it assigns the supervision of racetrack betting to the Minister of Agriculture, and it is carried out under the supervision of this department. It is quite true that the mounted police are employed as far as some of the supervisory work is concerned, but they are employed under the supervision of or by this department. Whilst they are engaged on those racetrack activities the Department of Agriculture pays their expenses.


Samuel Boulanger: They are under the control of the Department of Justice?


Douglas Scott Harkness: They are not under the control of the Department of Justice when they are working on this racetrack activity; they are under the control of the Department of Agriculture. As I said, we pay their expenses. Normally, of course, the mounted

police are under the control of the Department of Justice. We have them, you might say, on loan for some of the work of supervising racetracks.


William Hector McMillan: Can the minister tell us whether any of these funds are recoverable from the revenue from racetracks? I understand the provinces get quite a bit of revenue from the racetracks. Why should they not supervise the tracks?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we receive one-half of one per cent of the moneys wagered, and that has produced a revenue very greatly in excess of what we have been spending in recent years. In other words, the department was making money by supervising betting at the racetracks. I might say that the people engaged in racing horses and in carrying on racing were, I think, justifiably put out that we were making a great deal more than we were spending in the supervision of racing, and they have been requesting for many years that the department undertake what they call an "eye in the sky" camera which follows the horses around the track, as a result of which they have a record of any irregularities. It is a means of making sure that the running of the race is carried on according to the rules, which also involves salivary and urinary tests. A few months ago I agreed to assume the cost of carrying on these operations, and we expect as a result that the revenues and the expenditures will be much more nearly balanced in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
23.	To provide for grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions, and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; for payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1958, with exhibitions covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and for a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $916,000.
Hazen Robert Argue: On this vote, can the minister say whether any recent limitation has been placed on the amount of the grant that may be made toward the construction of various agricultural buildings? In other words, has there been any new regulation under this government which would make it more difficult for people to obtain loans?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer is no.


Hazen Robert Argue: There has been no new limitation of $100,000 on such grants?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That limitation is there, Mr. Chairman, but it is not new; it has been there for some considerable time.
Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say when it was placed there?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am informed it was in 1955.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the minister given any
consideration to raising the $100,000 ceiling? It seems to me, with the cost of buildings today and the very useful purpose to which they can be put, such a ceiling perhaps should be increased. It must have been placed there because amounts higher than that had been granted in the past. It would seem to me that for some buildings, at any rate, the $100,000 is relatively low.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we have had no representations from exhibitions and fairs that this amount should be raised. I presume the hon. member is extending them an invitation now to request it, but up to date we have not had any request that it be raised. What we have had from time to time over the years are requests for special grants, and a number of them have been made, grants considerably in excess of $100,000 for the erection of some particular building or to cover some particular situation. For example, the maritime winter fair, which lost its buildings just a short time ago, I have no doubt will apply for a special grant in order to help replace those buildings, and so on; things along this line.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister explain why this grant has been reduced by $37,000 while the next grant, item 24, the royal winter fair in Toronto, has been increased by $245,000?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, Mr. Chairman, this
particular figure is the estimate of the officials of the department as to what the grants which have been applied for and which cover work which will be completed during the year will amount to. It so happens that in this particular year the estimate is, as the hon. member says, $5,000 less than it was in the previous year.
The reason for the increase in the grant to the royal winter fair is that some two to three years ago the previous government authorized a special grant of $1 million. This is one of the special grants I referred to in answering the hon. member for Assiniboia. During the first year after the grant was authorized the royal winter fair did not start building and did not use any of the $1 million. The following year they still had not completed their plans and did not use any of it. However, they have now informed us that they will need this amount this year. They informed the department that they would need this other amount in the previous year but they did not actually get started. I think they had some difficulties amongst

Supply-Agriculture
themselves over the plans and as a result they did not get started on their building. They now inform us that this year their building will require this amount so that is the amount we have put in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
24.	Special grant to royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, $250,000.
William Hector McMillan: Does the royal agricultural winter fair get an extra amount in addition to this special grant?


Douglas Scott Harkness: They get an annual grant of $50,000 a year. This is a special building grant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
28.	Marketing service administration, including marketing of agricultural products, $666,454.
Samuel Boulanger: Under this item I see there is a position called "senior officer 2" with a salary of $13,785. Under the Agricultural Stabilization Act item the salary of the chairman is $11,500. I understand that these two positions are held by the same man. I should like to know what salary he receives. If he is receiving $11,500 I suggest that he should be paid $13,875.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The head of the marketing service, who is also chairman of the agricultural stabilization board, is paid as head of the marketing service at the higher of the two figures mentioned. I have also made a recommendation to treasury board that he receive certain extra compensation because of the fact that he is carrying on two jobs. That has not yet been approved but I expect that it will be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
29.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, in the amounts detailed in the estimates $445,916.
Frank Howard: First of all I should like to ask the minister what is the reason for cutting in half the amount of money to be expended under the Cold Storage Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We decided, as the result of a considerable number of representations that had been made to us, that the amount of cold storage now existing made it unnecessary for us to subsidize everybody who wanted to go into the cold storage business. In the past we paid out quite large subsidies to large commercial concerns which were building big cold storage warehouses across the country. As a result of a review of the matter a few months ago I had the regulations changed so that the amount of grant would be limited to $50,000 in the case of

any one cold storage project. The purpose was to ensure that this form of assistance was extended as far as possible to farmers' and fishermen's co-operatives and organizations of that sort which in many cases still need to build comparatively small cold storage warehouses and require assistance whereas we did not think it was necessary to continue that type of assistance to large commercial concerns. As a result, the amount of money that will be expended will be very much reduced and that is why the item is reduced.


Frank Howard: I understand that formerly there was no limit to the total subsidy but there was a limit in terms of a percentage of the total cost, a maximum of one-third of the cost or something of that sort.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is correct. There was no limit on the total cost of the cold storage building which was erected. We paid one-third of the cost and, of course, we still pay one-third of the cost. There is no change in that regard but this upper limit of $50,000 has been imposed which means that in the future anybody who builds a $3 million cold storage plant will not get a $1 million subsidy.


Frank Howard: It may seem strange-I found it strange when it came to my attention- that fishermen's problems should be dealt with in the department of agriculture but, as the minister has said, subsidy payments under the Cold Storage Act are also payable to fishermen's co-operatives to enable them to build fish cold storage plants.
Undoubtedly the matter to which I wish to refer has been drawn to the attention of the minister or his officials. I wish to make a formal plea on behalf of the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association. When there was no limit to the subsidy other than one-third of the total cost the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative made plans to build a cold storage plant having in mind that they would receive a subsidy of one-third of the total cost from the department. I believe they received approval to go ahead some few years ago but difficulties then arose between the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative and another co-operative in Vancouver and they decided to delay the building of the cold storage plant.
However, they have now made plans to proceed with it without realizing that a $50,000 ceiling has been placed on the subsidy they will be able to receive under the Cold Storage Act. If the minister feels it is necessary to place a limit of $50,000 on the subsidy because of the huge cold storage plants being built costing millions of dollars, I ask him very seriously, speaking particularly

of the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative although there may be other co-operatives or companies in the same boat, whether he would not consider relaxing the regulation in the case of the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative and any other groups in the position of having developed their plans on the assumption they would receive a subsidy amounting to one-third of the total cost. Otherwise, now that they are ready to proceed they will be hampered by the fact that a limit has been placed on the subsidy they had expected to receive.
I think if the minister would undertake to do that he would certainly find, so far as the Rupert fishermen's co-op is concerned, he would assist them immeasurably in the expansion of their cold storage locker and that if there are other cases which fall into the same category I am sure this sort of action would be greatly appreciated. I hope the minister will undertake to take some steps in the direction of relaxing the $50,000 limit which applies to those who have unfortunately found themselves having to raise a few thousand more dollars than they had originally thought would be necessary.


Douglas Scott Harkness: One thing I mentioned
before and which I should like to make sure the members of the committee understand is that these subsidies are available only to people to erect public cold storages, whether it be a co-op or an individual enterprise. It must not only be a public cold storage but it must remain so, otherwise the subsidy is repayable. I do not know whether this particular co-op wants the cold storage entirely for its own operations or not but in any event to do what the hon. member asks would really mean we would have to go back about four years. These people, I am informed, had an agreement to build a cold storage but at the end of the year they had still not raised the money or completed their plans, and they asked for an extension. They got three such extensions and eventually the agreement became void.
If we were to go back and revise agreements entered into during the past five years I think the hon. member will recognize we would be in a practically impossible situation. I might also tell him that it would mean an expenditure of several million more dollars in subsidies for a considerable number of private enterprises which had agreements but which did not raise the money or complete their plans so that their agreements lapsed. If we were to do as the hon. member asks and recognize this voided agreement which is now five years old, we would have to do the same thing for everybody and there are a large number of such old agreements. This would
Supply-Agriculture
create an extremely awkward situation and problem and would also, I think, be unfair to those people who have been in the cold storage business for years and to the many smaller farmers' and fishermen's co-operatives which have built cold storages.


Frank Howard: I would like to carry on to amplify this thought. I was not suggesting we should go back four or five years and renew every old agreement. I am only stating the circumstances in so far as the Rupert fishermen's co-op is concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was the situation with the Rupert co-op.


Frank Howard: Yes, I quite appreciate that but I am also saying it has not been because of lack of desire or need that that co-op did not proceed with their expansion program but I think it is equally unfair to the Rupert co-op or to any other co-op or group wanting to operate and own its plant to allow them to develop their plans on the assumption that they would receive a one-third grant and then, when they are ready to definitely proceed, to find out that the subsidy is not there and that they are going to have to raise the difference between the one-third and the $50,000 if the cost is more than $150,000, as it is in this case. I think it is equally unfair to place co-op associations and others in a position of assuming that they are going to get it in the first place and then suddenly to discover they must raise additional capital and that their plan for orderly marketing and protection of foodstuffs-in this case fish-are all upset. I know the minister is very able and I am sure that if he tries hard enough he will find some way around this difficulty.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not see that there is anything unfair in this situation. This particular organization had four years to build its warehouse; they had an agreement which lapsed and it was extended three successive times. The agreement was for one year and it eventually lapsed altogether and is now void. I do not think there is anything unfair there at all. They had four years in which to mature their plans and they did not do so. It is much the same thing as if I entered a contract to buy a car for so much money and I did not go ahead and buy the car but four years later I came along wanting to get a car of that year's model at the same price I had contracted for four years earlier. It is just not a reasonable proposition.


Frank Howard: Could I ask this one question: did the minister say the regulation was changed two or three months ago?

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I think it was six months ago.


Frank Howard: At any rate it was a relatively short time ago. Did the minister or did any of his officials discover that groups or organizations or companies had in years past received subsidies under the Cold Storage Act and its one-third provision although they were not entitled to do so?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am informed that nothing is known along that line, but I can tell my friend that every application for a subsidy is very carefully investigated and we do turn down a considerable number. Many people put in applications although they have not met the regulations; they start to build their cold storage and then they come along and ask for a subsidy. Under the act we cannot pay it to them and we get a great many complaints from people who think they should get a subsidy and do not get one. I can certainly assure the hon. member that these applications are very carefully investigated before a subsidy is paid and before an agreement is entered into to see that the projected cold storage will meet all the requirements of the regulations laid down and that the expenditures for building are very carefully checked so that we can be sure we are not paying more than the one-third share called for by the agreement.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, this may have a bearing on the matter. I wonder if there are statistics available as to the average or general cost of fish cold storage as related to the general or average cost of cold storage for garden products, meats and so on?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have not any cost figures here, Mr. Chairman, but my officials inform me that the lower the temperature required the higher the cost, and therefore the cold storage for fish as opposed to that for fruit and vegetables would entirely depend on the amount of space devoted to low temperatures. In the present cold storage for fruits and vegetables a considerable amount of space is for deep-freezing purposes, for fast-freezing of fruits and vegetables and to keep them in that frozen form for long periods of time. It may therefore be that at the present time the cost of fruit and vegetable cold storage is more expensive than that required for fish, but that again would depend on the proportion of space required for these low temperatures.


Frank Howard: I should like to proceed a little bit further. As I said earlier, it seemed to be somewhat odd to me when I discovered these subsidies for fish cold storage warehouses would come under the Department of

Agriculture. I would have normally expected that subsidies for fish cold storage would more properly be administered by the Department of Fisheries, not that I am saying that the administration has not been good or otherwise. However, it would appear to me to be a more sensible division or application of it, inasmuch as the products which are stored and used are different, to divide the administration as it applies to fish cold storage plants and to place that under the Department of Fisheries where they deal every day with fish, fish products, fish marketing services, price supports, research and everything else. I wonder whether some consideration would not be given to that suggestion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The reason we administer this matter is that there is only one Cold Storage Act and it is provided that it shall be administered by the Department of Agriculture. The number of cold storages built for fish products is very small in comparison with the number built for meat, fruit, vegetables, butter, cheese and all the other products and it is not sufficient to justify a separate administration for fish cold storages. The actual practice is that when we get an application in for a fish cold storage we promptly send it over to the Department of Fisheries and ask them to investigate it and give us a report on it before we proceed any further.


Frank Howard: Did the minister say "properly" or promptly?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We promptly send it over to the Department of Fisheries. As I say we get their report before we proceed any further on it.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask another question. I am sorry I did not do this earlier and I hope the minister will not mind my trying to get this information for my own sake. It is purely for that purpose at the moment. I understood the minister to say that the reason for the placing of a ceiling of $50,000 was that there had been some fairly heavy expenditures made under this act in the past to the huge cold storage groups and therefore it was felt to be unnecessary to be continually pumping federal government money into these cold storage operations. Is that generally what the reason was?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I indicated previously, the thing is that I received a considerable number of representations from people who already had cold storages in existence to the effect that the subsidy which we were through the department making available was resulting in cold storage space being overbuilt in their particular areas and was having the effect or was going to have the effect

of forcing them out of business with their existing cold storage. We were putting up a third of the cost for the new cold storage.
After looking into the matter it seemed to me that in many cases this was a fairly valid complaint. Also on looking over the history of it and on getting the figures as to the amount of cold storage which we have in Canada and the percentage of occupancy, I was particularly struck by the fact that the percentage of occupancy in the cold storages in Canada was not very high. I have forgotten the exact figures but I think it did not run much more than 50 per cent. I am informed that my memory on that matter is correct and that it ran about 50 per cent. With occupancy of existing cold storages at only about 50 per cent and running up to 70 per cent in some seasons, it seemed to me to be an unjustifiable use of public money to subsidize the construction of further cold storages except those required in certain areas, as I say, by farmers and fishermen's co-operatives in order to hold their product until they could market it. For those reasons I decided to limit the amount of the grant to $50,000.


Frank Howard: May I inquire whether those representations and the results of the study that was made and the realization that there was too much cold storage space and not enough use being made of it and so on apply to agricultural cold storage space or just that for fish? How did the fish cold storage plants fit into that study?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The figures that I have compiled cover all the cold storages across the country. What the break-down was between the ones which were used entirely or primarily for fish, I do not know. The hon. member probably knows that there are a number of cold storages which are used for both fish and agricultural products.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has said that there is an upper limit of $50,000 put on assistance under this act. Would he explain why it is that at page 126 of the details of assistance, there are some grants which are well in excess of $50,000 for next year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Those are to cover contracts which were already in existence before the limit of $50,000 was put on. In other words, there were a considerable number of contracts which had been entered into by the government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, and we have not finished paying out under those; the construction was still going on or if it was completed, a complete check of it had not been made and the settlement had not yet been made. All those in excess of that amount which you see in the details are old contracts
Supply-Agriculture
which were in existence when the change was made; and of course we did not make this change retroactive and disturb the old contracts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would that explanation also cover the items in the supplementary estimates for assistance under this act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The deputy minister is still looking up those items but I am quite sure it would, yes; because since we made this change no cold storage subsidies have been authorized in excess of $50,000. If there are any in there in excess of $50,000, they must be old contracts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Even in the supplementary estimates?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Mr. Southam:: I should like to substantiate the minister's advice in that respect. I happen to be in the cold storage business myself in Saskatchewan and as president of the Saskatchewan locker operators association I know there has been a definite trend in the last few years away from the placing of food in cold storage plants owing to the advent of home freezers. It is a definite trend. It is something that we must face up to. But I think the minister's advice in that respect is quite right.


Hazen Robert Argue: I feel that the Minister of Agriculture is making a mistake in putting this arbitrary limit of $50,000 on any grant that may be made to a cold storage firm. If the minister is correct in saying that in certain areas there has been over-building and that the amount of space that is used is too low, surely that would be a factor in considering any individual application-*


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is.


Hazen Robert Argue: -as to whether or not storage in a given area were in fact needed. But it would seem to me that the instance of Prince Rupert, shall we say, or in any other instance-I do not claim to be acquainted with this case that has been raised-it would be a greater service to the agricultural industry and to consumers generally to judge each case on its merits rather than to say that an arbitrary limit of $50,000 is going to be placed on the amount that can be paid for any cold sorage. As far as farmers' cooperatives, fishermen's co-operatives or other co-operatives may be concerned, I think the $50,000 limit is going to mean a hardship for some of them. Even in this very estimate that is under consideration there is a cooperative in the province of Quebec that is to get a grant of $105,884. If an arbitrary limit of $50,000 were set, then of course that

Supply-Agriculture
co-operative would get a good deal less. For the minister to say that this is for co-operatives, that we are going to give it to cooperatives through a kind of back door method by setting a $50,000 ceiling, is something that I do not think should be done. I do not think that is the way to administer anything.
If this is designed to help co-operatives, why does the minister not put in a clause saying that subsidies for co-operative organizations for the building of cold storage plants may be one-third of the cost without regard to a ceiling. I do not think it is possible to say we are putting on a $50,000 ceiling and at the same time say the whole program is for the purpose of assisting cooperatives. I can remember when I came into this chamber in 1946 or 1947, a couple of years after I was elected there was a long discussion on this very question. At that time, as I remember the discussion, the department was not following the practice of allowing co-operatives building locker plants to be eligible for this subsidy; it was a subsidy for large bulk storage plants. After a good deal of discussion, the minister of agriculture of that day, the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, agreed it should be extended to include co-operative lockers and I think I had the honour of having a subsidy paid to a locker plant in my constituency, one of the very first to take advantage of it.
We have heard it said in these discussions by members on all sides of the house that one of the reasons there is such a tremendous fluctuation in the price of perishable farm products is that ample storage is not available. I have listened to the Minister of Agriculture today, and I am not convinced that this ceiling is the way to administer cold storage facility development. If the government feels that in a given area no new storage facilities are required, let us have no subsidy at all. But if an organization, and particularly a co-operative association, can make a case for the building of a storage plant which costs in excess of $150,000, then I suggest it is not good business from the standpoint of the welfare of this nation to place an arbitrary ceiling on this item. I think the reduction from $915,000 in the former estimate to $445,000 in this year's estimate, together with a look at the estimates which show that there are a number receiving amounts in excess of $50,000, means that the government is going a long way toward wiping out a cold storage program which has been built up step by step, and which is serving a very useful purpose.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not arguing with the hon. member that there was not a need for

a cold storage program of this sort in the past, but I would once more draw to his attention the fact that the surveys I have carried out showed that the existing cold storage is only being used to 50 per cent of capacity. Under the circumstances, what excuse is there for using the taxpayers' money to subsidize in large amounts the building of more storage? There is no excuse for it at all. I would have done away with this altogether except that there still exists the need for more storage-small storage facilities-in isolated parts of the country, or in parts of the country which are more or less isolated. I said that most of the people who would benefit under the present regulations with a limit of $50,000 are farmers' and fishermen's co-operatives in areas which are to some extent isolated. But we do not want to limit this to co-operatives. Any group of farmers that wants to build a cold storage plant with public facilities, for instance, may receive a subsidy. These are the very people who need to be helped and I think from all the information I have been able to gather that $50,000 is quite adequate. If you put it at more than $50,000 you are in effect subsidizing the building of big cold storage plants which are just going to take storage business away from other large cold storage plants already in existence.


Frank Howard: I wonder if the minister could tell me how many cold storage plants there are which deal exclusively or, in the main, with agricultural products; how many deal exclusively, or in the main with fish; and how many handle both agricultural products and fish in combination.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have not those figures, but we could have them compiled by the department and I would be glad to do that and send them to the hon. member.


Frank Howard: Do I understand that the figures are not yet compiled but that this could be done?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Frank Howard: The minister has informed the committee that he has conducted a survey and that he has discovered that the present storage facilities, or the operators of them, needed protection and that there did not appear to be any need for additional storage facilities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. I did not make either of those statements.


Frank Howard: Perhaps the minister will let me finish.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Don't put words into my mouth that I did not utter.


Frank Howard: I do not want to get into the same sort of altercation with the minister as I did yesterday, but a good way to begin one would be by making these interruptions. The minister said he had conducted a survey.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is right.


Frank Howard: And that as a result of that survey he had discovered certain things. Is that right?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That there was a 50 per cent occupancy.


Frank Howard: Sometimes going up to 70 or 75 per cent, I forget which figure the minister used.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Seventy.


Frank Howard: I attempted to discover from the minister what division there was with respect to fish cold storage and agricultural products cold storage, and he does not know the figures, though he says he can have them compiled and send them to me. But they will not do me any good. What the minister has just admitted is that in the course of the examination he conducted he did not attempt to discriminate between cold storage facilities for agricultural products and cold storage facilities for fisheries products. He just made a complete survey across the board, said this represented the general picture as far as cold storage is concerned, made no attempt to differentiate between the two products and decided that the ceiling of $50,000 would be appropriate.
I will go one step further and say that the reduction from $915,000 to $445,000, a sum equal to less than half of the former estimate, together with the $50,000 limit, is an indication that the main estimates will be cut in half again next year, because there will not be these large sums of money payable and I suggest to the minister with all due respect to what he may have said-and I have no intention of putting words into his mouth-that if he had made as thorough an investigation of this subject as he made of the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier, he would have discovered that an entirely different picture exists with respect to agricultural cold storage.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member is, in effect, accusing me of not knowing what I am doing and not having the information on which to do it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wish the minister would not put words in my mouth.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I was not putting words in the hon. member's mouth. I said that in effect this was what he was 57071-3-187
Supply-Agriculture
saying. I ventured to suggest that in connection with cold storage the only information he has relates to the situation at Prince Rupert. I think he would be better advised to find out what the situation is with regard to cold storage across Canada before he begins making these broad, general sweeping statements.
The investigation which we carried on with respect to occupancy of cold storage facilities was very complete. I indicated some time before that a large number of these facilities are used for both fish and agricultural products. The hon. member is complaining because I do not have here a break-down as to the exact number which are used for fish only, the exact number used for both fish and agricultural products and the number used for other commodities. That would be an extensive compilation job. I have informed the hon. member that it could be done and I shall be glad to have it undertaken and send him the information but in the meantime I take objection to his making broad statements which are to the effect that we did not know what we were doing when we did this.


Frank Howard: I could very easily agree with the minister on that point but I will not. With all due respect to him and his department I point out that when I opened my remarks I said I was referring specifically to the Price Rupert fishermen's co-operative association and that was it. I was not talking about fish cold storage plants throughout Canada or agricultural cold storage plants. Regardless of whether or not the minister knew what he was doing-and that is for him and not me to decide-he looked at the entire picture and decided that because certain conditions existed the subsidy would have application to everybody regardless of the merits of the individual case. I am objecting to the application of the subsidy not being based on the merits of individual cases without limitations being placed upon it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister could tell us if a survey was taken for only cine year or over a period of years. Could he also tell the committee whether the 50 per cent occupancy of cold storage is a standard figure for a number of years or whether it has been diminishing rapidly as time went on? I hasten to admit that I am no authority about cold storage facilities but it would seem to me that if cold storage facilities deal in certain goods that are produced in a given season that figure might be fairly high. I should also like to know whether or not the storage survey was broken down as to areas, regions or provinces because if the city of Toronto has ample cold storage facilities and is using only 40 per cent of the potential

Supply-Agriculture
capacity of the facilities this does not do much good for the people in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Skeena if they are greatly in need of such facilities. A national average of 50 per cent occupancy does not mean very much unless it is a general pattern that is prevalent all across the country. I am wondering if the minister could say to what extent there was occupancy of cold storage facilities a few years ago and whether the survey would show by provinces that the rate of use of cold storage varies a great deal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we receive monthly returns as to the occupancy of these various cold storage plants and these are compiled on a yearly basis. The general trend of occupancy has been downward for some years past. In other words, the percentage of occupancy has been declining. These figures, of course, are broken down on a provincial and regional basis. There is naturally some variation on a provincial and regional basis but the chief variation is on a seasonal basis. At some seasons of the year occupancy is low and at other times it runs as high as 70 per cent in some cases, as I mentioned. Nevertheless the general trend of occupancy has been decreasing.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is a good example of the fact that whenever you attempt to put into effect a necessary economy, one which will save the taxpayers some money and one which serves other useful purposes, you immediately receive complaints from some hon. members of the house which makes it difficult to institute economies in government services. This is a case in which I think there is no question whatever but that the granting of subsidies running up to as much as $1 million or more to build cold storage plants is absolutely unjustified. We have sufficient cold storage facilities now. On the average it does not have more than 50 per cent occupancy. Why in the world should we continue to spend the taxpayers' money in building more cold storage facilities in the light of the situation I have outlined which would force a lot of people into bankruptcy? I cannot understand that kind of reasoning. Certainly the provision we have made of a $50,000 grant which is still available is sufficient to cover the needs of the smaller communities where storage facilities have not yet been built. The smaller areas are the only places where there is a necessity for new cold storage plants.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words to what I said a few moments ago with respect to the situation. I live in Saskatchewan where we have a

cold storage operation rigidly supervised by the Department of Agriculture. We have 216 licensed cold storage locker operators in that province. I believe the standard of operation is one of the best in Canada. Having been an executive officer of the governing association for some years I have watched the trend in this field.
Cold storage lockers came into popularity in Saskatchewan in about 1945. The popularity of usage increased sharply until approximately 1950. Beginning in that year there was a decline in cold storage occupancy. We as cold storage operators had educated the public to the value of cold storage and the economy of processing foods. The advent of home freezers on the consumer market lessened the need for commercial locker plants. I would presume to. say there would be possibly twice as much food in cold storage today as there was in 1945 but it is in the individual homes. The result of this is that many operators in Saskatchewan feel they are going to be faced in the not too distant future with the problem of keeping their plants fully occupied and operating economically.
I believe the minister is taking the right stand in this regard. He is following the trend that has taken place in my province and I understand the same trend has taken place right across Canada. Rural electrification is taking place in many areas and the moment it is established a home freezer is the first utility the farm wife wants. The result is that she takes her products away from commercial locker plants. I can speak with some knowledge of the situation in Regina and elsewhere because I have spoken in the last few years to the operators of plants in those areas. This is a normal trend and something to which we must face up.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister has given us ample reasons why there should be this arbitrary limit. I am surprised that if he has made this comprehensive survey and the records come in from time to time he or his departmental officials who are before him do not have copies of these documents so the committee could see the entire cold storage picture across the country.
I was critical over the years of the former minister of agriculture, probably as critical as any hon. member of this house, but I was always prepared to say that as far as cold storage subsidies were concerned he was improving the program. Today we have determination on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to save money in this field and applications will not be judged on

their individual merits. We all are aware of what was pointed out by the hon. member for Moose Mountain that other facilities are being made available.
We have a minister who does not judge each case on its merits, but arbitrarily slices off any chance there is of a co-operative, or any other organization, getting a grant in excess of $50,000. I am not one of those who has spent my time asking the government to spend its time ferreting out economies; but if the government wants to make some real economies I think they can be made in some department, generally speaking, other than the Department of Agriculture because, in my opinion, expenditures in the Department of Agriculture have never been excessive.
I am wondering whether, when the minister made this survey of which he has spoken a great deal, it was a special survey or whether it was merely a reading of those annual reports that normally come in from across the country. Can the minister tell the committee the percentage of cold storages in use in this country by provinces?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the investigation that I have made was a matter of taking those monthly reports-as I say, they are not yearly reports; we get them in monthly in regard to occupancy-and compiling the statistics. The hon. member will realize that that is a big job because there are a lot of those cold storages across Canada.
As far as judging any particular application for a cold storage on its merits is concerned, as I indicated before, that is what is done. When an application comes in a very careful investigation is made before a contract is entered into, and once more the costs which are submitted by the organization are very carefully audited and gone into before we pay out this subsidy. The thing is done on an individual basis and has always been done on an individual basis; but it seemed to me that as far as cold storage which was to be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, in the future, is concerned in view of the extent of the occupancy which exists at the present time and in view of the number of cold storages there are in all centres of any size, the only need for continued subsidization was in the smaller areas where cold storage has not yet been built. The limit of $50,000 I considered, and still consider, was more than ample to cover the needs of those communities. That is why the sum of $50,000 was put in as our contribution, which means a cold storage costing $150,000.
As far as the break-down of figures by provinces is concerned, the hon. member 57071-3-187*
Supply-Agriculture
realizes that it is a big job. I have this book here which is just a summary of the various details, as far as these estimates are concerned, and it is an absolute impossibility to have here all of the documents which might be asked for. As far as information is concerned, such as the break-down of those cold storages, the officials just could not carry the documents. As I said before to the hon. member for Skeena, I will be glad to get the break-down by provinces, and so forth, but I have not it here at the present time, and it is just not feasible to have everything along with me here when I am taking up my estimates, as I think the hon. member realizes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, there was another way in which the minister could have attained his objective if his objective was to save money or to accomplish economies. He could have taken each application and looked at it on its merits to see whether or not in a given locality such new cold storage facilities were needed. If in the opinion of the minister they were not needed, then it would not be necessary to grant a subsidy. My point is, if a co-operative wishes to build a cold storage plant, if it is needed, at a cost of $600,000, then it is a retrograde step to say that this co-operative is not able to get $200,000 by way of a grant but can only get $50,000. There were other ways of bringing about the same result, if that result were desired, other than to say that $50,000 is the limit and there will be no other subsidization of cold storage accommodation provided in this country. I do not think you can build anything adequate with the present building costs for the sum of $150,000. I would say that would be a relatively small plant at present costs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: 1 think the hon. member has forgotten what were the purpose and the intent of the Cold Storage Act. Its purpose and intent were to provide cold storages which were deficient in number at the time the act was passed, and it was a subsidy by the Canadian taxpayer to encourage people to put up cold storages because there was not anything like enough cold storages in existence. Now once you reach the point where you have sufficient cold storages over the country so that they are only 50 per cent occupied surely the need for any subsidy has disappeared. As I say, I would have done away with the subsidy entirely; I would have asked to have the act repealed except for the fact that in quite a considerable number of those more isolated areas there is still a need for the construction of many of those smaller cold storages, and that is why the limit of $50,000 was put in.

Supply-Agriculture
Furthermore, I might say this. Any concern which is going to build a cold storage costing more than $150,000 should be able to raise the money itself. If the cold storage is going to be sufficiently profitable, well, then, they should be able to raise the money themselves; they should not need any subsidy from the Canadian taxpayer in building it. If there was a definite shortage, as existed at one time, well and good, the subsidy was justified; but when you have a situation where you have only a 50 per cent occupancy of those cold storages, then, in my opinion, it is completely unjustifiable to ask the Canadian taxpayer to put up money to build more of them. The result of building more of them, in most instances, is just to put out of business or into bankruptcy concerns which already have them.


Frank Howard: I realize the minister may not have this information before him or it may be difficult to find, but can he indicate what the results of this survey showed with respect to percentage of occupancy of fish cold storage plants in Prince Rupert, and whether there is or is not a deficiency of them?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can send that information to the hon. member. As I said, naturally I have not it here.


Frank Howard: I am sorry; I was trying to listen to two people at the same time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said that I can send him that information but naturally I have not it here.


Frank Howard: Did the minister compile that information as a result of a survey?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know what the hon. member is asking me, whether we compiled the information. We have the complete figures as to the occupancy month by month of those various cold storages, and from that information, which takes up a great deal of room in the files, we can compile any information which is asked for. But what is compiled at the present time and what I can lay my finger on in 10 minutes or half an hour I do not know.


Frank Howard: Well, what I am trying to get at in another way and to point out is that I think this is an incorrect way of approaching this problem and saying that because we have discovered from the results of the Canada-wide study an average percentage use of cold storages is made, therefore that average should apply to every place. Some may be above and some below. I say that is an inequitable use of the results. To apply it all across the board

and I do not want to put words in the minister's mouth-is to say

that Prince Rupert does not need additional cold storage facilities without knowing whether that is so or not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can say is this. I have explained several times before, and I have to take the responsibility, that in my opinion there is no need for the subsidization of cold storage facilities anywhere in the country in excess of $50,000 per cold storage plant. That is my opinion and I have to be responsible for the decision. I have taken it and I do not think I can say anything further about the matter. From the information I have received I am convinced that there are sufficient large cold storage plants in all of the more populous areas of the country, that further subsidization of them is not required and not only is not required but simply has the effect of damaging already established cold storage plants and organizations.


Frank Howard: I am appreciative of the fact that the minister has just indicated there is no need for subsidization with respect to fish cold storage facilities in Prince Rupert.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say that.


Hazen Robert Argue: In effect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said that in my opinion $50,000 was ample by way of subsidy.


Frank Howard: The minister is saying that $50,000 is an ample subsidy to meet what the act was originally intended to meet, a deficiency in cold storage facilities, and he is saying that without having any knowledge of the conditions existing in Prince Rupert.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can say is that we cannot pass special legislation in the case of one cold storage plant out of hundreds or thousands in the country which happens to be located in Prince Rupert or anywhere else.


Frank Howard: I suggest that the minister can pass regulations which will give him the authority to look at these matters on the merits of each individual case and adjust the subsidy, if necessary, just as is done by the government in many other actions it takes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
30. Agricultural economics, $764,345.
Samuel Boulanger: I should like to ask the minister a short question. How much of this money is for economic research to help farmers improve the efficiency of their farms?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. There is quite a bit of noise in the house and I cannot hear the hon. member.


Samuel Boulanger: How much of this money is for economic research to help farmers improve the efficiency of their farms from the point of view of business operation? Is this information available to farmers?


Douglas Scott Harkness: All of the work of the economics branch of the department is designed to improve the situation of farmers. The economics branch carries out studies in a very large number of different fields. One of the most important studies they have been carrying on for the last year has to do with farm credit. Another one they have been carrying on for several months concerns crop insurance. They have also been carrying on studies with regard to irrigation developments, particular types of crops, livestock of different kinds and the returns which have been received in various parts of the country and so forth. They do an enormous amount of work from the economic point of view in practically all types of agricultural production. Therefore my answer is that all of this money is spent in economic studies to assist farmers and improve their position.


Samuel Boulanger: What are the results of their research so far as the individual farmer is concerned? The farmer does not know much about the research that the government is doing. I think we should advertise it more in newspapers and agricultural publications.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The head of the economics branch informs me that last year 40 pamphlets were published dealing with the research that had been carried on and for the purpose of making known the results of their research to the farmers who can make use of it.


Samuel Boulanger: Are farmers asking for these reports?


Douglas Scott Harkness: A great many of the surveys made by the economics division have been requested by the farmers. They are undertaking a survey at the present time which was requested by the province of Prince Edward Island. Some of the surveys are requested by provincial governments, some by farm organizations and some by individual farmers. If a number of individual farmers write to the branch and it appears that the survey they request is justified and there is a real need for it then it is carried out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
31. Dairy products, $879,544.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Has the minister available figures showing the number of pounds of margarine and other spreads produced in Canada last year?
Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: A report was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the house a few days ago outlining the number of pounds of margarine, butter and so on.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Is this information given by the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. The Department of Trade and Commerce gets it from the dominion bureau of statistics which is under that department and the bureau gets it directly from the manufacturers.
<-*leese Factory Improvement Act,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
32. Grants and other assistance in accordance with anc*
Frank Howard: Could we have an explanation of the grants and other assistance, how they are spread around and to whom?


Douglas Scott Harkness: These grants for the consolidation and improvement of cheese factories have been in effect for quite a number of years. Up to now I think the majority of cheese factories have had subsidies paid to them at some time or other. At the present time most of the subsidies are paid in cases where you have in the same area or just a few miles apart two or three old cheese factories or a co-operative or the owner of one of these cheese factories wants to consolidate his operations into a larger and more modern factory. He applies for a grant for that purpose. In the same way as we do with respect to cold storage we investigate the matter and if it is justified, if there seems to be a need, it is approved and a contract is entered into. In this case the subsidy is 50 per cent of the cost of the improvement or consolidation as the case may be. Quite frequently you have a case where a combination factory is being erected, one designed to manufacture cheese in one part and butter in another. The grant is only made for that part which is devoted to the manufacture of cheese.


Frank Howard: I understood the minister to say that the amount is 50 per cent of the total cost as related to cheese.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Frank Howard: Is it a subsidy?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, it is a subsidy.


Frank Howard: Is there any justification for applying the same theory or principle in this case as in the case of cold storage facilities?


Douglas Scott Harkness: To begin with, the amounts of subsidy paid out are nothing like the amounts which have been paid out in the

Supply-Agriculture
case of cold storage facilities. Ordinarily the amounts are relatively small. The general purpose of this is to improve the cheese making facilities and therefore the quality of the cheese, which I think is still essential because we are only now able to sell the best quality cheese.


Mr. Gour:: I notice that there is an amount of $128,923 shown as a decrease under this item, and I would like the assurance of the minister that he is not going to commence to do away with part of these subsidies. My hon. friends can take advantage of my experience in this respect in that the 50 per cent grant is more important than the subsidy for cold storage.
This measure was instituted by the Liberal government and the work they did was first class, and that is why Canadian cheese is recognized as the best produced in the world. The subsidies made it possible for the cheese makers to buy the best machinery and the best facilities with which to keep it in good condition. I do not agree, therefore, with my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture that this amount should be decreased.
In my own village a man had to apply for a subsidy to build a larger building. This was not permitted at that time but it was urgent that he do this job. He was receiving 100,000 pounds of milk per day and he is now receiving 210,000 pounds of milk per day. Anyone who knows anything about milk will realize that 210,000 pounds of milk is "some milk". It was necessary for him to do this work immediately so that the farmers would have a place to which they might deliver their milk and when in this country we are talking about helping farming we refer to amelioration of conditions and the overcoming of our difficulties. We should therefore be increasing rather than decreasing the subsidies.
The Liberal government did a good job and I am hoping that the cabinet will help my good friend the Minister of Agriculture. I know him well enough to know that he wishes to do a good job and I ask every member on the government side to help him out, not here but in caucus. I hope they will get the Minister of Finance to give him the money he needs for we must increase help to the farmers of our country along with the manufacturers of other products. The conditions in the agricultural industry, especially over the last 25 years, have been quite different from those in any other industry. It is not the same thing at all. There is an increase or amelioration of 300 per cent in respect of assistance to other industries and I ask the minister not to forget what I asked him in a friendly way, that he should not

reduce too quickly the subsidies for dairy products. I am particularly anxious in this regard because we have been expecting help in my riding and this cheese producer was ready to improve the quality of his cheddar cheese until it was the highest quality in the world. I ask the minister to keep available sufficient money for this purpose and if the Minister of Finance does not agree we will help him out. My only object is to help him and the Tory government to do a good job. They will not do one-half of the job we did but anyhow I will help the minister to do a good job while he is in office.
We are not here to talk politics, we are here to see that the best chance is given for the most effective administration of the agricultural industry. That is the way I speak in this house and I would like to be assured that something will be done so that when the people of my riding, such as this cheese producer of whom I have spoken, need help they will get it in an effective way. This is one of the biggest producers in Canada, right in my own town, and I would like this particular case to be reconsidered by the minister because this year this particular man has spent over $200,000 and he is still short of space in which to receive the farmers' milk.
I do not ask my hon. friend to spend the money for nothing. I think the expenditure on cold storage is justified and I do not think there is any big mistake in that respect. Of course I do not think we should spend the taxpayers' money when it is not necessary, and Mr. St. Laurent was doing an excellent job in this respect, and we should not now put these people in a bad position.
I will not take up any further time, but I repeat that I hope my hon. friend will reconsider this case and will not allow this producer to go without the money he needs. The product he produces is a valuable one and his case should be favourably considered. Every similar case should also, in my opinion, receive the help of this government without the discussion of political issues.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would like to inform my friend that there is still quite a lot of money here; there is a subsidy of over $1.25 million in the main estimates and another $136,000 in the supplementary estimates.


Joseph-Omer Gour: So long as the minister believes that is enough to cover my case and the other cases in a similar category, I am satisfied.


Frank Howard: I would like to inquire from the minister, noting that in so far as this year is concerned the subsidy payment under vote 32 is something in the neighbourhood of

three times as great as under the cold storage item, whether this same ratio has existed over the past five or six years, or what has been the relationship between the one item and the other?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I might point out that in the supplementary estimates, item 527 shows a further $534,000 for these cold storage subsidies which figure needs to be added to the approximately $500,000 shown in the main estimates book.


Frank Howard: A total of $1,700,000?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. There is $1 million as a total. There is $534,000 to be added to the $445,000 shown in the main estimates. You therefore have a total subsidy during this year as far as cold storage is concerned of just under $1 million, and as far as cheese factories are concerned the figures would be a little under $1,400,000.


Frank Howard: Is this about the same ratio which has existed in past years between grants to cheese factories and subsidies for cold storage?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. The cold storage subsidy was very much higher than the cheese subsidy in other years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
33. Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, $1,814,021.
William Hector McMillan: In regard to item 33, which has to do with fruit and vegetables, I notice that there is about $1.75 million and I would like to ask the minister if this includes any grants, subsidies or price supports?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman, the money used for price supports does not come under this vote at all.


William Hector McMillan: Can we then discuss price supports under item 41 which will come up later?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, that is the place at which to discuss them.


William Hector McMillan: Then I would like to ask the minister the reason for the increase of about $239,000?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Of that $239,000 increase, $210,000 was for increases in salaries owing chiefly to the fact that an increase in salary was given to the civil service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
$176500 000Sht assistance on western feed grains,
Mr. Hicks:: I wonder whether the minister could tell me how much of this $17,500,000 that was spent for freight assistance on
Supply-Agriculture
grains went to British Columbia. I should also like to point out-and I presume he knows it already-that there is quite a stir in British Columbia to get more assistance in that regard. This stir is chiefly owing to the fact, of course, that the animals and poultry that consume this grain that comes to British Columbia are competing in the open market with animals and poultry that are fed in the neighbouring province. That hardly seems just fair.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Up to date since this program has been in operation British Columbia has received $27,532,000 in round figures. The total amount expended has been $280,741,000. In other words, approximately 10 per cent of this subsidy has gone to British Columbia. For the current year the amount due to British Columbia is $1,526,000 and the total is $17,694,000.


Erhart Regier: Will this freight assistance also be payable on feed grains that are now being shipped out of the Peace river area in British Columbia along the new extension of the Pacific Great Eastern railroad?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer is yes, as long as it is a rail movement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
39. For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved by the governor in council, $35,000.
Frank Howard: I imagine this item falls into a category similar to that of the other two votes we discussed with regard to grants and subsidies. I wonder whether we could have an explanation of the method for assistance, what limits are on it and so on?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This item is in a different situation from the others. In this case we put up the subsidy for the construction of a potato warehouse only upon the application of a province; and in that case, where the province puts up a third of the cost, we will put up a third of the cost and the people building it put up a third of the cost. In other words, it is a joint dominion-provincial scheme rather than a straight dominion subsidy as in the other two cases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
41. To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Stabilization Act, $88,390.
William Hector McMillan: I think the minister indicated that this is the place to discuss the price support of fruits and vegetables. I wonder whether he would like to put on the record the different price supports that are established for the different fruits and vegetables?

Private Bills


Douglas Scott Harkness: The what?


William Hector McMillan: The price supports that are now established for the different fruits and vegetables. I should also like to ask the minister whether, if a price support is established very much below the market price, the market price does not gravitate down to or near to the price support level. There were different members of a farm organization here and they said that this result was most likely to come about. I know that in the Niagara district that happened in the case of asparagus. For instance, in 1956 asparagus was selling from 22* cents a pound to 23 cents a pound. In 1957 the price fell about a cent, and when it fell about a cent members of the minister's party infiltrated among the asparagus growers in the district and blamed it on the former government.
What happened following that? In 1958 the present minister I think set the price support at 17 cents, and the price of asparagus to the producer dropped from 21 cents or 22 cents a pound right down close to the 17 cent level, namely to 171 cents or 18 cents. I know that in British Columbia there is a different price support. I was wondering whether in the Niagara district and in other parts of Ontario the producers receive the difference between what is received in British Columbia and what is paid there in the Niagara district? I know that a number of other fruit producers, particularly producers of cherries, are apprehensive. Cherries are 2 cents a pound cheaper this year than they were last year. I know that the cherry producers are afraid to come to ask for price supports because they feel that something will happen to them similar to what happened to the producers of asparagus. I should like the minister to comment on that matter.


Charles Edward Rea: It being five o'clock it is my duty, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 15(3), to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to consideration of private and public bills.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to standing order 15(3).
As the house will note, there are three bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole. Is it agreed that all three bills be referred to the committee in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. McMillan.!


OGDENSBURG BRIDGE AUTHORITY
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-12, respecting the Ogdensburg Bridge Authority -Mr. Stanton-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Frank Howard: I was trying to get some background information on this. In 1952 the bill originally incorporating the company was referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, but unfortunately there is no printed record of the proceedings in that committee, and I was not able to get more than a few comments which were made in the house itself.
I have a number of inquiries which I should like to make. Unfortunately I was not able to make them the other day. I have got so many books here, now. I notice that in 1952 when the company was originally incorporated-and we have to compare one thing to the other here-they had authority to borrow $12 million, to issue bonds, debentures and other securities to the amount of $12 million, which was subsequently raised in 1956 to $20 million, and now in this year to $25 million. The thing I was concerned with was whether there was any appreciable effort in 1952 to assess the total cost of this bridge because in a period of six years the estimated cost has more than doubled and this is the second occasion the authority has come here to inquire for a change in the amount of money they are authorized to borrow. In addition to that, under the original act of incorporation, while they could issue bonds, debentures and other securities, as set out in section 12, another section of the act, section 16, gives authority to borrow only $10 million. I wonder why that difference exists, why they can sell debentures for $12 million and only borrow $10 million.
This may all have been explained in 1952 when the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines dealt with it, but, as I say, unfortunately there was no record kept of the proceedings on this particular bill and accordingly we could not get the information there.


Mr. Stanton:: This is a very short bill. I did not know about it coming before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. In 1952 when the authority came before the house they did make a low estimate of the cost of the bridge, but since that day the cost has gone up considerably both in material and labour. In 1956 they estimated that the cost would be in the neighbourhood of $20 million.
Work has started at the present time. The contracts are all let, outside of a few dollars that will need to be spent on the approaches on each side, and they now estimate the bridge will cost approximately $22 million.

But it is not their desire to come back to the house again, and that is why they are asking at this time for $25 million, to be able to issue debentures and bonds to that extent. They estimate the cost will only be $2 million more and they are very anxious to get on with the work. In fact, the work has started. The piers are practically completed. The land is practically all purchased for the approaches. As I got the information from the bridge authority, what they are requesting now is that this be passed authorizing them to issue debentures and bonds to the extent of $25 million which they hope they will have to issue only to the extent of $22 million.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-13, respecting The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Morton.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-5, respecting the Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Timiskaming-Mr. Villeneuve-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Change of name.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I understand that this corporation is also engaged in the business of lending money. I am not for one moment in opposition to this. I think it is all well and good when agricultural producers-and I understand in this case they are largely that-are able to get assistance by way of capital.
However, since this corporation is, among other more important things, engaged in the business of lending money, I should like to ask the sponsor of the bill to whom this corporation presents an annual report. What is the maximum interest rate being charged on what I understand are these farm mortgages? Also, what is the volume of business in which it engages in one year's time? How much money has it invested in farm mortgages?


Mr. Villeneuve:: Mr. Chairman, my understanding based on what the attorney had to say in the committee on miscellaneous private bills, is that at present they have a mortgage of $2,000 bearing an interest of six per cent. That was reduced from somewhere in the neighbourhood of $11,000 a year or so ago. These mortgages have been retired.
57071-3-188
Criminal Code
My understanding also is that these mortgages were bequeathed to this church authority by deceased persons.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the hon. member would care to answer my other question. Since this is a corporation incorporated by the parliament of Canada I asked to which authority it renders an annual financial accounting of its operations?


Osie F. Villeneuve: To its superiors in the church organization. It is certainly checked.


Erhart Regier: What I am about to say I say with all respect to this organization. I know that what I am going to say applies not only to this particular religious organization but also to a large number of other religious organizations in Canada. By way of bequests and otherwise they become involved in financial arrangements. I believe that some Protestant religious organizations are in possession of rather large holdings of real estate. I have always regretted the fact that legally incorporated religious organizations are involved in real estate and have an interest in mortgages and so on and are not required to report their affairs to some civil authority. I should like to see the day when the parliament of Canada or the provincial legislatures pass legislation under which when a religious organization, be it Baptist, Roman Catholic, Anglican or any other denomination, begins to dabble in real estate, the organization will be required to render a public accounting.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Winch for the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, since I last spoke on the floor of the house on the question of capital punishment I have been doing some research into what type of person kills, into the types who may repeat a killing and into the history of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to murder. On the other occasion I expressed the opinion that the death penalty should not be abolished through the motion of a private member but rather that if such action were to be taken it should be only after full and complete study by a committee

Criminal Code
of this house and the other place. The further research I have done has served to strengthen that first opinion.
I have found in my research that persons who kill can usually be fitted into two principal categories. There is first the cold, premeditated killer who plans his killing long in advance, who attempts to foresee every possible weakness in his plan and who hopes by careful planning to make his crime impossible of solution.
This type of killer usually kills for a definite purpose. He may kill for revenge. He may kill for monetary gain. He may wish to attain power. He always has a motive and once that motive has been achieved-with the exception of course of professional gang killers-he rarely kills again. Such killers when detected almost invariably receive the death sentence and in most cases the sentence is carried out.
The second type is, of course, the emotional killer. He may kill for a variety of reasons. It may be jealousy. It may be a fancied wrong. The slightest thing as trivial as a badly cooked dinner can set off a spark that will result in death. Drinking has also played a part in many such slayings. The majority of such persons are considered legally sane. That is, they have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and accordingly are fit to stand trial for murder. But I suggest to this house that their emotional instability is such that they may be completely unable to control their actions. It is in such people that the danger of repeat killings lies.
Yet it would seem that the law leans heavily in favour of these emotionally unstable persons. Almost invariably the verdict in such cases is manslaughter. The sentence may be 10 years. It may be less or it may be more but it is a foregone conclusion that in a comparatively short period they will be turned loose again on society, those emotionally unstable people and who can say, if the same set of circumstances arise, that is, if the dinner is burned or if the wife stays out too late at night, or if they again have a few more drinks than they are able to handle, the same people will not kill again? Statistics indicate that the danger exists. These statistics also indicate that the man who commits a premeditated murder, and who does not pay with his life for the killing, rarely commits another crime. In England, over a period of 50 years, there was only one case of such a convicted murderer repeating his crime. In fact, records show that the majority of such people, after attaining their freedom, become good, responsible citizens.
It is because of these things that I say the question of capital punishment-whether
[Mr. Rynard.l
it should be retained or abolished-is not something that can be decided lightly by a snap vote in this house.
Who are those people who might be classified as emotional killers? In my opinion, the best survey that I have been able to find is one made by the state of Wisconsin. Strangely enough, this survey would indicate that the path toward killing often began when the killer was still a child, and that in many cases much of the blame rested with the parents. In seven cases out of 10 these emotional killers came from an unfavourable family background. In about 40 per cent of the cases, for instance, either one or both of the parents were alcoholics. In 60 per cent of the cases the child was out earning money before the age of 14 and contributing to the family budget. In 90 per cent of the cases they were making their contribution before they had reached the age of 18 years. It is not surprising, therefore, that the vast majority of those emotional murderers were found to be people who had left school at an extremely early age and who had no opportunity to learn either a trade or a profession.
In 50 per cent of the cases the killer had not as a child been conscious of the love of either his mother or his father, and indeed the feeling of rejection was stronger in at least 20 per cent of those cases who said they hated their parents. Nervous instability is always a very strong factor. Again, in one-fifth of the cases, the killer came from a family where there was a history of insanity, epilepsy, or some other emotional disturbance.
The over-all result of this survey also is interesting, for the statistics indicate that one out of every four people who kill is insane, one out of every four is an alcoholic and one out of every three cases had an I.Q. of below 70 per cent. Unfortunately, there appear to be no such statistics available in Canada, but it is the sort of information that I believe is essential to any full and effective study of the question of capital punishment. I believe that such a survey should be attempted.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be at least somewhat anomalous that we should be here discussing the fate of an individual in view of the situation in the world today. This afternoon the world is divided into two armed camps capable of mass murder and legal slaughter, but we in this house are spending some hours discussing a measure that concerns only an individual and can affect at most only the occasional person in our population. And perhaps, in this very fact that we can discuss capital punishment while the world faces the horrible prospects of

war lies the great hope for democracy as we in Canada believe in it, and the best chance of freedom for people now enslaved by ideologies abhorrent to us in this house. But it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the nations of the world, while uttering lip service to the humanities have not become less cruel with the passing of time. Indeed the history of the world and the history of killing are so closely related that the history of one is almost the history of the other. We are almost forced to the conclusion that man has shown greater ingenuity in inventing and perfecting methods and machines for killing his fellow man than in any other pursuit.
Had the money devoted to the development of the atomic and hydrogen bomb been used in medical research I wonder whether we would not long since have found a cure for cancer, for multiple sclerosis, for muscular dystrophy and those other conditions which still, in far too many cases, mean death and a more certain death than the legal sentence of a court that a man shall be hanged by the neck or strapped in an electric chair, or placed in a metal cylinder with a dish of acid and a cyanide pellet to kill him. I wonder, too, whether, ironically enough, we do not find in today's international situation the ultimate example of the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder.
After world war II the western powers, the victors, decided that in the years to come men must never again embark on war; there must be before such men the threat and the fear of personal punishment. Therefore, it was decided to seek out those Germans whom the western powers believed responsible for the last war and to bring them to trial. Hitler, the author of the conflict, escaped through death by his own hand in a Berlin bunker. Goebbels, another of the arch conspirators, went with him; but the majority of the others were rounded up. An international court of justice was set up at Nuremberg. The accused were given the protection of the western concept of law. They were faced by their accusers. They heard the evidence against them. They had the opportunity of putting in their defence. Day after day the proceedings went on. Day after day thousands of words went out to the newspapers of the world. Never was a trial attended by so much publicity. In the end what happened? Twenty-two high-ranking Nazis were convicted of war crimes. Eleven were sentenced to death. With the exception of Herman Goering, who evaded the hangman by use of a secreted cyanide pellet, they went to their deaths in a mass execution, at which the world, through press, radio and films, occupied a ringside seat.
57071-3-188i
Criminal Code
Has the death by hanging of those 10 topranking Nazis as the result of the action of the international court of justice been a deterrent to international crime? I have my own opinion of course, but Mr. Nasser, Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Stalin, if he were available, would be more competent witnesses than I.
There is one other aspect of this matter of capital punishment that I believe merits some attention. Respect for law in general is the foundation of our whole system of democracy under which neighbour is able to live peacefully with neighbour. In this connection I wonder, should the government decide to set up a parliamentary committee to study this whole matter of capital punishment, whether one of the directions to that committee should not be to make a study of public opinion on capital punishment? When I say "public opinion" I mean just that. I do not mean the officials and the lawyers of the crown; I do not mean only the psychiatrists, the penologists and the welfare workers; I mean plain John Doe who is quite likely some day to find himself a member of a jury trying somebody for murder.
I make this suggestion because my study of the effectiveness of capital punishment has made one thing clear to me. In my previous remarks on this matter I mentioned that there was a time in the United Kingdom when more than 100 crimes were punishable by death. Members may be of the opinion that it was the professionals, the lawyers, the parliamentarians, the crown officials, who cut that vast total down to the comparatively few that remain today, but I differ because I firmly believe that it was the plain Jones, Smiths and Browns who sat on these cases as jurors who forced the change. With their power they refused to bring in verdicts where the law said that the crime merited death. Their constant refusal to convict in capital offences was, in my opinion, one of the great factors in bringing about moderation in the British concept of justice.
I do not intend to interpret what is in the minds of the men who make up the juries in Canadian courts of criminal law today, but it does seem to me that there is an increasing tendency to bring in a verdict of manslaughter when even 10 or 15 years ago the same set of facts would have resulted in a verdict of murder and probable death by hanging. It seems to me that there would be a great deal of merit in studying the facts of the so-called murders of recent years and the verdicts of the juries who were best acquainted with these facts. Out of such a study I think a pattern would emerge that would be the best indication of the actual thinking of the Canadian people today.

Criminal Code
With such information before us I believe that we could place a measure of punishment on our statute books that the Canadian people more nearly believed to be fitted to the crime. By doing so we would increase respect not only for the law as it applies to murder but also for all laws, respect for which is so essential to Canadian community living.


Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say that I am very much surprised at the source of this bill. The sponsor of the bill is well known in the political life of Canada and for many years before being associated with the political life of Canada was well known in the political life of my home province of British Columbia. It is not many years ago, Mr. Speaker, since the group to your left advocated that all the rich should be shot and everybody with a buck should be machine gunned.


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask that that be withdrawn. We are a democratic party. Mention was made of myself. For 20 years I had the honour of being member of the British Columbia legislature and for 12 years of that time I was leader of the opposition. I deny that I or the members of this party have stood for violence at any time. We have always stood for our democratic constitution. I ask, sir, that the hon. member withdraw his most despicable implication that either I or this party have ever stood for persons being shot by machine guns or in any other way. I ask, sir, that that statement be withdrawn immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: So that I may be clear, would the hon. member indicate exactly what words he complains about?


Harold Edward Winch: Well, I have not got Hansard but my hon. friend-I am going to withdraw that-the member who has just spoken made a statement about myself with reference to the years when I served in the legislature of British Columbia to the effect that we had a policy that the rich should be killed in certain ways I am not going to mention. I ask that that be withdrawn immediately and that an apology be made not only to myself but to my party in the house.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: In speaking to the point of order, may I say that I made no remark that the hon. member for Vancouver East was personally involved. I was dealing with the policy of the group to your immediate left some years ago.


Harold Edward Winch: Then as a representative of that group-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: -I deny that any such policy has ever been followed in British Columbia or in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: One at a time, please. The hon. member will please complete such explanation as he wishes to make about what he said.


Erhart Regier: On the point of order, I very definitely heard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) had finished what he wanted to say. He may wish to modify or withdraw in view of what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Speaker, I was not dealing with any particular hon. member. I was simply dealing, and I submit I am entitled to my opinion, with the policy some years ago of the group that sits to your left which I contend was as I have outlined, and I must admit that is what upsets me. It has deteriorated so greatly that I wonder why they now turn pale at the old British practice of hanging.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria has explained that his remarks were not intended to refer to the hon. member for Vancouver East but to a group of which the hon. member is one. Undoubtedly the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria have given offence to the hon. member for Vancouver East and, having that in mind, perhaps he would wish to modify what he has said before I indicate my views about the remarks that were made.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think the hon. member for Victoria has given a very adequate explanation of his words and I do not think a question of privilege has been raised. There were no personal remarks referring to the hon. member who has raised this objection. Surely the hon. member for Victoria has a right to express his conviction with respect to what he thought was a policy of a political party.


Mr. Speaker:: What I said was that perhaps in view of the offence that has been taken by the hon. member for Vancouver East at what was said the hon. member for Victoria would wish voluntarily to modify what he has said. I am not directing or deciding anything at the moment. Perhaps the hon. member may wish to do so.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I am asking more than that.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Vancouver East please contain himself while we hear whether the hon. member for Victoria has anything further to say on the point.


Mr.. McPhillips:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would go this far. I did not mean to imply that the hon. member for Vancouver East would have done any shooting but I still contend that I am entitled to express my impression of the policies of the group to your left some years ago.


Harold Edward Winch: May I rise again, Mr. Speaker? Very definite mention was made not only of me but of the group which sits to your left. You will remember that that was done and that a statement was made about policy. I am a founding member of the group which sits to your left which was established in 1932. I am very proud of it and of having had the honour of being one of the first C.C.F. members ever elected to a parliament in Canada. Therefore I ask for a retraction not only as far as I am concerned as an individual but for the group I represent because the hon. member made the definite statement that we had a policy of violence, murder and shooting. I am asking that that be retracted not only with reference to myself but on behalf of the party I have had the honour to represent in one parliament or another since 1933.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Vancouver East is taking more out of what was said than was implied. I remember Quite distinctly that although the hon. member for Victoria began talking about the hon. member for Vancouver East, when he made the statement about a policy of shooting capitalists it referred rather generally to a group or party. It has been the practice in the house, as the hon. member will recall, that unless an allegation is made specifically against a member I have not felt it to be my responsibility to compel the hon. member to retract beyond what he himself feels he should retract.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to you, sir? We in this group as members of the C.C.F. are members of a democratic party, and one cannot be a member of a democratic party in this country if one s party is a party of rebellion, of murder or of bloodshed. I ask you, sir, if we as members of the C.C.F. party in this house cannot ask you to have withdrawn that kind of aspersion and vilification against our party?


Mr. Speaker:: I have already expressed my view and of course what the hon. member has just stated is not what was said. It was perhaps a rather strong metaphor indicating
Criminal Code
that a party was opposed to capitalism but I did not read into it, and I do not think the hon. member should read into it, any allegation that he himself is in favour of violence.


Harold Edward Winch: Or the C.C.F.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: In any event, I find it
somewhat surprising that this group now pales at the old historic process of British hanging. I have always believed, as I believe now and as I think I will always conscientiously believe, that the hangman is an influence for good. I have formed that conclusion over a number of years-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member thinks the hangman should also be the prosecutor.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: As a practising lawyer I have acted for the defence in capital cases, and I have also prosecuted for the crown in capital cases. In my province this year we are celebrating our centenary and in some of the publicity about it, in dealing with our history, some misguided persons have referred to the late Chief Justice Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie as the hanging judge.
Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie was no more a hanging judge than any other judge; judges are only hanging judges because they must pronounce the sentences provided by the criminal law of Canada. I want to refer in the course of my argument to one way in which that long since deceased judge was able to effectively influence a large group of people. This incident occurred many years ago during the Fraser river gold rush at the then city of Yale where some 2,000 unruly miners who were in the habit of wandering around fully armed, usually carrying two guns and a bandolier of shells-they were not British Columbians for the most part-


An hon. Member:: C.C.F.'ers?


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: When the chief justice
arrived in Yale with the British Columbia police chief-and in those days the British Columbia police consisted of one man, Chief Chartres Brew-there was rowdyism going on, but the chief of police managed to get order. The chief justice got up on a stump, and with his rather stern visage, surveyed this group of rather lawless individuals and, having obtained order, he said "Now, gentlemen-" -I think he was very kind_____________"I
just want to make one observation, and that is this, if there is a shooting I can assure you there will be a hanging." That had a great effect amongst that group of lawless people and there were very very few capital cases in that area.
I would like to speak for a moment or two on my experience in the courts of law in

Criminal Code
regard to capital cases. When one acts for the defence in a capital case one is always nervous and there is a great deal of tension involved, but I must admit that I cannot remember ever thinking or hoping that because of this nervousness and tension the sentence of hanging should be abolished. That has never entered my mind. In prosecuting for the crown one is in a different position; there is not the same responsibility or duty on the prosecutor for the crown. He must not struggle for conviction-we simply produce the evidence and the verdict of the jury is what governs. It is not and it never has been under our system of criminal jurisprudence easy to get a conviction for murder.
I can think of one instance in the year 1944 when I conducted an assize for the crown in the city of Vancouver, and on the docket we had four murder cases. There was one conviction and one hanging; there was one acquittal and there were two manslaughter verdicts. One man got a fairly heavy sentence and the other a fairly light sentence.
I think most practising lawyers will agree that this is about the average for these cases.
I know, and this is confirmed in the joint committee report of 1956, that there are those who think innocent men may be hanged, but I think this possibility is very remote. Those of us who practise in the courts of Canada know that with all the protection that a British court of justice places around an accused person-and this I conscientiously believe-it is almost impossible for an innocent man to be found guilty of murder and subsequently hanged.
We also have those who refer to the horror of the hanging itself. It must after all be remembered, however, that a hanging only follows a conviction and while it may be said that it is a horrible affair and a degrading affair, murder is also a degrading affair. I think we must keep in our minds the proper perspective of the conviction and the subsequent hanging. Once there is a conviction of murder the subsequent hanging is something with which we do not need to concern ourselves too much.
In the report of the joint committee of 1956 it was pointed out-and I think this is very significant-that in every case the law enforcement officers of the provinces, with the sole exception of Saskatchewan, were of the opinion that the death sentence for murder should be retained.
As I said in opening my remarks, my experience has led me to believe that the hangman is an influence for good. We are, after all, dealing with murder and we need not worry about cases of homicide committed in a moment of passion because a British

jury will never bring in a verdict of murder there-that is manslaughter. We need not worry about cases of justifiable homicide because they result in acquittal. My experience is not as large as that of some others, but I believe you only get a verdict of guilty from a British jury when it is a case of cold-blooded murder and I contend that if it is a case of cold-blooded murder the hangman has his proper place and it is a good thing for the country that this system exists.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a rather curious position in disagreeing with practically everything that has been said by a member of my own party and agreeing substantially with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). This is one of those rare occasions on which I think we agree. I agree with him to the extent that I do not think the deterrent aspect of capital punishment can be established. I have received the reports of the joint Senate and Commons committee on capital punishment and of the royal commission in Great Britain. Nothing in that evidence has led me to the conclusion that the deterrent aspect can be upheld. The same thing goes for the arguments advanced with regard to the protection of the police. For other reasons I reject out of hand the attempts to relate statistics, in terms of their unreliability, saying for example that 15.9 murders occurred per 100,000 people in certain areas and comparing that figure with the figures for certain other areas.
In my opinion the factors at work to bring about the conditions leading to murder cannot be simply put through an I.B.M. machine and an effective argument produced. Arguing from the point of view that capital punishment should be abolished, I should like to say that in my opinion I do not think our legal system as presently constituted or as it is expected to be changed can reach a sufficiently certain conclusion to justify the taking of a man's life. A man's life is something far more important than any other factor or than any other event that can occur in any of our lives.
Let us look at the situation concerning the structure of the law and what is involved in the trial. We have the judge and his attitude and influence. If he has certain tendencies which would tend to prejudice his position and direct the attention of the jury to a verdict of guilty of murder, how can those tendencies be detected? If they are detected, how can they be corrected under our present system? Yet I believe that in some cases this attitude on the part of judges exists. My friend the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. McPhillips) mentioned prosecutors. Prosecutors in

the main have considerable experience in the treatment of such cases. They can bring to them background, they have experienced assistants and facilities to gather a prodigious amount of evidence.


Harold Edward Winch: Leading to conviction?


Frank Charles McGee: Not necessarily; and here we are disagreeing again. On the other hand the defence, in the case where the defendant is not a rich man or if a cause celebre is not involved, is most likely to end up with legal aid and in that case, I submit, with a counsel who is not as experienced as is his counterpart the prosecutor. From my observation, my readings and my research in this matter, I am led to believe that in the great majority of cases the odds are loaded against the defendant in a murder trial on that basis alone. Then we come to the jury and I can speak with some more authority, if you like, in this regard, having served on two consecutive murder juries a few years ago.


An hon. Member:: Did you convict?


Frank Charles McGee: As a matter of fact, for the record, in both cases we did bring in a guilty of murder verdict. In both cases the guilty of murder verdict was appealed. In both cases the verdict was disallowed and the appeal was granted on the basis of misdirection on the part of the judge. In one case the charge was reduced to manslaughter in a subsequent trial, I believe, and in the second case the man was committed as being insane. Yet within that framework, within the framework of the law and the structure of the law as it exists and as it was put to us, there was virtually no alternative to the verdict which we in fact brought in.
But there are other aspects of this matter of the jury that I think bear discussion and mention here. One is the presence of people of sadistic inclination. I can draw no other conclusion from the result of a jury vote, having acted as foreman of the jury. When the votes and slips and paper were handed to me at a certain stage of our deliberations I found that one of the members of the jury had drawn a sketch of a man hanging from a scaffold. Does that indicate a normal and reasonable attitude to this subject on the part of the juror? There is the question of the ability of jurors, on the basis of the selection presently carried out, to cope with the complicated medical and psychiatric evidence where you have, as happened in one case, three and four psychiatrists offering authoritative medical opinion. During the greater part of that time a substantial percentage of the jury were not aware of what any of those doctors were talking about. They all reached
Criminal Code
a different conclusion, all for some excellent and impressive sounding medical reasons.
The other story, of course, bespeaks attitudes of the men who get to be jurors. I simply offer one example to indicate an approach taken. One of the cases involved an Italian immigrant who had been involved in a knifing. The attitude expressed by one of these jurors was: "I think we should hang him as an example to any other immigrants coming into this country". I do not believe this attitude, this frame of mind, has any place in the consideration, under our system of justice, as to whether a man is guilty or not guilty or whether he should or should not be hanged.
If I may have one moment beyond six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that capital punishment cannot be abolished. Last week we were told in Toronto that a certain packing company has erected a device for disposing of pigs, something which cost them $50,000. This step was largely as a result of effort by humane-minded people to bring about the humane slaughter of pigs. I suggest that if the manner in which we are now executing people found guilty of murder were proposed as a method of disposing of or slaughtering food animals in any slaughter house in this country we would have something approaching revolution on our hands. May I move the adjournment of the debate.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter concerning every member in this house. For the last hour there has been no member of the cabinet in his seat. I think the government should show more respect for parliament.


Mr. Benidickson:: They have the radio system.


An hon. Member:: This is the hour for private bills.
On motion of Mr. McGee the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to resume in committee before rising?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Agriculture AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
41. To provide lor administrative expenses, Agricultural Stabilization Act, $88,390.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, immediately before we adjourned for the private members hour, the hon. member for Welland had asked a series of questions. First, he wanted to have me put on record the different price supports that are established for different vegetables. I have that information here. There are soybeans which are supported at $2.10 a bushel and sugar beets which are supported on a differential basis according to what the prices have been, as laid down by the stabilization act-the average price over the last 10 years. The support price in Alberta is .0099 cents, in Manitoba, .0938 cents, in Ontario, .0798 cents and the same in Quebec. Tomatoes are supported, choice in case, at $5.20 a case; asparagus, Ontario No. 1, 18 cents a pound in Ontario factories and 17 cents a pound at British Columbia factories. Those are the vegetables that are supported.
The hon. member also asked whether, if a price support is established very much below the market price, it does not gravitate down to or near the price support level. If that is the situation I would point out the example of hogs. Hogs have been supported for several years at $23 a hundred. They have varied in price, going up to $35 during that period. At the present time they are supported at $25 a hundred and the present price, as I recall it, on the Toronto and Montreal markets is around $32 a hundred. I think that is an example of the fact that you can have a support price and it does not become a ceiling price, which I think is what was in the hon. member's mind.
These are the questions that I have that the hon. member mentioned. He said something about asparagus. He said: "I know that in the Niagara district that happened in the case of asparagus. For instance, in 1950 asparagus was selling from 224 cents a pound to 23 cents a pound. I do not know what it was selling for in 1950-"


William Hector McMillan: Pardon me, but I said 1956.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then the hon. member goes on to say: "In 1957 the price fell about a cent, and when it fell about a cent, members of the minister's party infiltrated among the asparagus-" I do not know anything about any members of my party having infiltrated into the Niagara area. Certainly, I did not send anyone round there, and unlike some of his political associates I have
[The Chairman.]
no goon squads, and have never had any. With regard to the remainder of the questions which the hon. member asked, I have not got the sheet and I cannot recall them. Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask his questions over.


William Hector McMillan: Could you tell us the support prices on fruits?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The only support price is on raspberries which, packed in S02, are supported at 144 cents a pound at British Columbia factories and in frozen form at 15 cents. This is not fresh fruit. It is put up in S02.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I had occasion to spend the morning and the afternoon in the veterans affairs committee, so I have not been very much of a nuisance to the minister today but I do rise on this item to bring briefly to the attention of the committee the situation of the British Columbia fruit growers, because I find some misunderstanding and failure on the part of many members of the public in general to realize their need for assistance and the modest nature of the request put forward by the British Columbia fruit growers.
I was advised that about the middle of June they made certain submissions to the stabilization board asking for differential payments for certain tree fruits, and they wanted those submissions to receive the earliest attention as the industry was awaiting the outcome with great anxiety. They also informed me that they would regard this as an indication of the government's intention in the field of price support. I presume that they supplied a number of hon. members with their submission to the board regarding the British Columbia apple crop, 1957, and so on. I will quote briefly from this submission to indicate clearly to hon. members the position of the fruit growers with respect to the 1957 crop.
Before doing that I want to quote the paragraphs in the brief dealing with the cost of production of a packed box of apples and the same applies to the cost of production with regard to other tree fruits in respect of which they have asked for deficiency payments. The submission in this respect reads as follows:
We have based our estimate of the cost of producing a box of apples on statistics provided by a Canada Department of Agriculture publication called "A Study of Apple Production in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia 1949", a report of a survey of 153 Okanagan Valley orchards conducted by D. W. Ware, E, D. Woodward and H. W. Trevor during the years 1948-49.
You can see that they arrived at the figures for the cost of production of these various

tree fruits on the basis of information contained in a recognized government statistical survey.
With respect to apples they had this to say, and I am simply going to give the summary of their conclusions in each case so that hon. members will be informed of the seriousness of the situation. The summary with respect to apples is as follows:
The foregoing we believe reveals that B.C. Tree Fruits Limited, under extreme difficulties succeeded in disposing of the whole apple crop produced within the area under the jurisdiction of the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act. The average net return per box of apples to the producer was 87 cents and the estimated cost of producing a box was $1.79. The final out-turn on the season's operations of producing and marketing the B.C. apple crop was an average net loss to the grower of 92 cents per box.
I believe that clearly indicates the position of the apple growers in British Columbia with respect to the 1957 crop. I turn now to the apricot crop. Again I will read the summary from the brief to save the time of the committee and to put the facts before hon. members. The submission in this respect reads as follows:
The estimated return per ton to the producer on the 1957 apricot crop will not exceed $69.58, whereas the estimated cost of production per ton was $137.61, leaving a net loss on the season's operation of $68.03 per ton.
That shows the position of the apricot growers and the need for something to be done not only to provide some assistance in the form of deficiency payments for the 1957 crop but the need for something to be done by this government to ensure that the situation is not repeated in future years as a result, shall I say, of unfair competition from certain sources.
I turn now to the question of crabapples. The summary reads as follows:
The average net return per box of crabapples to the producer in 1957 was an estimated 62 cents and the estimated cost of producing a box was $1.79. The final out-turn on the season's operations of producing and marketing the British Columbia crabapple crop was an average net loss to the grower of $1.17 per box.
That, I believe, clearly indicates the position of the growers who were producing crabapples although that tonnage is not high in relation to apples and some of the other crops.
I come now to peaches. The peach growers in south Okanagan and in some sections of my riding have been facing a difficult problem. The summary in the submission in this respect reads as follows:
The average estimated net return per ton of peaches to the grower in 1957 amounts to $76.04 against an estimated cost of production of $116.85 per ton, leaving a net loss to the producer of $40.81.
Supply-Agriculture
It can be seen that the same situation exists with respect to peach growers as exists with respect to the growers of apples, crabapples and apricots.
We turn now to the final crop for which some assistance is requested and that is prunes. The summary in this respect reads as follows:
The average estimated net return per ton of prunes in 1957 was $46.14 to the producer against an estimated cost of production of $96.81 per ton, leaving a net loss to the producer of $50.67 per ton.
I have quoted briefly from this submission. I am sure the minister is very well informed of the position of growers with respect to the 1957 crop. Mind you, the greater proportion of these growers are in the Okanagan district but on their behalf I urge that serious consideration be given to their representations which in my opinion are extremely modest indeed in relation to the net loss they have suffered on these various tree fruits. Consequently I urge the minister to make the long expected announcement in this respect as soon as possible because they are all on edge out in British Columbia awaiting word from the minister in this connection.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have always had a very great admiration for the command of English and the precision of word usage on the part of the hon. member for Kootenay West and therefore I was somewhat shocked when he started out by saying he was going to indicate the very modest nature of the request of the British Columbia fruit growers. The hon. member should consult the Oxford shorter dictionary or better still the full edition as to the definition of the word "modest". If he were to do that I doubt very much if he would argue that it is a term that can be properly applied to the requests of the British Columbia fruit growers in respect of the 1957 crop.
If I recall correctly their request was for a subsidy or whatever you may wish to call it in the neighbourhood of $7.4 million which is about as much as the entire fruit crop sold for and I can hardly look upon that as being properly described as modest.
I do not wish to engage in any discussion or argument with the hon. member concerning the extremely complex and difficult situation which exists as far as fruit production in British Columbia is concerned.


William Moore Benidickson: Why not?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you take the figures
produced by the cost of production survey made in 1949 which served as the basis of computation for the figures produced by the British Columbia fruit growers and then apply the index figure for the cost of goods and

Supply-Agriculture
services in 1949 you still get a price of not much more than $1 for a box of apples and it may even be less. I do not suggest that this calculation gives you a correct figure but I used it for the purpose of this illustration. The figure of $1 is a long way from the figure of $1.79 which I believe was the figure referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West. It runs in my mind that this was the figure the British Columbia fruit growers arrived at as representing their cost of production.
I must say that when cost of production figures are presented to me it does not serve any very good purpose if the figures are out of line and in fact it serves to operate in the reverse because it makes me look with grave suspicion on the whole submission. When you are given what can only be described as a fantastic figure which purports to represent the cost of production of a product it inclines you to examine the whole submission with very great care.
I regret that it has not been possible to announce whatever may or may not be done with respect to the 1957 British Columbia apple crop prior to this time. I do not have with me the file on this matter but in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West I placed on the record the date on which we received from the British Columbia growers the request for assistance with regard to the fruit crop. We wrote asking for further information in regard to the apple crop and it was finally received about ten days ago. We have been considering the matter since it was received. It has not yet been possible-for one reason, namely that, as the hon. member knows, I was away from here some five days preceding last Wednesday and necessarily so-I regret to say, to make a definite determination in regard to this matter prior to this date but I expect it will be done in the very near future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Briefly, in reply to the minister, last evening the minister in reply to a certain statement I made said "I am a very modest person." I use the word "modest" in exactly the same sense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You asked me whether I had not been hiding my light under a bushel.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When one reads the whole story of the requests from the British Columbia fruit growers association for assistance from the federal government over the years,
I think it is quite fair to say that their requests have been very modest indeed. The assistance given to the British Columbia fruit growers association to date for a box of apples produced in British Columbia since

assistance was first given is, as the minister knows, only a fraction of a cent a box.
Anyway, in conclusion, I do hope that the minister reaches his decision as soon as possible and I am quite confident, knowing the officers of this association for a good many years, they did present a submission which, based on facts, justifies serious consideration by this government.


William Moore Benidickson: I note with pleasure that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand is acting as chairman of this committee. It is very appropriate when we are discussing an agriculture estimate. Has the Minister of Agriculture the figures available as to exports and imports between Canada and the United States with respect to the apple crop of both countries?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have not those figures here, Mr. Chairman, but I can say roughly- this is confirmed by my officials here-that over the past 10 years we have exported about twice as many apples to the United States as we have imported from them.


William Moore Benidickson: It may not be appropriate on this item, but would the minister consider it and give me in somewhat broad terms the relationship of the exports and imports with respect to potatoes?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member would wait a moment the officials think that perhaps they can look it up. We can go on with something else and I will come back and answer it.


William Hector McMillan: Has the minister any figures as to amounts paid out under the Agricultural Stabilization Act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, there was tabled in the house a short time ago a report of the operations of the Agricultural Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Prices Support Act for the end of the last fiscal year. Most of that was in connection with the Agricultural Prices Support Act, because the stabilization act came into effect only on March 1, so there is only a month of the stabilization act figures in that report. We have really no figures that I can give the hon. gentleman as to the cost of operations since that time. I might say that most of the operations have been purchase operations. We have purchased various commodities and we have not yet resold them; therefore we do not know what the cost will be. The other operations are ones in which we have guaranteed a deficiency payment. In other words, we have guaranteed a certain support price and if the commodity is sold at less than that support price we will make up the difference. We have not had any results of the sales yet, therefore we have

not paid out anything under those programs. As a result I am not in a position to give any figures as to what the cost has been up to the present time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister give the committee some idea of those commodities which are now being supported at prices higher than the current market price? I would think that in regard to hogs, steers and lambs the support price is so much lower than the market price that it is not likely the floor price will be paid during the present year. I would like to know what commodities are being supported at the present time at prices below the market price and what commodities are being supported at prices higher than the market, and what commodities are being purchased? The minister referred to some commodities which are now being purchased and that other commodities have support prices.
I think we can get some idea, at any rate, as to what commodities in fact are likely to have some real support under this act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To begin with, Mr. Chairman, only one of those commodities under the stabilization act has real support under it. I am glad to say that so far as the majority of those commodities is concerned, the present market price is above the support price.


William Moore Benidickson: Every product.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, not every product. In the majority of products it is above the support price. The hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned cattle, sheep and hogs. I might say there is a great deal of, we will say, perturbation amongst a large number of hog men to whom I have spoken in the past month as to whether the price will not go down to the support price this fall. I sincerely hope that it does not go down to the support price, but nevertheless, as I say, there is a great deal of fear on the part of a large number of hog producers that that will be the situation and they are extremely glad that the support price is at $25 a hundred rather than at $23 a hundred.
As to the specific question of what commodities are supported above the market price, they are butter, cheese, skim milk, wool and, until very recently, eggs. Eggs are now, I am glad to say, above the support price; but all of these commodities have been or are above the ordinary market price; that is, the support price is above the ordinary market price and we are buying them as a result of that.


Hazen Robert Argue: For example, butter is supported at 64 cents a pound. Can the minister tell us how much that is above the market price?
Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: Naturally, as the hon.
gentleman knows, if we are buying butter at 64 cents, that keeps it at 64 cents. It is not allowed to fall below 64 cents. If there was no support price there I do not like to venture to predict what the price of butter would be, but I know it would be a great deal lower. The hon. member knows that butter is selling in London, England, probably the greatest world market there is for butter, at 23 cents a pound.


William Moore Benidickson: We have just passed the first third of the fiscal year for obligations under this act. Has the minister any estimate of gain or loss or whether we are ahead or behind with regard to the act in the first third of the current fiscal year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is impossible to be ahead from a financial point of view as far as this act is concerned. Any estimate that would be made would be an estimate of how much was paid out under the act, and that is the type of estimate which I think the hon. gentleman realizes it is impossible to make. If the general world price of eggs, for example, drops to 50 per cent of what it is at the present time our obligations with respect to eggs are going to be very heavy but if the general world price of eggs remains at about what it is at the present time and we do not have terrific overproduction of eggs-


William Moore Benidickson: Eggs are above the support price.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They are at the moment. They were not until about a week or two ago. I just take that as an example. If we do not have a big over-production of eggs in Canada then the cost will not be too great, and the same thing applies to every other commodity. If the general price at which hogs can be exported to the United States fell below $25 a hundred then our obligations under this act would again become very heavy but as long as we can still export a certain amount of pork to the United States and their price remains about at the level it is now we are not going to have to pay anything under the stabilization act. As I say, this applies to every commodity. It depends entirely on how the general outside market for goods goes and what the supply of those goods is in Canada during the particular season.


William Moore Benidickson: I can quite understand that the Minister of Agriculture would not be able to tell us, for instance, [DOT] what the relative holdings of products under stabilization prices were as of yesterday, which was the end of the fourth month of the current fiscal year, but perhaps as of a month ago

Supply-Agriculture
he might be able to tells us in relation to the previous year what were the stocks of the products that it was necessary to purchase under the price stabilization act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have quite a list of stocks. I understand the hon. member wants the stocks we hold at the present time compared with the stocks held at some previous time. The stocks held at the present time are as follows-


William Moore Benidickson: What date?


Douglas Scott Harkness: July 25. Butter is roughly 59 million pounds. It is split into four different types of butter but when they are added together it comes to roughly 59 million pounds. With respect to dry skim milk, spray process, 1957-58 purchases up to May 1>
1958, were 14,801,000 pounds and 1958 purchases after May 1, 1958 were 24,362,000 pounds or a total of 39 million pounds. The figure for roller process was 5,394,000 pounds. These are rough figures. The figure for cheese was 5,639,000 pounds. Eggs, frozen whole, owned by the board totalled 3,194,000 pounds. Grade A large oiled eggs totalled 59,965 cases and eviscerated fowl totalled
831,000	pounds. These are the stocks which we hold at the present time.


William Moore Benidickson: I was asking for a comparison with the year before if they were similarly supported a year ago.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Unfortunately we do not have those figures here. As it happens, these figures just go back to March 11.


William Moore Benidickson: That is satisfactory. I will put a question on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister tell us the names of the members of the advisory committee, how often the advisory committee has met and what is their remuneration or what expenses of members of the committee are paid?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Unfortunately I have not got a list of names here but I think we can reconstruct it quite readily. The members are Mr. Dewar from Prince Edward Island, Mr. Lutes from New Brunswick, Mr. Lemoine and Mr. Ferron from the province of Quebec, Mr. McCague and Mr. Hill from Ontario, Mr. McAllister from Manitoba, Mr. Turnbull from Saskatchewan, Mr. Don McKinnon from Alberta and Mr. Ellison from British Columbia.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say what these people are paid for the time they spend at meetings and how many meetings of the advisory board have been held?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There has been a change recently in this regard and I was trying to get it straight in my mind. The members 
of the board were paid $35 a day for expenses plus their transportation expenses. They represented that they did not find this sufficient to cover their expenses and it has now been changed to $35 a day plus their expenses.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure no one in the committee has any objection at all to the amount that the minister has stated is being paid to the members or the committee. Can the minister say how many meetings have been held and how many days have been occupied in sessions of the board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Two meetings of the board have been held so far lasting two to three days each. Another meeting of the board will be held on the sixth of this month.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say when the first meeting was held?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was convened, I believe, on the fourth of March.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, this is certainly a very important act we are discussing. It is the whole basis of support for the agricultural industry with the exception of the initial prices that are provided under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The support prices or floor prices now being paid represent the government's action toward implementing its election promises. In parliament and outside parliament the Conservative party has advocated adequate parity prices for many years. The Prime Minister has referred many times to two motions he moved in the house when he was in opposition calling for parity prices. Therefore the support prices under this legislation, and there are quite a number of them, are the government's answer to the promises it made to the Canadian people.
In the act passed last year a number of references were made to the cost of production and it was provided that in establishing support prices under the legislation consideration had to be given to the cost of production. As a matter of fact, prices were to be based on the cost of production. I should like to know what studies have been made in the department to determine the cost of production and what the minister might say is the cost of production for some of the important commodities that have support prices under this act.
There is a feeling amongst farm organizations and there is a belief amongst some of the members of the advisory committee which the minister just named that there is little or no regard to the cost of production in establishing prices under this act. I think that producers in the main would agree with

me when I say that those prices are not satisfactory prices to the producers in that, generally speaking, they are not sufficiently high to cover the cost of production and to give the farmer a fair return on his investment and his labour. I am very much interested in finding out from the minister how the board is guided by the cost of production, what figures are used and what studies have been made to determine the cost of production of those various commodities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with the first statement which was made by the hon. member as to parity prices, I should like to draw to his attention and to that of all the other hon. members of this committee that when his bill was under discussion last year I never used the term "parity prices" except to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member and other members of his party and of the Social Credit party in the house. At that time when I introduced the measure I made it very clear in every speech I made in connection with this matter, both in the house and during the election campaign, that I had deliberately avoided the United States system of support prices on the basis of what are known as parity prices. Over and over again I emphasized the fact that in my opinion and also in that of a large number of United States farmers the United States parity price system had proved to be one of the most colossal failures in history and that we were not going to introduce in Canada any system of that kind. I therefore do not think that the hon. member should say that I or others represented that this was a parity price system.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said that the Prime Minister promised parity prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member knows that we fought the election as far as his part of the country was concerned, as he did, on the farm stabilization bill. He also knows what the results were. Certainly there was no question that we were introducing a parity price system such as that which exists in the United States and which most people have in mind when they talk about parity prices. There was never any suggestion of it.
As far as the cost of production is concerned in determining what these prices shall be, I think everybody knows that this is a fact. The determination of the cost of production as far as any particular commodity is concerned is an extremely difficult matter. First of all, I had better say this. Some studies in this connection are going on in the economics division of the department. In all cases we have attempted to take the cost of production into consideration and to relate
Supply-Agriculture
the price set to the cost of production. But I must say that the amount of definite and precise information available as to what the cost of production is for most commodities is limited. That is not true for all commodities but for most commodities the information available is sketchy. What we have done is to take the cost of production figures which have been supplied by producers of the different commodities and we have examined those figures and we have applied certain tests to them. As a result, we have tried to arrive at a reasonable cost of production figure.
Just a short while ago there was a little discussion between myself and the hon. member for Kootenay West with regard to the cost of production figures which were submitted by the fruit growers of British Columbia. This is just one example of the extreme diversity of opinion which exists as to what the cost of production of any particular commodity is. But I can assure the hon. member that we have made an effort to determine the cost of production of these various commodities and to relate the support price set to that cost of production.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the minister could say what the estimated average cost of production of any one of these commodities happens to be. The minister knows that section 2 of the act, subsection 2, says that in prescribing a percentage of the base price, and so on, the governor in council shall be guided by the estimated average cost of production of the commodity, and such other factors as the governor in council considers to be relevant. I think it is fair to ask what is the estimated average cost of production of the commodity which is written into the act and which by the act the governor in council is asked to consider in setting these support prices. There must be some means by which the minister has determined the estimated average cost of production. Nobody perhaps can prove that a given figure is precisely correct in every way but the act does not say that it must necessarily be foolproof; it must merely be the estimated average cost of production.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not the figures here in connection with that matter. However, there are one or two of them that run in my memory. I believe that the estimated cost of production of hogs here, we will say up to a month or so ago, was in the neighbourhood of $18 a hundred, live weight; and the estimated cost of production of Ontario wheat, it runs in my mind, was $33 to $34 an acre.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say how the $18 figure was arrived at? Does it include labour? Does it include interest on the

Supply-Agriculture
farmer's investment? Does it include all of the cost of production figures in a normal accounting sense or is it merely an out-ofpocket cost figure which is a figure that the farmers themselves may sometimes use or consider when they are estimating their cost of production?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I cannot say precisely what all it includes. However, I know it includes things like taxes and interest on money invested and things along that line. I might say that that is the price for the production of hogs in Ontario. The biggest element in the cost of production of hogs, as the hon. member knows, is feed; and the cost of production in western Canada, of course, would be considerably less than that.


Hazen Robert Argue: The figure was $18?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: When you have a support price of $25 a hundredweight at Toronto, I take it, what is the support price at Winnipeg or Regina or Edmonton?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is one of the very matters which the advisory committee is going to discuss and make recommendations on in their meeting here on the sixth. We have not as yet said what the support prices would be at these various points because the price of hogs was well above and there was no chance within the last few months of this coming into effect. We have therefore delayed setting these levels until there could be another meeting of the advisory committee in order to get their advice in this regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the hog producers of this country would say that the minister's figures for the cost of production are far too low and that if you have an ordinary price differential between Toronto and Regina- a price differential which has prevailed many times in the past-of around $3 a hundred you would get a floor price of $15 a hundred-


An hon. Member:: Where do you get your $15?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The floor price is $25.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister said to me a while ago that in calculating his cost of production that figure was around $18 for Ontario and what I was trying to arrive at was that if the cost of production in Ontario was $18- and the minister now says it is much less in Saskatchewan-a comparable cost of production out there might be $18 less the difference in freight. I will admit that is a very rough way of trying to arrive at it-


An hon. Member:: A very, very rough way.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the hon. member wants to bark he should stand up.
If the minister wants to give any other cost of production figure for Saskatchewan, well and good. He has the information and I have not, but I think that the hog producers will feel this cost of production figure is very low and that in fact it is a good deal lower than the hog producers would consider it should be. If the cost of production in Ontario is $18 and the floor price is $25, that means that the hog producer in Ontario could of course make a profit of $7 per hundred.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it is $18 live weight.


Hazen Robert Argue: Live weight?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, live weight, and as the hon. member knows hogs which are ordinarily 200 pounds will dress out at somewhere around 155, 156 or 157 pounds for a reasonable grade of hog, which means that the cost of production is approximately the same as the support price of $25.


Hazen Robert Argue: That paints a much different picture. I think that is more nearly accurate if the minister is calculating on that basis. In other words, the support price is the cost of production and there is not included in it any real margin of profit. The minister has not yet told me whether it includes labour costs or not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I did tell you that it includes taxes, interest on money invested and so forth and the deputy minister informs me it also includes labour costs. I do not have these figures here, as I say, and therefore I do not think it is very reasonable for me to try to answer in very great detail the questions put to me on this matter, which I think the hon. member will realize. I think I must say, however, that in regard to what he said about raising hogs in Saskatchewan I think I know a good deal more about the raising of hogs than does the hon. member. I have raised probably 10,000 to 20,000 more than he has. I have been in the hog raising business, off and on, for the greater part of my life and I am raising hogs at the present time. I have never at any time raised hogs when the margin of profit was as great as it is today. The hog-barley ratio is just about the best it has ever been in the history of hog raising in this country, and anybody who cannot make money raising hogs at the present time should not be in the hog raising business.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has said that it is wonderful today, that it has never been better, but just about five minutes before he said it might drop $8 a hundredweight within the present year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And it would still be profitable if it dropped that much.


Hazen Robert Argue: In my opinion it would be most unprofitable from the standpoint of the producers who are trying to make a living to try to produce hogs at a floor price of $25 a hundredweight at Toronto. This is $2 per hundredweight better than the floor price Jimmy Gardiner used to have, and we complained bitterly that that floor price was too low. I am sure the hog producers in this country will feel that the floor price vhich is just $2 higher is not at all adequate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member will allow me I would like to point out to him that, as I have said, he is speaking about a subject about which I happen to know a great deal more than he does from personal experience and a floor price of $23 a hundredweight would still be much better than the floor price of $23 a hundredweight two, three, four or five years ago, because the price of feed is a good deal lower today than it was at that time and the biggest element in keeping hogs is the price of feed. That is your big cost factor. If you can get your hogs away in five months, for example, you will make more money than a man who takes six months to get them away and, on the other hand, if you get them away in six months you will make more money than the man who has to hold them for eight months. The matter of making money on hogs depends almost entirely on two factors; firstly, the cost of feed and, secondly, how well you feed your hogs and how fast you get them to market and therefore the amount of feed you put into them.


Hazen Robert Argue: What the minister is saying is that the position for the hog producer is a little better now because when the farmer produces grain he can feed to the hogs he can make a profit because grain is not worth as much as it used to be. Of course that is exactly what we have been saying for many years, that the farmer's position has become worse.


Mr. Jones:: We are doing something.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the whole point which concerns us-


Henry Frank Jones: We are doing a lot more about it than you could ever have done.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to quote from the words of Mr. Olaf Turnbull, who is one of the members of this advisory committee. This quotation is taken from the Regina Leader-Post of July 9;
The Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act is designed to help the large operator and does nothing to prevent elimination of the family sized farm,
Supply-Agriculture
a member of the advisory committee to the board administering the act said Tuesday.
Olaf Turnbull told a meeting of the joint board of the interprovincial farm union council that the act aids the big operator and "lets the devil take the hindmost."
I think those are far stronger words than I have used tonight and this is a man who is in a position of authority. He is a member of the advisory board and he makes this statement about the act.
I am prepared to give the government and the minister any and every credit wherever there has been an increase in the support price to the extent that the floor price for hogs is higher-I give the minister credit for that-but I do submit that the floor prices under this act are not in keeping with the terms of the act itself at least so far as farm organizations have understood the act.
The farmers' union presented a brief to the government, I believe dated May 28, in which they complained that the cost of production was not considered as it should have been in establishing these prices. The minister has said that the election in western Canada was to some extent fought on the circumstances surrounding this act. That is true, but I would like to ask the minister when were the support prices established under this act and when was the announcement made as to the price levels under the act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the first prices
announced under this act were on April 7. I could have announced some prices before that; at the time the act came into effect and was proclaimed on March 1. Had I announced the prices at that time my hon. friend would have gone around the country saying what he said in the House of Commons just before we adjourned, that the prices set under this act before the election were political prices, that they meant nothing but were just put in there for political purposes. I thought it would be better, therefore, not to set any prices before the election was over and thus avoid any controversy along that line. The prices I would have announced would have been these prices: 107 per cent, 110 per cent, 110 per cent, 107 per cent, 107 per cent, 84 per cent, 80 per cent and 110 per cent. These were the prices we had arrived at and could have announced immediately after the act was proclaimed and the stabilization through the advisory committee was first made on March 4, 5 and 6.
We could have announced those prices. The members of the advisory committee were very surprised that I did not announce the prices because those prices were all considerably above average for the 10 years which included what the farmer looks upon

Supply-Agriculture
as the best years he has had as far as prices are concerned, namely 1947 to 1950. Had I announced them, the hon. member would have complained ever since that I had announced them for political purposes and attributed the defeat of many of his colleagues to the fact we had put out those prices. I did not announce them because I did not want a lot of political controversy associated with these prices.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know how the minister can have it both ways. He says the reason the other parties did not do so well was because of the support prices, and then he says the support prices were not announced until after the election. I made a statement during my campaign that as far as I was concerned the main commodities most people were producing would not have floor prices set above the market price, with perhaps the exception of butter, and I think that statement has been borne out. The government says it did no want to take advantage of other parties by announcing these prices in advance. This is a strange statement for the government to make when, as the minister has said, there are only four commodities whose prices are set a the moment above the market price. Certainly the floor prices on most commodities are below the market prices.
The minister has said he has never advocated parity prices. That may be true. The minister, perhaps, has never used that term-has never advocated it-but if the minister has not, certainly the Prime Minister has, and the Prime Minister has been very clear in this respect.


Mr. Brunsden:: Would the hon. member give us his definition of a parity price?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would think that the definition of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is based on the period 1926 to 1929, would be an acceptable definition. They have had very excellent economists go into the whole theory of parity prices, and they have come up with that as a formula. Of course, if the Prime Minister were in the house I could ask him what a parity price is. Perhaps he will come down and grace us with his presence when we are talking about parity prices and the many promises he made during the election.
At Kipling on May 17, the Prime Minister is quoted in the Regina Leader-Post as follows: "By electing a Conservative government, he said, farmers would get parity prices." The Minister of Agriculture says no. In the Regina Leader-Post of May 18 the Prime Minister is again reported as saying:
[Mr. Harkness.l
"I urged this system of parity prices in 1941 in a resolution in the house . . . but every Liberal member voted against it."
The Canadian Press reported in the Ottawa Citizen of June 10, 1957, as follows:
He (The Prime Minister) promised that if a Conservative government is elected he will call a September session of parliament-
I believe he did that.
-to set up a system of floor prices for agricultural produce based on parity, cash advances for farm stored grain and a new loan scheme to aid young farmers.
So I think it is perfectly clear that while the Minister of Agriculture has not been known as a supporter of parity prices the position of the Prime Minister over the years is clear. He has been a complete advocate of parity prices. However, in the legislation we are now discussing there is no formula for the establishment of cost of production and with the exception of some very rough estimates on a few commodities neither the minister nor the board have adequate figures in this regard.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on this item, but as a small hog producer and a new member of the House of Commons I must say I am greatly amazed at people in this house representing constituencies and trying to be, or being, spokesmen for agriculture and knowing as little about it as they appear to me to do.
The Minister of Agriculture definitely stated that he thought the cost of production of hogs was about $18 live weight. He definitely said "live weight". The hon. member for Assiniboia walked right into the trap. He does not know anything about hog production or prices. He does not know that a hog is sold on rail grade and that a good pig rail grades 75 per cent of live weight. And yet he wanted to be a good spokesman on the cost of raising pigs; he wanted to be the spokesman in this house for hog producers of western Canada. Yet he knows nothing whatsoever about hog producing.
Then the hon. member went on to read us what Mr. Turnbull had said about the present floor price on hogs. He said Mr. Turnbull had said it was only going to favour the large producers. I may add just as a point of interest that Mr. Turnbull himself is considered one of the largest producers of hogs in Saskatchewan.
Then he went on to say what the interprovincial farmers' union had to say about support prices on hogs. He said that on May 28 they said it was not high enough, and they still said it was not high enough. I met the interprovincial farm union on May 28. They said that the floor price was not high enough.

But what did they say about a month ago when they were down here? They said: Look out. We are going to have too many hogs.
They were contradicting themselves somewhere along the line, because you cannot have a floor price that is too low and still get too many hogs. I will point out that the supply of hogs is good this year. We have an abundance of hogs, and it must be remembered that as soon as you have a supply of something-particularly hogs-and I speak for the hog farmers, because I am one myself; a farmer is not going to produce something he is losing money on-or when there is an over supply they must be making their cost of production. As a farmer, I can tell you that you do not have to have a formula to know that when there is an overflow of something the farmer is getting cost of production out of it. I would advise the hon. member for Assiniboia, if he wants to speak on hogs, to begin raising some in his spare time and learn something about them.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay these proceedings beyond a few moments but I do ask the indulgence of this committee for a brief space of time in order to discuss a question which arises from this vote and which is of tremendous importance to western Canada.
Should I require some justiflcatian for taking these few moments I would remind the committee that the hon. members for Laurier and Bonavista - Twillingate took several hours of the time of this committee in this discussion to talk about the fate of one man. I would also remind the committee that the hon. members for Skeena and Assiniboia spent several hours this afternoon discussing cold storage plants.
Again I would remind the committee that the hon. member for Kootenay West treated us to a lengthy dissertation last evening with respect to a certain rooster and this evening he treated us to another dissertation with respect to prunes. May I also remind hon. members of the committee that we have had considerable discussion this evening with respect to hogs. Indeed, this might go down in history as hog night.
I wish to discuss a subject that vitally affects several thousand farm families in western Canada and surely in the light of what has taken place yesterday and today during the course of this discussion I am fully justified in doing so.
In referring to vote No. 43 I might point out that the hon. member for Lethbridge and myself are probably the only two hon. members of this house who can speak from experience and from a background concerning irrigation. We have a very intimate
Supply-Agriculture
knowledge of, not only the practice of irrigation, but the problems of irrigation and it is my hope that in the next few moments I may be able to say something with respect to those problems.
We have in southern Alberta approximately 500,000 acres now under irrigation and we have a potential of another 500,000 acres with the major irrigation works already constructed. I am not going to elaborate on this, other than to say that this area has many grave problems.
The province of Saskatchewan is on the verge of a tremendous irrigation development. Let me say at once to the Saskatchewan members on both sides of the house that there is no jealousy on the part of hon. members from Alberta with respect to this development. Surely after the promises of the last 25 years; surely after all the work that has been done in the engineering field and surely after the hope that continuously has been raised in the hearts of Saskatchewan farmers, they are definitely entitled to some development with respect to irrigation.
Let me assure hon. members from Saskatchewan that we in Alberta are extremely happy about the irrigation development now projected for the province of Saskatchewan, and we are especially delighted that coupled with it is a power development. Had we in Alberta a similar development, a similar coupling, had we the opportunity to join together power development and irrigation, we would be in a much happier position than we are today.
There is a feeling on the part of many people that if you build a dam, or otherwise impound water, and construct a canal, and from that canal have outlets to spread the water on the land you will immediately find yourself living in a land of milk and honey and all your problems will be over. I say this as an aside, but I have found that conviction in many places. I have found it on this side of the house and I have found it in the office across the hall from the office which I occupy.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and I have had many discussions with respect to the future of irrigation in Saskatchewan. He tells me quite spiritedly, that he has made eight or nine trips to the area in which I live, and he has seen the dahlias blooming, the trees budding and the vegetables growing, and he is convinced that when Saskatchewan has its irrigation development all will be well and life will be beautiful.
Let me say at once that irrigation has many problems. Perhaps sometime in the

Supply-Agriculture
future those of us who know something about irrigation from first hand experience will have an opportunity to outline those problems.
Suffice it tonight to say that the problems are twofold.
First of all there is the problem of the farmer. The irrigation farmer is confronted with a tremendous operating cost. In my own area, the Eastern Irrigation District, centring on the town of Brooks, in the province of Alberta, the farmers pay an annual water rate-that is a rate paid for the use of water-of $2.70 per acre. That is a cost of which the dry land farmer knows nothing.
Our farmers also pay an exceptionally high labour cost for the spreading of the water on the land. They are required to buy much more machinery than a dry land farmer with its attendant expense, and they are also required to pay much higher municipal taxes than apply in dry land areas, this for the reason that bridges must be constructed, roads wash out, and the incidentals of municipal operations in irrigated areas are much more costly than in dry land areas. Therefore, from the farmer's point of view, unless he has a highly-specialized cash crop his position is extremely risky.
In my area of southern Alberta, where at least 95 per cent of the irrigation in this country exists at the present time, the districts are very largely farmer-owned. In other words, other organizations that developed these areas in years past found them uneconomic. They found they lost money each year in their operations, and as an escape route turned the areas over to the farmers in those localities.
In so far as my own area is concerned, the Eastern Irrigation District, the Canadian Pacific railway after a very creditable development project, gave the district to the farmers, and also gave them $300,000 to operate it. The railway said, in effect, "We cannot make it go so you try it," and to the credit of the farm leaders in the Eastern Irrigation District, up to the present time, they have been reasonably successful. However, they have found it impossible in recent years, to lay away sufficient funds for the replacement of structures that will ultimately decay or become obsolete.
In our area, and this applies also to areas in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Lethbridge, many of the structures are wearing out. They have reached the point in their existence when any day they may break or decay, and the farmers who are being served by those structures will find themselves without water.

What is the future of the replacement of these structures? We talk to our provincial government and receive very little encouragement. I presume that primarily it is a responsibility of the provincial government and yet, if the provincial government does not function in this respect many millions of dollars of farm investment in terms of land development, and farm buildings, will be rendered almost useless because, after all, we do operate in a dry area in the Palliser triangle and there will be a great amount of disaster.
The great need of these irrigation districts, of course, in order to obtain sufficient revenue with which to build up reserves for the replacement of these structures, is industries. We in the Eastern Irrigation District have very few industries. Today we have one sugar beet factory at Taber and my friend the hon. member for Lethbridge has two in his constituency. We are supplying only a very small percentage of the sugar consumed in the Canadian market, yet we are told that that is the limit. We cannot think in terms of sugar beet area expansion. We have, it is true, a few small canneries covering from 100 to 150 acres. We have in our district one dehydration plant and I understand we are to have two. But these small industries add very little in terms of total acreage. What the irrigation districts need are industries, the requirements for which will reach back to a majority of farms in the irrigation districts. Until we are in the position in the older and newer irrigation districts, of being able to establish industries for the processing of the specialized crops grown on irrigated land we shall continually be faced with a serious problem.
You may ask yourself, Mr. Chairman, what is the point of all these remarks?
The point is simply that we have in southern Alberta an experience of some 50 years in irrigation. We have in southern Alberta now a second and, in some cases, a third generation of farmers on irrigated farms. It is stated that it takes three generations of irrigationists to make successful irrigation farm operators. Certainly, a dry land farmer moving to an irrigated farm is a lost soul, and usually leaves the farm in that same state of mind. It is our hope-and I speak now, I think, for all the southern Alberta members-that under vote 43 the experience of our errors-and errors have been committed; there have been many of them, and most of them were committed by the government to which the hon. gentlemen opposite owe allegiance; I refer to nothing specific-yet the experience of the past, regardless of who was responsible for it, may

be consolidated, may be reviewed and may be applied to the benefit of the new area, the area in which we are all interested today, namely the new area in central Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service-
Branch experimental farms, substations and illustration stations-
522. Construction or acquisition of buildings, -works, land and equipment-further amount required, $240,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I happened to miss this item on the main estimate because I did not expect the squall that was going on to pass so quickly. However, I just wish to say a few words on this item because it is of serious importance to a number of my constituents. The minister knows that throughout the years there have been repeated requests from,
I think, all of the provinces of Canada for the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to all the provinces, to make it dominion-wide, and we in this group supported those requests over the years, as other hon. members have done, including the minister when he was in opposition. I think he made some rather vehement speeches in that respect. We are still of the opinion that if this act were operative across Canada in general it would be to the great advantage of a large number of people, and it would present a great opportunity for its application and utilization.
The minister knows what I am referring to; I mentioned it last evening. I may say, Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised to hear the member for Medicine Hat claiming for a few minutes last evening when he was speaking on these items and also this evening that I was speaking with respect to prunes. I think he mentioned them. Surely, he would not deny me the opportunity to give expression to the views of my constituents and I think he will also acknowledge the fact that I am not given to over-vocalization of my inner thoughts. I mention this because it is of serious importance to a number of my constituents.
As the minister knows, I wrote him some time ago with respect to surveys of an area in my district, namely the Slocan valley, which I referred to last night. I was very pleased with the minister's interest in the matter and his response. We are doing the best we can to get the provincial government to take up the matter with the federal government so that something can be done with respect to those very necessary surveys in the area before any development can be planned.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
As I said before, I think a great deal can be done in that respect as a result of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments and the people directly concerned. I can assure the minister that the people in this district would be only too willing to extend their co-operation and assist in every way possible in the development of this valley.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has recommended the introduction of a Canadian national conservation and rehabilitation act. I think there is a great deal of merit in the suggestion. Will the minister inform the committee whether the government is giving consideration to the introduction of legislation of that type, say, at the next session of parliament?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated on numerous occasions, we are studying the matter. Whether we will be able to bring in any legislation at the next session I am not yet in a position to say. I might point out, however, that I did not like to stop the hon. member, but this item we are discussing has to do with experimental farms service. I think he is on soil and water conservation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thought we were on item 532. I had my say, anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
532. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage-further amount required, $375,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My remarks apply to this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: This completes the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
473. Departmental administration, $2,438,212.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The Department of Veterans Affairs, vote No. 473. This item will be found on page 85 of the blue book, the details on page 597. Shall the item carry?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, while the minister has been appearing before the veterans affairs committee, I am sure he would like to inform the committee of the whole about the progress of the department in recent months.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words. I might say I have been waiting all evening to have this opportunity but sometimes it amazes me to see how slowly estimates pass. Then, in the last few minutes a change took place and they passed
2996	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs very quickly. Of course, we all know that the estimates of my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, are very important and it is not surprising that they took considerable time. I also think that the veterans affairs estimates are most important as well but there is not the controversy over those estimates that we find in the other departments. This is understandable, because veterans affairs estimates have to do with benefits to our veterans in the way <5f pensions, war veterans allowances, hospitalization and the many other benefits. *
We have a great many individuals to deal with in the Department of Veterans Affairs and this is one feature of our department which I would like to emphasize. Our work is dealing mostly with individuals. We have, for instance, pensioners still living from the northwest rebellion of a good many years ago; we have the South African veterans; we have the veterans of world war I and we have the veterans of world war II. We are today a comparatively young nation and we are paying out a very large amount of money for benefits to those veterans.
As I said a moment ago, it does not surprise me that there is very little controversy in connection with veterans affairs.
As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River just mentioned, my department's estimates have already been before the standing committee on veterans affairs. The members of this committee have had the fullest opportunity to meet and question officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and this has permitted, I am sure, a more detailed examination and discussion of the various items in the estimates and of my department's activities than is possible on the floor of the house. I am sure that this has been a great advantage to the members of the committee.
This has been the first session of the standing committee on veterans affairs and as the minister of that department I am very pleased with the work of the committee under the very able chairmanship, may I say, of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. Many of the members of the committee are new to the house and I have been impressed and gratified with the interest they have shown in the affairs of the department. I am also very pleased with the obvious good will that all members have shown in considering the various problems before the committee. This is bound to result in improvements in the legislation amending the veterans charter and subsequent legislation.
The department's budget for 1958-59, submitted in both main and supplementary estimates, including provision for loans, investments and advances, totals approximately


$308 million, an increase of some $17,600,000 over the appropriations for 1957-58. Of this increase approximately $15,600,000 represents increased payments of war veterans allowances and of pension for disability and death, both of these increases being due to legislative changes. Most of the balance of the increase will be found in the provision for the operation of hospitals and administration which is due to higher costs of hospitals and medical services.
Hon. members will recall that effective July 1, 1957 the basic rate for married recipients of war veterans allowance was increased by $18 per month and the maximum annual income ceiling for that class was increased from $1,440 to $1,620 and for those with single status from $840 to $960. Again, effective November 1, 1957 the ceilings on maximum income for both single and married recipients were increased by a further $120 per year and the maximum monthly rate for single recipients from $60 to $70. These amendments, which were only in effect for part of 1957-58, together with the normal increase in the cost of this benefit, account for the additional provision of $9 million for the fiscal year 1958-59.
The increase in the pension vote results from certain changes in the scale of pension awards which became effective July 1, 1957. The legislative amendments provided for an increase in the basic 100 per cent pension payable to a single person from $1,500 to $1,800, and in the case of a married pensioner from $2,040 to $2,400. These changes, together with some further and minor amendments to the Pension Act effective November 1, 1957, are the main factors contributing to the requested increase for 1958-59 of approximately $6,600,000.
Representations have been made to me on behalf of Newfoundland disability pensioners and it is interesting to observe that on April 1, 1949, when Canada took over the Newfoundland pension liability as it existed at the date of union there were 1,816 disability and dependent pensioners, with an estimated annual liability of $779,021. As of June 30, 1958, the corresponding figures are 2,079 and $1,638,356.
The suggestion has been made that these Newfoundland disability pensioners should be treated on exactly the same basis as Canadian pensioners, and with this I entirely agree. In other words, instead of having their British awards of pension supplemented their entire awards should be paid by Canada. While I have every sympathy for these representations and, as I said a moment ago, I agree with them, they necessitate a study of the problem as relating to Canadians domiciled in Canada prior to world war I and world war II who

served with the British or allied forces. Their basic awards are supplemented to Canadian rates during residence in Canada, and at the present time the entire subject is under review with the hope that it will be possible to find a solution which will be beneficial to both groups and acceptable to the governments involved.
I mentioned in my earlier remarks that there has been a general increase in the cost of hospitalization and medical services, and provision for the operation of this branch of my department for 1958-59 is some $2 million greater than for the previous year. The general level of treatment activity remains fairly constant but could increase with the advent of the various federal-provincial hospital plans. As I assured hon. members of the house in a recent statement as to the effect of these plans on the treatment of veterans, it is this government's policy that the operation of provincial plans will in no way adversely affect the rights and privileges for treatment to which any veteran is now entitled at the hands of the department.
I might explain to members of the house that the department's treatment requirements are provided for in roughly three ways. As you are aware, the department operates its own treatment institutions in many centres but in those locations where for various reasons it has not been considered desirable to construct departmental facilities arrangements have been made with certain hospitals for the priority use of a number of beds. In all other locations where there is no particular continuing load treatment is provided in any available general hospital at the expense of the department.
I might mention at this time that the department has for some time been studying the problem of the accommodation available for the treatment of veterans in the province of Newfoundland. This is a location where the department had arranged for the priority use [DOT]of a certain number of beds in existing hospitals, but in the light of our experience, particularly with respect to domiciliary care accommodation, we have felt that this whole question should be considered again and certain recommendations have been submitted to the treasury board which are currently under consideration.
Referring now to the department's hospital construction program, I should explain that the policy is to bring existing accommodation and services up to an acceptable modern standard. In accordance with this policy, there has been a gradual replacement of old and outmoded accommodation but for financial reasons the department has had to restrict its major construction projects so that
Supply-Veterans Affairs not more than two are under way at any one time. During 1958-59 the two major projects will be the replacement of outdated accommodation at Shaughnessy hospital, Vancouver, and at Westminster hospital, London.
There are in the estimates now presented certain increases and decreases in the amounts requested for various services when compared with those provided for the fiscal year 1957-58. In the aggregate, however, the totals of these variations tend to offset one another. In closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I might mention that the requested provision to meet the department's administrative services in general shows little increase over that for the previous fiscal year. This fact shows, I think, evidence of the careful supervision given tc that phase of the department's operation costs.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend the minister on the statement he has just made and to say how particularly grateful I am to hear the references he has made with respect to the veterans of Newfoundland.
The minister has rightly stated that whatever political lines are drawn, when it comes to the matter of discharging our obligations to our veterans those political lines disappear and we are always at one in wanting to do our very best for our war veterans and their dependants. It is only right that there should be very little controversy with respect to these estimates because they are merely a financial projection of a policy laid down by this parliament and concurred in by all political parties. Since we are at one with respect to the policy we cannot find much ground for disharmony with respect to the financial means of implementing that policy.
The minister referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs, of which I am very happy to be a member, and I would like to concur in what he said with respect to the interest shown in that committee, particularly on the part of members who have been on the committee for the first time this session. There again no political lines are drawn whatsoever and we all try to do our duty to the veterans and to their dependants, also keeping in mind our obligations to this parliament and the public at large. I would like to join with the minister m the tribute he paid to the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, under whose able chairmanship we have I think achieved great harmony and progress.
The veterans legislation, as I said, was brought in in the first place by an all-party committee but it must of necessity be revised from time to time to bring it up to date
2998	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs and in line with the changing times in which we live. I have listened to the figures mentioned by the minister with respect to Newfoundland pensioners and I am not sure if I got them correctly but I think he said in 1949 the number was around 1,816 and that this year it had risen to 2,179. That is a very small increase over a ten-year period and of course in considering that increase we must also consider that time passes quickly and that a number of young veterans of the second world war and of the Korean war are now feeling the results of that service and are perhaps getting to the stage when they feel they should apply for some assistance from the Canadian pensions commission on account of their disability. However, that increase of 360-odd is very small and I think it also reflects the special position in which the Newfoundland veteran finds himself as a result of the system and the procedure to which he is now subjected.
I was very glad to hear the minister say he felt that the pensions of Newfoundland veterans should be paid in full by the Canadian government, like those of other Canadian veterans, instead of first being paid by the British ministry of pensions and supplemented by the Canadian pension commission. I know the argument has been put forward that the Newfoundland veteran is in the same position as veterans who were domiciled in Canada and who served in the imperial forces but there is one very great distinction which I would like to bring to the attention of this house and that is that veterans who were domiciled in Canada and who of their own free will voluntarily bypassed the Canadian forces to return home and join the forces of another country are in a very different position from that of the Newfoundland veteran.
The Newfoundland veteran did not do that; he could not do it because Newfoundland was not at that time part of Canada. He had to serve either in the forces raised and supported by the Newfoundland government or else in the imperial forces of the United Kingdom and he had no opportunity to bypass the Canadian forces so he should not be penalized. I do think that a person who voluntarily adopts a country and settles in it and then when an emergency breaks out sees fit not to join forces which are going to fight to protect that country but goes and fights with the forces of another country, deliberately passes up the benefits which might accrue to those people who fought in the forces of his adopted country. I must again emphasize that the Newfoundland veteran did not do that and he could not do it for the simple reason that Newfoundland was


not part of Canada so he did the best thing he could do and joined the imperial forces. The terms of union recognized that fact and it is expressly stated that the Newfoundland veteran would be treated just as though he had served in the Canadian forces.
I have again gone into some detail over this matter because this question of being domiciled and putting a Newfoundland veteran into the same category as people who were domiciled in Canada but who left Canada to join the forces of another country is a quite incorrect picture of the situation. I am very grateful to the minister for his assurance that the problem is under consideration and to hear that the minister is of the opinion which he expressed earlier this evening. I am a bit disappointed that it was not possible to bring down legislation this session in order to correct this particular situation but I do hope it will not be delayed beyond another session.
The minister also mentioned that consideration was being given to the provision of a veterans hospital in Newfoundland and this is something which is very urgently needed. We have no veterans hospital, nor do we have sufficient hospital facilities to take care of our civilian needs. We fully understand the difficulties involved in the setting up of a separate hospital for veterans but I would like to bring to the attention of the minister the hospital facilities at Fort Pepperell and to ask him if he might consider the possibility of acquiring those facilities which may perhaps be available at an early date, and which may be acquired and utilized at a lower cost than would be involved in the construction of a separate building.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say one word about our merchant navy. I think every member will recognize that as a country Canada has not done justice to the veterans who served in the merchant navy and who supplied an essential service without which victory could not have been won and without which we could never have maintained our other forces overseas.
I have known many of these merchant navy veterans to die without getting the assistance they needed and which was provided to other veterans no more deserving than they were. I know now of countless merchant seamen who are crippled but who-cannot provide for their families and their children as they should like to do. That incapacity has resulted from the hardships and the dangers which they underwent during the war period.
I should also like to include in the merchant navy the unit of the rescue tug:

service which also played an extremely important part, particularly in Newfoundland and on the Atlantic seaboard. I hope the minister will take into consideration again the legislation which we brought down last year and which gave veterans of world war I entitlement to war veterans allowance if they had served 365 days prior to armistice day in England. I do not believe that we have developed there a sound basis for the awarding of these pensions. I think that the earlier basis, under which the pension was awarded if these people had served in a theatre of war, was much more satisfactory than what we have now. I still maintain that it is not logical to say that a member of the naval force who escorted troop ships across the Atlantic served in a theatre of war and then to say that the soldiers and the veterans in transports were not in a theatre of war. I think that position is most illogical. I hope that we shall see fit before too long to bring in legislation which will qualify anybody who crossed the ocean to England or to Britain, anybody who crossed the ocean on service outside of Canada, to be awarded a pension on the basis that he served in a theatre of war.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. There may be one or two points that I should like to raise later on because, although I was a member of the veterans affairs committee, it was not possible for me to attend every sitting as I was also a member of other committees sitting at the same time. Consequently, it was not possible to raise in the committee on veterans affairs all the questions one would like to raise. I hope I shall be able to do that later on when the estimates are under consideration?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are going to be quite brief this evening. Having been a colleague of the minister on the veterans affairs committee since 1945, along with other members on the committee, I want to say that we were very much pleased when he was appointed minister. We know where his heart lies. We know that he will do all he can to assist the veterans' cause in Canada at this time. If anyone wants really to understand what the minister thinks, all he has to do is to read the minutes of the committee on veterans affairs since 1945. He will then know what the minister thinks about the many problems that are brought to the veterans affairs committee. We all know the minister's attitude towards these problems but our major function is to convince his colleagues that he is right when he is presenting some proposal on behalf of the Legion or other veterans' organizations in this country.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
In the minute or two at my disposal I want to express our sincere appreciation of the good work of the senior officials of the department in Ottawa and across the country. The officials of this department are recognized, I think, by all the members of this house as being officials who are particularly and unusually interested in the problems with which they are called upon to deal. I also want to say the same thing with respect to the Canadian pension commission.
I think the request of members of this house over a long period of years for a standing committee on veterans affairs was fully justified by the results of the first sittings of that standing committee this session. The committee contained an unsually large proportion of new members who naturally were not well acquainted with the various aspects of departmental administration and of the legislation concerning veterans. But in the short time that the committee has had to sit this session that situation is rapidly changing; and regardless of party, there is a growing appreciation of the administration of the department and also of the many complicated aspects of veterans' legislation. We had an excellent opportunity to hear from the officials of the department and to ask them any questions that came to our minds or to our attention.
Quite recently the Canadian Legion held its national convention in Edmonton. I was very much interested in reading the speech the minister made to that convention because I think it was a jolly good speech from his point of view. I hope he continues in that vein. In any event, that convention passed a great many important resolutions, a fact which indicates that the veterans and their dependants, branches and zone councils, provincial conventions and finally the national convention have been giving serious study to the many problems that have to be adjusted for all veterans to receive justice in this country in the days to come. Those representations will be made to the government, I presume, officially on some day very close to Remembrance Day. I urge that members of this house, particularly members of the committee, give close study to them when they receive copies of the representations made to the government. Knowing the minister as I do, I am quite sure that those representations will receive sympathetic consideration.
I am going to conclude in a minute or two, Mr. Chairman. However, may I say that I have become extremely optimistic in recent days as to the possibility of progressive legislation. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that in 1919, under a Conservative government the doors on the washrooms in this building were

Supply-Items Passed
improperly hung. This government has been in power only about a year and that mistake was remedied this week as a result of representations from a good number of members of parliament who unfortunately had their noses bumped on many an occasion. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that that is an omen of what is going to happen with respect to veterans' legislation and other legislation in the days ahead. I always take these little straws in the wind, Mr. Chairman, as showing the direction in which the wind is blowing. I hope that is a good straw in the wind.
When we meet next session, Mr. Chairman, I hope we shall find in the speech from the throne a good number of amendments to the legislation which will indicate that this government is going to take some further steps to improve veterans' legislation on behalf of the veterans of this country and their dependents.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: I think I have already indicated our interest in the program for tomorrow. I was wondering about the effect of the royal visit on our proceedings.


Mr. Green:: Tomorrow we intend to take the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs and then those of the Department of Justice. 1 believe the Prime Minister had intended to make an announcement about an adjournment in the afternoon, and we had in mind that it might suit all hon. members if the house were to adjourn at 4.30 p.m. instead of 6.00 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Moore Benidickson: Was Your Honour thinking about getting unanimous consent tonight with regard to the hour of closing tomorrow afternoon?


Mr. Speaker:: If the house is prepared to consent now to an order that we rise at 4.30, that would settle the matter. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on July 14.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-[DOT]
1.	Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $674,164.
2.	Information service. $589,418.

3.	Contributions to Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux in a total amount of £46,384, notwithstanding that payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1958, which is, $128,919.
Science service-
Science service administration-
4.	Operation and maintenance, including an amount of $136,475 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada, and an amount of $45,000 to assist in defraying the costs of the ninth international botanical congress to be held in Canada in 1959, $1,313,662.
5.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,054,518.
6.	Bacteriology, $285,855.
7.	Botany and plant pathology, $1,730,894.
8.	Chemistry, $962,236.
9.	Entomology, $2,487,707.
10.	Forest Biology, $2,591,564.
Experimental farms service-
11.	Experimental farms service administration, $276,462.
Central experimental farm, including research and co-ordinating divisions for the experimental farms service-
12.	Operation and maintenance, including a grant of $5,000 to the international congress of genetics to assist in defraying the costs of the tenth international congress of genetics to be held in Canada in 1958, $2,868,299.
13.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $573,680.
Branch experimental farms, sub-stations and illustration stations-
14.	Operation and maintenance, $8,733,243.
15.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,226,447.
Production service-
16.	Production service administration, $112,713. Health of animals-
17.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $6,676,108.
18.	Animal pathology, $913,036.
19.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $312,370.
20.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $411,000.
Live stock and poultry-
21.	Live stock and poultry production, including premiums on pure-bred sires and contributions for live stock improvement, $1,938,438.
22.	Supervision of race track betting, $279,988.
23.	To provide for grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions, and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; for payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1958, with exhibitions covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and for a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $916,000.
24.	Special grant to royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, $250,000.
25.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $209,250.
26.	Plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, $1,758,626.
27.	Plant protection, $1,016,738.
Marketing service-
28.	Marketing service administration, including marketing of agricultural products, $666,454.

29.	Subsidies lor cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, in the amounts detailed in the estimates $445,916.
30.	Agricultural economics, $764,345.
31.	Dairy products, $879,544.
32.	Grants and other assistance in accordance with Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act, $1,228,000.
33.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, $1,814,021.
34.	Livestock products, stockyard supervision and furs, $898,311.
35.	Poultry products, $877,134.
Terminable services-
36.	Freight assistance on western feed grains, $17,500,000.
37.	Agricultural lime assistance, $500,000.
38.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $6,630,000.
Special-
39.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved by the governor in council, $35,000.
40.	Agricultural products board administration,
[Stage Direction]
41.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Stabilization Act, $88,390.
42.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $4,777,131.
43.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the western provinces, $6,614,257.
44.	Assiniboine and Qu'Appelle rivers-dyking and cut-offs, $150,000.
45.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $650,000.
46.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $2,279,071.
47.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $550,446.
Science service-
Science service administration-
521.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further	amount
required, $131,600.
Supply-Items Passed Experimental farms service-
Branch experimental farms, sub-stations and illustration stations-
522. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and	equipment-further	amount
required, $240,000.
Production service-
Health of Animals-
523.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act-further amount required, $143,700.
524.	Animal pathology-further amount required. $23,967.
525. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further	amount required, $48,792.
Livestock and poultry-
526.	Supervision of race track betting-further amount required, $274,940.
Marketing service-
527.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $534,278.
528.	Grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act-further amount required, $136,427.
Terminable services-
529.	Agricultural lime assistance-further amount required, $400,000.
530.	Contribution to the government of the province of Nova Scotia in respect of the emergency movement of hay to that province in such amount and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, $11,300.
Special-
531.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved by the governor in council-further amount required $35,000.
532.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage-further amount required, $375,000.
533.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the western provinces-further amount required, $4,719,600.
57071-3-189
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, August 2, 1958

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.