1959-04-23

CONGRATULATIONS TO LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION ON ANNIVERSARY OF BIRTHDAY

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, while roses are
usually associated with St. George's day,
I rise, I hope with the unanimous consent of the house, to express to the Leader of the Opposition the warmest of felicitations coupled with the hope that health and happiness will be his during the years ahead. (Translation):


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I trust hon.	members	will
allow me to associate myself with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in extending to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) not only our congratulations but our best wishes on his birthday. On behalf of the members of this party-and I am sure all hon. members will want to join with me in doing so-I should like to wish him good health and many happy returns of the day. May I also express the hope that the youthful look that always seems to light up his face, will remain with him for a long time to come. I also add the usual wish: Ad multos annos.
(Text):


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. are very happy to make the appropriate words of the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Laurier the unanimous expression of our best wishes to the Leader of the Opposition at this time.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am touched and very grateful to the Prime Minister, the leader of the C.C.F. party and my friend and colleague the member for Laurier, for their kind good wishes on this occasion. It is another evidence, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that personal friendships transcend party differences in this house. I am conscious of the fact-if I were not the Prime Minister reminded me-that this is also St. George's day, and I am also aware of the fact that St. George in his time killed the dragon.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, these anniversaries have their gloomy significance. This one reminds me that I am now only three years
away from the normal date of retirement on pension. If I were inclined, however, to get too gloomy over this reminiscence I am encouraged by the fact that the Prime Minister is even closer to that date.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the price stabilization program for dairy products for the coming year.
A relatively small surplus in the production of milk in Canada has been going chiefly into the manufacture of skim milk powder. The result has been that a very considerable amount has accumulated in the hands of the stabilization board. During the last calendar year, 1958, production of this product totalled approximately 187 million pounds, of which 103.3 million pounds was surplus to domestic requirements and purchased by the stabilization board. Present board holdings approximate 62 million pounds. The useful life of skim milk powder is limited; thus it is a product which cannot be stored and held indefinitely.
There have been only two means of disposal open to us during the past year, sale as feed and turning over as gifts to international relief agencies. From time to time we sold as feed our older powder as it became apparent that if we did not do so the powder would soon deteriorate and become unusable. The disposal of surplus dry skim milk powder has created very serious problems, particularly in international trade. We offered 30 million pounds of this powder as gifts to international relief agencies in January of 1958. To date only 18.8 million pounds of this have been taken.
In view of the impossibility of selling any considerable quantities of skim milk powder on foreign markets and of the limited amount which can be disposed of as gifts, it is apparent that our production of skim milk powder must be reduced. The support program for dairy products for the dairy year commencing May 1 has been designed to cut down production of skim milk powder and increase production and consumption of cheese and the production of other dairy products such as casein.
The agriculture stabilization board has been authorized to support dairy products

Agricultural Stabilization Program for the 12-month period commencing May 1, 1959, on the following basis:
The support price on butter will continue at 64 cents per pound Canada first grade basis delivery Montreal and Toronto.
The support price on cheese will be 32 cents per pound first grade f.o.b. warehouse in Ontario, 31J cents per pound delivered Montreal for Quebec cheese. In addition, cheese producers will receive a payment of 25 cents per 100 pounds of milk delivered for the manufacture of cheese on the same basis as other milk delivered for manufacturing purposes. The support price, plus 25 cents per 100 pounds for milk, will provide an effective support price for cheese of 34.8 cents, that is, eight-tenths of a cent higher than the present support price.
The support price on skim milk powder will be reduced from 15 cents per pound to 10 cents per pound for the period May 1 to September 30, after which date the support price for powder will be discontinued. In lieu of the reduction in the support price for powder the stabilization board will make a payment to producers of 25 cents per 100 pounds of milk for all milk delivered for manufacturing purposes, with the exception that no payments will be made to producers who sell a portion of their milk within the fluid milk market. The net result will be to reduce producers' returns by approximately 15 cents per 100 pounds on milk used for manufacturing purposes.
Price support on skim milk powder is being continued for the five-month period to the end of September to provide the dairy industry with a period of readjustment so the diversion of milk now used for the manufacture of powder to the production of cheese, casein and other manufactured dairy products may go forward without serious dislocation in the dairy industry and loss to individual producers.
The total effect of the change in the dairy price support program will be:
1.	The farmer who delivers cream for butter only will get the same return as last year.
2.	The farmer	who	delivers	milk	for
cheese-making will receive a small increase in his return.
3.	The farmer	who	delivers	milk	for
manufacturing into products other than cheese will receive a small decrease, about 15 cents per 100 pounds less than in 1958.
4.	The farmer who delivers to the fluid milk market and who has been receiving a price in some cases of up to $5 per 100 pounds for this milk, will not be paid any


subsidy for the milk which he diverts into manufacturing. Thus the returns to the dairy farmers who have been delivering to different types of markets will be brought closer together than they have been in the past.
5.	The Canadian consumer of cheese and dry skim milk will be able to secure these products at reduced prices.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture will have an opportunity, I presume, when his estimates come before the committee very shortly, to amplify this statement; likewise those of us on this side will have an opportunity to make comment in greater detail than I now propose to do. But it is noteworthy that the announcement of the minister today does not fully meet the representations made, for instance, by the Ontario milk producers' co-ordinating board and other farm organizations, such as the dairy farmers of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, who made representations with regard to this matter during the course of the last few months.
At that time these organizations asked for a support price of not less than 64 cents per pound for butter; a support price of 15 cents a pound for spray processed milk powder; a support price for roller processed milk powder of 13 cents per pound, and a floor price of 35 cents per pound for No. 1 Cheddar cheese.
To the extent that the government has increased some support prices to meet the request of the milk producers of Ontario, a possible Ontario election undoubtedly has served to supplement the representations made by the dairy farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: The government announcement this afternoon shows that it has no effective method of dealing with surplus agricultural products other than to cut prices. I think the Minister of Agriculture will find out that merely reducing prices for farm products is not going to move the growing surpluses of many agricultural products into the market. There is a disturbing trend in the government's whole policy, and this announcement has further underlined it, to cut prices rather than implement well known election promises to provide support prices based on parity.
We do not feel that this proposal will meet the representations that have been made by the milk producers' association. We feel that the government support prices in general should not be reduced, and that effective steps should be taken to move these products into markets both at home and abroad.



DISTRIBUTION OF STATEMENT ON DAIRY SUPPORT PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement he just made to the house with regard to support prices, does the minister think it proper, or is it possible, for him to have copies of this statement distributed to all members of this house before his estimates come up this afternoon for study?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I made the statement, Mr. Speaker, and I should have thought hon. members would be able to take down any figures they wanted in connection with it. I certainly have not taken steps to have this reproduced so I could give a statement to every member of the house, particularly as the statement will appear in Hansard. I do not think there is any necessity for this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question. Does the minister not think, in view of the fact that he will be dealing with his estimates today, and as this is a matter of great importance, that he ought to furnish the members of this house with as many copies as he has available? If not, we will have them run off by the national Liberal federation.
1Later:']


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of previous questions put to him. Do we understand from what the minister said that his estimates are not going through this afternoon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is rather seeking to enter into a controversy over this subject instead of seeking information.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: No, Mr. Speaker. Hon. gentlemen opposite, I know, wish to accommodate the opposition just as the previous administration accommodated them. The question raised by the hon. member for Megantic is a legitimate one. I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will not-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Essex East is dealing with the question of the hon. member for Megantic as a point of order I will hear him on that, but if he wants to ask a question himself it is a different matter.


Peter Francis Martin: I submit with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
National Energy Board member was not looking for an argument when he asked an important question as an hon. member of this house. We are about to have the agricultural estimates before us. The announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture today deals with an important aspect of agricultural policy. Hon. members who did not have any notice of this statement cannot be expected to appreciate all of its implications. We are simply asking the minister if he will not accommodate us by letting us have available copies so that today when these estimates are before us, and not tomorrow, we might be prepared to examine very carefully his statements on price supports as they affect dairy products.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the question I have no objection to it being asked. We have been over the ground before.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I might say that immediately upon the request being made I sent a note to my private secretary asking him to send two copies to the Liberal party and one to the C.C.F. party, if available, or more copies if they could be obtained.


Peter Francis Martin: Thank you very much.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the request a few minutes ago for copies of the statement on dairy products, may I say that I think members of the opposition have six or seven copies now, and here are about 20 more which I will put on the clerk's table.


Peter Francis Martin: I want to thank the minister but the national Liberal federation has already reproduced it.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment and operation of a national energy board and the appointment of its members and staff, to define its duties, to authorize it to exercise certain powers and to provide for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry DEFENCE SERVICES PENSION ACT

Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the revision and consolidation of certain of the pension provisions of the Defence Services Pension Act, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of superannuation and other benefits to members of the Canadian forces and their dependants and for matters incidental thereto, and to provide further for certain administrative changes in connection therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the revision and consolidation of certain of the pension provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of superannuation and other benefits to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their dependants and for matters incidental thereto, and to provide further for certain administrative changes in connection therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has invited the Prime Minister of Cuba, Dr. Fidel Castro, to come to Ottawa during his visit to Montreal and Toronto, which according to press reports he is to make next week?


John George Diefenbaker: Dr. Castro found it necessary to return to Havana earlier than had been anticipated. His visit to Montreal will therefore be greatly curtailed, and the arrangements for Ottawa and Toronto will be entirely cancelled.
The Prime Minister of Cuba offered to come to Ottawa to meet with me on Sunday, April 26, but unfortunately it was impossible for me to find a mutually convenient time. He

was informed yesterday that it was hoped that it would be possible for him to come to Ottawa at some time in the future for a visit in respect of which plans could be made in advance and which would permit a full discussion on matters of interest to Cuba and Canada.
I am informed that Dr. Castro has acknowledged the invitation and that he looks forward to an opportunity to come to Canada at some date in the future.



WEST BERLIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me the following question:
May I ask the Prime Minister if in view of the fact that Canada as a member of NATO is now sharing responsibility for the defence of West Berlin, Canada was consulted by the United States government before the decision was taken in Washington to use the Berlin air corridor above the ceiling of 10,000 feet?
The first of these flights took place on March 27. The second, on April 4, resulted from the necessity of the aircraft to go higher to avoid bad weather. The third was on April 15. In so far as the first flight was concerned, there was no knowledge by Canada in advance. In so far as the flight on April 15 was concerned, we were advised a few hours in advance.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell the house whether he received Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois this morning in order to discuss with him the question of the diversion of water from the great lakes basin into the Chicago drainage canal; and would the Prime Minister say, if he met the senator, what was the result of the interview?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Essex West also intended to ask this question. Some few days ago the United States ambassador suggested that it might be possible for me to meet with United States Senator Douglas and Congressman Yates, one a member of the Senate from Illinois and the other a member of the House of Representatives, from the same state. They were here this morning and I met with them, though they were not here in any sense as an official delegation, because the suggestion had been made

that the meeting might provide an opportunity for them to place before the government the views which they hold respecting the bill which would provide for an additional diversion of water from lake Michigan at Chicago.
I listened to the expression of their views and we had a very interesting talk together, but I may say without any equivocation that I was unable to offer them any hope that as a result of the expression of their views the known opposition of the government of Canada to the bill would in any way be diminished.
That is clear enough, I think, to make it understandable to all that while I was very happy to meet with these gentlemen, their views did not alter the views expressed in the message to the acting secretary of state of the United States, sent by this government on April 9.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT ON

[Stage Direction]
1957-58 crop
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Albert Horner (The Batilefords):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister now in a position to advise this house when the final payment will be made on the 1957-58 wheat crop?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I find that our members from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are very keenly interested in this problem and continually ask me questions about it. I am pleased to answer this one in the house. I have talked to the Canadian wheat board with regard to this matter and have been advised that the 1957-58 wheat pool account will be closed during the course of the next few weeks, and the house will be advised immediately the pool is closed and of the amount of the final payment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does the Soviet union have a long range jet bomber known by the code name "Bounder"?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I have seen press reports referring to an aircraft supposed to be under development in the U.S.S.R. and going by that code name.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. Does the minister believe from the most recent intelligence reports that this airplane is actually under manufacture at the present time by the Soviet union?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member is not so naive as to expect me to confirm or deny such a press report from intelligence reports received by the Department of National Defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps a further supplementary question. Does the minister credit the statements of high ranking officers of the United States air force, who say there is such an aircraft and that it is in fact under production at present?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have no further comment to make.



REPORTED STATEMENT OF U.S. AIR FORCE GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I have given him. Will the minister comment on an article which appeared in last night's Ottawa Citizen reporting United States air force General Curtis E. LeMay as stating that the U.S.A.F. is clinging to manned bombers and fighters for a common sense reason because, and I quote, "Our ballistic missiles have not yet demonstrated the type of reliability or accuracy which is required to ensure the most effective use of the relatively small yield warheads which they carry"?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the article to which reference was made, which alleged that certain statements were made by the United States air force officer, General Curtis E. LeMay. I do not think it would be at all appropriate for me to make any comment on an alleged statement made outside this country by an officer of a foreign service concerning equipment which is maintained as part of the weapon inventory of that country.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that our defence policy, as announced by the Prime Minister, is now so closely integrated with that of the United States, will the minister get a copy of General LeMay's speech and peruse it before his estimates are brought before the house in order that we may be able to discuss the relative implications of the statement?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, Canada has no bombers, and while I may be shown a copy of the speech, or may be able to obtain a copy, I have no intention of making comments, as I said before, on a speech made

Inquiries of the Ministry by a United States officer regarding equipment of the United States air force.



AVRO ARROW MARK II


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister arrange that the Avro Arrow mark II be test-flown in order to allow it, should its tests prove out as anticipated, to capture for Canada the world speed title?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have been so unhelpful to the hon. member today, but the disposition of the Avro Arrows was announced by the Minister of Defence Production yesterday and there are no mark II Avro Arrows in the first five which remain intact. I am afraid I cannot consent to the request.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it true that the new treasury bill rate is now 4.72 per cent, and that the bank rate has reached another unprecedented record high of close to 5 per cent?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not the precise figure for this week's rates, but I would say that the movement in the rate on treasury bills lately has been attributable directly to the tremendous demands for commercial loans which are being made at this time on the chartered banks, reflecting the very great expansion in the economy of this country which is under way at present.



INQUIRY AS TO MEETING TO INDUCE MORTGAGE LENDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of Finance. Has a meeting been held or been called by the Department of Finance or the Bank of Canada calling in the life insurance companies and other financial institutions to urge them- and I hope "urge" is the right word-to buy more government securities and make more mortgage money available?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I
know of no such meeting of the insurance companies. My colleague the Minister of Public Works answered a similar question a couple of days ago as it applied to loans for housing purposes under the National Housing Act.



SMALL BUSINESSMEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Toronto. In the light of his statements in this house on March 19, 1957, I should like to ask him whether he has received any protests from small businessmen or anyone else complaining about the high interest rates prevailing in our country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is in the order of the question which was dealt with yesterday, and which was asked of the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland. It would seem to me it could be more correctly directed to the Minister of Finance, whose responsibility it is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On
the point of order, I am sure Your Honour will also have noted that the question, in the terms in which it was asked, was based on a statement alleged to have been made by the Minister without Portfolio in March of
1957.	It does seem to me that hon. members opposite are getting pretty far away from the rule of urgency with respect to the asking of questions. I can understand that their memories may go back to 1957, but several changes have taken place since that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already ruled the
question out of order.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY SUGGESTED CONTROL OF SHIPS BY NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the congestion as well as the confusion which is likely to arise with ships entering the seaway because some are under the control of the Montreal harbour and others are under the control of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, is the minister giving consideration to placing the whole of the harbour of Montreal, including the south shore, under the jurisdiction of the

national harbours board so that all ships using the seaway will be under the control of one body?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have been in constant touch with the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the harbours board regarding preparation for the opening of navigation on Saturday in the Montreal area. I am glad to assure the hon. member that both the harbours board and the seaway authority are working very closely together, in complete co-operation. We do not believe there is any need for the move the hon. member has suggested.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question was not directed so much to the opening of the seaway which is to take place on Saturday. My question was directed at future operations. I wondered whether the minister was not giving consideration to taking the south shore under the jurisdiction of the harbours board.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not see any need for such a move.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if in relation to the seaway opening and the difficulties experienced last year between the seaway authority and the great lakes pilots association in Canada an agreement with the United States has been reached and confirmed in the interim period.


George Harris Hees: Although the hon. member did not send me notice of his intention to ask this question, Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that such a question might be asked and I am pleased to give an answer.
It had earlier been my hope that the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act would have been approved by parliament prior to the opening of navigation on the great lakes, and that a full scale system of pilotage in Canadian waters could have been established in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.
However, as soon as it became apparent that the legislation would not be in effect at the beginning of the navigation season, we took emergency steps to try and establish a pilotage system which could at least operate
Inquiries of the Ministry on a voluntary basis, so that pilots would be available to those ships which wished to use them.
We have been carrying out an emergency program of recruiting a number of great lakes pilots as federal employees for this purpose and arranging for a dispatch system, also to operate on a voluntary basis. Our primary objective at this time is to try and have in operation by next week a voluntary scheme of this sort which will take care of pilotage requirements in the most difficult area involved, namely from the beginning of the Welland canal at Port Weller, through that canal to lake Erie and onward, through the Detroit and St. Clair rivers to the beginning of lake Huron.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give any indication as to the relative numbers taken on from the two pilotage groups that have been in conflict, the great lakes and the Port Weller-Sarnia pilots?


George Harris Hees: No, I do not have those figures.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Did the Postmaster General give consideration to the selection of a Canadian to do the design for the stamp to commemorate Her Majesty's visit to Canada? If so, what prevented such a selection?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there are only a comparatively few portraits of the Queen which have been approved by the palace for publication or use in such a way as on a stamp. The selection was made of the Annigoni portrait, which is the one which appears on the commemorative stamp to be issued in June commemorating Her Majesty's visit, because it was one of the few available, and was then and now considered an extremely fine representation of the Queen.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Postmaster General said there were only a few portraits of Her Majesty available for this purpose. How many portraits are required to produce one stamp?


William McLean Hamilton: Perhaps it might be well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member sought out my predecessor on this point, because it was under the Liberal administration that this portrait was chosen and the plate prepared.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: The portrait was painted only two years ago. You will have to correct that answer tomorrow.



REPENTIGNY, QUE.    STATEMENT ON REPORTED THEFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. A few weeks ago I asked him if a burglar alarm was installed in the post office at Repentigny where a theft occurred, and he told me that he would get the information and give it to the house. As a few weeks have passed I hope he now has the information. Second, I also asked the Postmaster General if he intended to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police inquire into the theft. He could not answer at that time, but I suppose he now has an answer to give to the house.


William McLean Hamilton: I am sorry for the delay. I brought the answer with me into the house on two or three succeeding days, but I missed the hon. member in his seat and it slipped my mind. The post office, which by the way is not at Repentigny but at Le Gardeur, is a small one with a total revenue over the entire year of perhaps $1,500. It is located in a private building for which the proprietor is responsible, and under these circumstances we do not instal burglar alarms.
I might say that when the robbery took place the people who operate the post office were in the building, came downstairs and disturbed the thieves at their work, which rather proves that a burglar alarm would have served no useful purpose, with the possible exception that it might have saved the husband of the postmistress from being knocked over the head. There were two thieves at work and when he entered the room he was attracted by one of them escaping through a window. He attempted to stop him and was hit over the head by the other. Both men escaped.
Under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the Quebec provincial police accept responsibility in such cases, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have not been called in.


Azellus Denis: On a question of privilege, the Postmaster General has been good enough to give me an answer but at the same time he insinuated that he tried to reach me in the house and I was not here. May I add that I miss the Postmaster General more often than he misses me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It may be a matter of privilege but it is a relatively minor one,

almost as minor as the question and answer with which we have just been spending time.



A.V. ROE COMPANY REPORTED EMPLOYMENT OF FORMER SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. According to today's Globe and Mail 25 Canadian scientists, all formerly with the A.Y. Roe Company in Toronto on the Avro project, have been assigned to the Mercury man in space project at Langley Field, Virginia. My question is, are these scientists proceeding there at any expense to the government of Canada?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, I have not seen this article and I will have to check on it. We are keeping a nucleus of engineers and technicians at the Avro plant. Some of this nucleus of technicians are making studies in the United States on different projects, and it might be one or the other; but I will get the information and let the hon. member know.


Mr. O'Hurley:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to supplement my reply to the hon. member for Welland. I have been informed that the engineers who are working on the Mercury project are paid 100 per cent by the United States national advanced space agency, and not by Canada.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the regrettably huge backlog of would-be immigrants in Italy, the onus for which the minister yesterday so ably pinned upon the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), is the minister giving any consideration to opening a second office in Italy, perhaps in the south in Naples, in order to clear the backlog?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, what steps may be taken to deal with the backlog will be made known to the house when the matter has come to a finality.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Following up the question which I asked the Prime Minister on the subject on April 20, has the Minister of Trade and Commerce any comment to make on a speech made by the director of the division of raw materials, United States atomic energy commission, on April 17, shortly after the minister visited Washington, in which Mr. Johnson said that 84 per cent of the uranium which the commission is committed to buy for the period June 30, 1962 to December 31, 1966 will come from United States sources, and that there is no commitment to take up the Canadian options which expire on March 31, 1961?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, yes; I would be very glad to answer this question, because in the course of his remarks the other night the Leader of the Opposition got the whole matter twisted around and gave an incorrect impression of what was said on that occasion. In the course of his speech he talked about requirements during that period, and Mr. Johnson who made this speech in the United States was talking about commitments. He indicated in his speech, with a chart which accompanied it, the commitments of the atomic energy commission of the United States with respect to supplies they are getting from United States uranium mines, supplies they are getting from Canadian sources, and supplies they are getting from other countries. All he indicated in that speech was the nature of their commitments running up to 1966. He showed that the firm commitments in so far as Canada was concerned ran to 1962, with a small portion going to 1963. Firm commitments with the United States uranium mines run to 1966. He did not indicate in that speech the requirements that might be needed by the United States authorities in the period 1962 to 1966, but he did show that the commitments to buy from United States sources amount to about one half the present requirements.
He also stated that no commitments had been made to exercise at this time the options which expire on March 31, 1961. There is plenty of opportunity for discussion during the course of this year with regard to those options, and there will be plenty of time to discuss-if the information can be obtained -the requirements for the period 1962 to 1966.
The picture is not as gloomy as the Leader of the Opposition attempted to show in his
Inquiries of the Ministry speech the other night, or as he is perhaps attempting to convey by means of this question. Negotiations will be going on with the authorities in the United States with regard to the entire uranium supply and uranium requirements in the course of the next few years. It is a vital matter to Canada, because our exports of uranium in the course of this year will reach or exceed the figure of $300 million, and we are very much interested in arranging for or having some consideration given to our sources of supply following the time when the present contracts run out.
On the basis of-I think the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this in the course of his speech the other day-the special efforts that were made by Canada in a period when uranium was in very short supply, and on the basis of joint defence, I think Canada will deserve the most serious consideration on the part of the United States authorities with regard to their sources of supply of uranium and when they are discussing their requirements in the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I certainly hope the minister is right in his optimistic conclusion in this matter. Will the minister comment on the other statement I made, which Mr. Johnson made in his speech, that there was no commitment legally or morally-and the "legally or morally" are my words-to exercise these options that expire on March 31, 1961?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this just a moment ago. These options expire on March 31, 1961. Mr. Johnson said in the course of his speech that at this moment no commitments had been given to take up these options as of March 31, 1961.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES DELEGATION FROM NATIONAL FEDERATION OF CANADIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Toronto. Did he receive a short time ago a delegation from the national federation of Canadian university students, who submitted a brief on aid to education? If so, what was the result of that meeting?


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio):: I received the brief, and I am in communication with the students as well. I am still expecting to hear further from them.

Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN RADIO PATENTS LIMITED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he is in a position to answer the question I put to him Monday last namely, if a formal protest had been made by the government of Canada regarding the anti-trust suit involving Canadian radio and television manufacturers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I took the hon. member's question as notice. I find that on February 4 motion No. 8 was agreed to, that motion calling for the production of all correspondence between the federal government and officials of the United States concerning the action in United States courts in this regard. Included among the papers was note No. 836, dated December 19, 1958, which the Canadian charge d'affaires delivered to the acting secretary of state on that date expressing the Canadian government's concern over the action taken by the United States department of justice. Since that time no other formal protests have been made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the Prime Minister aware that The Netherlands' government has since made a formal protest in so far as infringement of its jurisdiction is concerned?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out the entire situation.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister how soon he hopes to be in a position to comply with the order of the house adopted on March 25, four weeks ago, requesting the production of communications protesting the refusal of the government to reinforce the R.C.M.P. in Newfoundland.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall certainly have that looked into, Mr. Speaker.

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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch-
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $747,531.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe I have about five minutes of my time remaining and I want to use that time to comment on the announcement made by the minister this afternoon and also to comment further on the question of deficiency payments on western grain.
The announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon as to the government's policy with regard to dairy products does not meet the requests submitted to the government by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and by the Ontario milk producers board. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in its presentation to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet on February 24, requested the maintenance on the spray powder support price at 15 cents and an increase from 12 cents to 13 cents in the roller powder support price, to bring it into proper relationship with spray powder. The government has gone completely contrary to this request and has announced today that within a few months the support price on skim milk powder will be removed completely. This announcement almost certainly will be greeted with keen disappointment by the dairy industry all across this country.
This announcement demonstrates that the government has no policy to deal with the tremendous agricultural surpluses that are beginning to pile up in this country. Although the minister has not stated so, I welcome the fact that there will be no reduction in the support price for butter; yet the government seems at a loss to be able to deal with the very large surplus stocks of butter that are on hand. Figures given to me in a return showed that on December 31, 1958, the agricultural stabilization board held over 79 million pounds of butter. The government may, by this policy, as it is endeavouring to do, direct dairy production into channels other than skim milk powder, but in the absence of any over-all agricultural policy to move surpluses it will be transferring one problem in one particular branch of the dairy industry to another branch.
Although the agriculture estimates have been before this committee for five days, we are still waiting for a statement from the government on its position so far as the request of the farm delegation for deficiency payments is concerned. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking on this item the last day it was before the committee, April 10, placed on the record a very long letter he had received from an individual farmer in Saskatchewan. This man, according to the submission quoted by the minister, said he had

had an annual net worth gain of approximately $6,700. This man farms a section, and if he had 600 acres cultivated and if he were able to market a 7-bushel quota for wheat, he would be able to market 4,500 bushels, the return from which would total less than $6,000. Obviously, therefore, there is some gross error in the submission this gentleman has made.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have waited for the government to place its position on deficiency payments before this committee. We have waited for an announcement by the government as well on the presentation made by the mass delegation. We have not had an announcement from the government as to what its position will be. However, we have had some very disturbing statements in this house and over the radio by members of parliament representing prairie constituencies. The Conservative members representing prairie constituencies have been saying that they are opposed to deficiency payments. They are now holding up their hands.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: That is not true at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are hearing from the Horner brothers now. I hold in my hand a copy of the Western Producer for April 23, containing a very sharp castigation of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson for the ill-conceived and inaccurate speech he made in this chamber some time ago.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And inaccurately
reported.


Hazen Robert Argue: Western Canada today is being betrayed by members of parliament of the Conservative party who represent them, in that they are opposed to the legitimate requests that have been made by the mass delegation.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Nasserden:: In rising to take part in this debate today I will speak on that most controversial issue, how best to take care of the delicate situation which has been presented to those engaged in the grain growing industry in western Canada during the past several years. In doing so I should like to make a comment on what has been said concerning the conduct of members of this house from western Canada. No one has betrayed the western farmer more than those who during the years, not only this session but in past parliaments for the last 10 or 12 years, have taken stands in parliament that were so far from what the western Canadian farmer wanted that they engendered ill-will from the other parts of this nation.
Supp ly-A griculture
Now, in approaching this situation I should like to take you back to a statement made by the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King toward the end of the last war, to the effect that if the new order that was to emerge was not already well on the way before the cessation of hostilities, we might well look for it in vain. Those words were often repeated by the late Mr. King and by Liberal members in the House of Commons in order to set them above all others in their appreciation of the need for action. These words, spoken by the late revered leader of those who now form the opposition in parliament, are eloquent of the position in which the western Canadian farmer found himself prior to the election of 1957.
The Liberal party not only failed to recognize the increasing spread between costs and returns to farmers in the grain growing area, but they even went so far as to lower the initial price of oats by about 5 cents a bushel at a time when farm costs in western Canada were rising as they had never risen before. They took this action notwithstanding the fact that they had given lip service to a price support program under the old prices support legislation. They were so blind to the problems of the western grain grower that even during the election of 1958 they tried to bribe the grain grower with 10 cents of his own money by promising to raise the initial price of wheat by 10 cents per bushel. Anyone who wants to talk about insults can remember that one.
Last year this government moved to recognize the difficult income position of western grain growers. The provision of the acreage payment plan was not the result of neglect, nor was it the result of an unsympathetic consideration of that problem. Indeed, its very terms gave emphasis to the immediate needs of those to whom this government pledged to provide long term legislation. If I may be permitted to say that the $200 payment was not regarded as sufficient to meet the losses of prairie grain growers, I hope western Canadian grain growers will remember that if the former government had been alive to their needs, as was this government, they would have received something like $1,000 since 1953 when the situation was first actively recognized.
I took the stand last year, and I see no reason to change it now, that the people of my constituency want a policy that will last into the future. They know, as do the members of this house, that if we, as the governing party, were to go back and endeavour to rectify by cash grants or payments all the

Supply-Agriculture
inequities that have resulted from Liberal shortcomings we would have neither the time nor the money to build the sound national policies that those engaged in agriculture request and need for the future.
Last month a delegation of people from the prairie provinces presented a brief requesting deficiency payments on wheat, oats and barley for the past three crop years. Their spokesmen, and members of that delegation, rejected the acreage payment plan. However, correspondence from my constituency indicates that there are many people who really believe the acreage plan to have been a good one. Most of these people point out, however, that $200 does not equal the losses they feel they have been taking in producing grain.
I attended the annual meeting of the farmers' union in Saskatchewan last fall, and after listening to the deliberations I came away with the conclusion that this organization appreciated the benefits of the acreage payment plan. The efforts of this government to stabilize wheat production in those areas must not be forgotten. The long range plans of the government, including credit legislation, crop insurance, and trade and marketing programs, together with the benefits available under the stabilization act, should all contribute to a speedy transition from a straight grain economy to a more stable, diversified farm program in many parts of the prairies.
To assist in this process I believe the acreage payment plan has proven to be worthy of being continued. There is room for some improvements, gained from the experience of last year. There should be a floor on the amount paid to farmers with very small acreage, and this is a fair request when one considers that there is also a ceiling on the amount which can be received. I would also suggest that a payment based on a farm of average size should raise the maximum payment above the $200 level of last year.
This action alone cannot satisfy the legitimate demands of grain growers who see livestock producers and producers of other commodities protected by the umbrella of the farm price stabilization legislation. Grain growers in the wheat board area are the only Canadian producers excluded from these benefits. They remember the Prime Minister during the election campaign as he went about championing the elimination of the inequities that might exist, or come to exist, as between one segment of the economy and another.
I am one who believes that this govern-nent has sought to follow this through in

the legislation it has brought before parliament. Indeed, I believe that for the first time in the history of this country western members of parliament were willing and able to support the measures taken during the last session designed to assure Canadian labour and Canadian industry of the Canadian market in so far as it required their production. On that same premise, people in the grain growing areas look for an equal measure of protection in the domestic market with regard to their sales of wheat to Canadian consumers. And while it might be argued that a two price system for wheat sold on the domestic market might be inequitable to the producers of oats and barley, I am satisfied that the grain growers in the Rosthern constituency, the grain growers of Saskatchewan and the grain growers in all western Canada would accept it as an act of good faith on the part of the government.
Then there is the matter of the subsidy on the export of flour, which is presently being absorbed by the Canadian wheat board and deducted from the final returns to producers of wheat. Surely there is no need for argument against a situation such as this continuing. Of course these measures would not have been necessary had wheat, oats and barley been placed under the stabilization legislation in 1957. Those who ask for deficiency payments still want these grains dealt with separately, and on the face of it these producers have every moral right to request these deficiency payments under the stabilization act. I was one of those who questioned their stand in asking that wheat, oats and barley be excluded. However, in the light of experience I am convinced that the government was thus given the leeway necessary to make the consideration of acreage payments possible and to make possible the two price system for wheat consumed in Canada.
When the farm delegation was recently in Ottawa, Jack Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, presented the brief outlining the economic problem, and he was followed by a number of people who outlined the social problem in the grain growing areas. It seemed to me that they gave the answer, and what must be the answer of any responsible government.
For the greater part of the last 12 years, the last eight of those years, anyway, grain was the only commodity in Canada which had the benefit of a stable price, namely an initial price and the final price paid through the pool formed under the Canadian wheat board. If we were so bold as to grant the requests put forward in the western brief it would only add fuel to the fires which have

threatened community life in the prairies. Indeed, I would not be surprised if the very people who presented this petition and brief should find it necessary to come back in less than 10 years and beg us to solve the problems created by bigger and bigger grain farms. The preservation of the family farm and of the unit of average size is good for the community. A diversified program on such farms deserves encouragement, just as much encouragement as straight grain growing.
This difference of opinion, which I understand is torturing the minds of thinking people on the prairies, is a good thing at this time. For this reason the campaign for signatures, and the coming of the delegation, can be justified. No one need feel embarrassed unless he deserves to feel embarrassed. That goes for those who sponsored this delegation as well as for those of us who serve here in parliament. Each of us has responsibilities to our people, and under our democratic system of government we will be called to account by those who sent us here.
For my part, I am satisfied that we placed before parliament our program pledged to protect the people just as soon as it was humanly and physically possible to interpret those pledges into measures worthy of the people and worthy of our future as a nation. The name of our Minister of Agriculture will go down in the annals of agricultural history because of his achievement in bringing before parliament agricultural stabilization bill No. 237. This is the bill the C.C.F. and the Liberals fear more than anything else this government has done. For the first time agricultural people in all parts of Canada have a common interest that serves to strengthen their understanding of each other's problems. The eyes of every farmer, and of many other people as well, follow the day to day administration of this act of parliament; and I venture the opinion, Mr. Chairman, that the stabilization bill will be recorded as one of those acts which brought Canadians closer to that spirit of unity which has been the cornerstone upon which farm people have built from the very earliest times.
On a number of occasions there has been reference to the delegation of people from western Canada to Ottawa. During the course of these remarks some compliments were paid to Saskatchewan people and Saskatchewan institutions. There was the hon. member who thought the Saskatchewan wheat pool was to blame for the Liberals not having a sound agricultural policy. I have heard some fantastic reasons for their not having an agricultural policy, but I certainly do not think, sir, that the farmers of Saskatchewan deserve such an atrocious charge. Was it not the same Saskatchewan
66968-9-189
Supply-A griculture
wheat pool that organized the delegation to Ottawa in 1942? If my memory serves me correctly, the prime minister of that day was Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, and the minister of agriculture was none other than Saskatchewan's own Right Hon. James Garfield Gardiner.
That delegation met that most Liberal of Liberal governments. The membership of the Saskatchewan wheat pool is composed of many people, and when the delegation was down here we saw former members of parliament, former members of the legislative assembly, members of all political parties and affiliations, and these people reserve the right, as do other like organizations, to meet the government regardless of the party in power. I recall one hon. member who thought the western farmers would be whipped into a frenzy. I attended the mass meeting at Saskatoon where over
2,000	people tried to crowd into the lobby and ballroom of the hotel Bessborough. I did not see any soap box orators. I did not see any wild gesturing. I did not hear any wild condemnation of this government or its policies. What I did hear was what I considered a well reasoned plea for unity in presenting the income problem of the western grain grower to parliament and the nation.
The platform on that occasion was graced by leaders of various religious denominations. Members of all parties were represented, even the member who formerly sat in this house for Rosthern constituency. His colleagues here in the opposition will be interested to know that he went to the platform with a smile, anticipating the embarrassment that the coming of the delegation and the holding of the meeting would cause the present government and the present member for Rosthern constituency. I need not remind hon. members of the opposition, whose faces were red, that the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool traced the events that led to the sending of a delegation in 1942, and followed that presentation with a recital of the conditions that had existed in the interval since then which had placed grain growing in its greatest hour of challenge. The mayor of Saskatoon presided. The committee in charge invited me to sit on the platform but I declined that invitation, sir, with the assertion that I would remain with those among whom I number myself.
And who were these people who had come many miles on a winter day to hear the leaders of farm unions and wheat pools? Well, someone has said that they were the C.C.F. and the Liberals, and I must confess that there were those who would gladly cut our political throats if and when the opportunity presented

Supply-Agriculture
itself. But the ones who interested me were those who had come from Rosthern constituency, those who had manned the polls in the March 31 election. They were almost a constituency convention in themselves. I remember seeing many of those who supported the hon. member for The Battlefords, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and last but not least the hon. member for the city of Saskatoon. At Prince Albert on January 10 the situation was much the same. The chairman, Mr. L. A. Boileau, director of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, introduced me from the floor of the meeting; and I am happy to assure you, sir, and to assure the members on the government side of this house that there was a wealth of good will in the applause, not for me personally but for our dynamic leader and for this party as well.
In the earlier debates mention was made of Charlie Gibbings. The Charlie Gibbings I know is the second vice-president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. The Charlie Gibbings I know will some day be president of that organization. There are many who say he should be president at this time. That is a decision which the directors, 16 of them, will make. I imagine they have found it difficult to overlook the experience acquired in the 23 years their present president has served in that capacity. When Charlie Gibbings speaks, he speaks for over 90,000 farm families in the province of Saskatchewan. He speaks for over 1,100 farm committees in the province of Saskatchewan. He speaks for the five to eleven men and women who comprise these committees scattered throughout the settled areas of the province of Saskatchewan.
You may be sure that these people are alive to protect the non-political status of their organization. Any man who took his politics as such into the organization and into the office would not last very long. I make no apology for coming to the defence of the Saskatchewan people and institutions. If, however, I have said today some things that shatter the sensitivity of some of those whom I am proud to call my colleagues, I make this apology for so doing.
I believe, as I am sure the Prime Minister does, as the Minister of Agriculture does, and as the majority of our members do, that the measure of achievement in regard to agricultural policy, as evidenced by actions taken or now in the process of being taken, do not commit our defence of those policies to the level of attacking personalities. Both the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Assiniboia have indicated during the earlier proceedings of this house that the coming of this delegation held out the prospect

of political advantage for their parties. Indeed, I got the impression that they hoped that as a result they might indeed save their parties from utter extinction in the agricultural west. The hon. member for Essex East will hate to hear this, but he cannot possibly make political hay out of the coming of this delegation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one is trying to.


Edward Nasserden: The farm people of western Canada remember all too well how Liberal members of the House of Commons returned to their ridings pleading for patience and asserting that they had to humour their colleagues from other parts of Canada to get even the meagre consideration for which they had fought down through the years.
Nor need the C.C.F. members lift up their heads in anticipation, for it is a known fact that both the C.C.F. and Social Credit candidates of years gone by never failed to appeal except on the basis of a regional cry. The C.C.F. slogan in the last three general elections in grain growing areas was, "Fight for the west." What it was in other parts of Canada I do not know but I am aware that thinking people in Saskatchewan and particularly farm people acknowledged with the dynamic power of their ballots that there was not room for this kind of representation here in the House of Commons.
It is noteworthy that the delegation of western farmers as such came to Ottawa without any banners, placards or other trademarks of irresponsible organization. It remained for the C.C.F. to meet them with these things and to provide them with C.C.F. literature. It was indeed the cheapest type of tactic they could have devised.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Edward Nasserden: As soon as I am finished.


Hazen Robert Argue: Very well.


Edward Nasserden: It is for these various reasons that I have been deeply disturbed at the outright rejection of the acreage payment plan by both opposition parties and by the delegation in their presentation. In effect they are saying that we should forget the needs of the small farmer and of the average size farmer. They are asking us to ignore the trend toward larger and larger grain farms and the detrimental effects this trend is causing on community life on the prairies. They are asking us to forget our responsibility to those who need help most by virtue of the inequitable share of farm income that they are presently receiving. They are asking us to turn away from a program aimed at the building of a diversified family farm

wherever possible to the end that those areas and farmers who of necessity must and can produce wheat on an economic basis will be assured of the free movement of their product to market.
There are a number of other things to which I would like to refer briefly, one of them being the unfairness of the present freight rate structure on rapeseed going into commercial channels. This is an important crop and one that has helped to reduce in a very direct way the acreage seeded to wheat. This matter has been before the responsible officials for some time now and to this date no effective or legitimate excuse has been offered for the discriminatory rate now being charged the producer of rapeseed. The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Transport all have an interest in this matter and I urge them to get together and work out a solution that will eliminate the present excessive rate in favour of one comparable to that for flax which is handled in a comparative manner.
I believe there should be some revision concerning assistance under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and there is a need for an upward revision of the grants to farmers for the construction of dugouts and earth dam work undertaken by them under the assistance program established through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
The Prime Minister and many of those about him are dedicated to national policies not only for agriculture but for other industries and callings in this country. The principle so clearly enunciated by the Prime Minister and his colleagues during the election campaign championed the elimination of those inequities that might exist or that might come to exist between one segment of the economy and another. We who come from Saskatchewan uphold the wisdom of that approach in dealing with the problems of grain growing. Our policies, as I see them, have been designed to help the small farmer lift himself out of a depressed condition and bring himself into that group of average size farmers with better income who are able to show some progress over a period of years. I must say that our policies have been and can be of benefit to the larger operator as well. The larger operator is better able to take care of himself, a fact which is borne out by his income tax return.
In conclusion I would say I would be remiss in my duties as the hon. member for Rosthern were I to forget the people in my constituency whose prayers go with the Prime Minister in his daily task to which they attach such importance. To have been told by people, 66968-9-189J
Supply-Agriculture
many of them in humble circumstances, of their intense belief in his sense of mission have certainly added to the privilege of being associated with the right hon. Prime Minister in this parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Rosthern was speaking I interrupted to ask whether I might direct a question to him. At that time he said he would be pleased to answer my question if I would wait till the conclusion of his remarks. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Rosthern the following question based on that part of his speech wherein he criticized the welcome that was given to the mass delegation as they arrived at the station in Ottawa. I am wondering if the hon. member is aware of the fact that the mass delegation in meeting the C.C.F. in the railway committee room not only had no criticism of the kind of welcome which we had given them but moved a unanimous vote of thanks to C.C.F. members of parliament for what they described as the tremendous welcome afforded them at the station?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Of course, they were all members of the C.C.F.


Edward Nasserden: May I answer the hon. gentleman's question?


The Chairman:: Order. I must ask the hon. member to resume his seat when the Chairman is standing. This is not actually a question but more in the nature of a statement and must be considered as such by the Chairman. I must also inform the hon. member for Rosthern that his time has expired.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order that has been raised I consider it a very proper question. Not only is it proper but I had the permission of the hon. member to ask the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It was a statement.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a long standing practice of this house that when an hon. member is speaking he may be interrupted by another hon. member to ask if he will yield the floor in order that a question may be put. When hon. members interrupt me I have without exception immediately yielded the floor and dealt with the questions when asked unless of course they were too numerous. The hon. member for Rosthern was very fair. He asked me to wait until he concluded his remarks. I asked him if he were aware of this fact. I believe this is an important question and that he would consider it as such.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Korchinski:: How would he know? He was not at your C.C.F. meeting.


Mr. Grafftey:: That is tantamount to asking someone if he has stopped beating his wife.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to let this opportunity slip by without saying a few words on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). The brief remarks I propose to make concern mainly dairy products.
Mr. Chairman, this morning, while reading Le Devoir, I was somewhat surprised to find a report announcing a probable change in support prices within a few days. I was still more surprised, of course, to hear the Minister of Agriculture announce early today, certain changes in respect of support prices-and I wonder why he chose the 23rd of April to do so.
The minister obviously knew that his estimates would come up today, and for his sake I wish they will not be again taken up tomorrow-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very much afraid they will be.


Gabriel Roberge: -but I have great doubts, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) just said, that the minister will be able to get through with them today.
At any rate, I think the minister would have been well advised to wait until his estimates had been considered before making that statement. Hon. members would thus have been able to express their views, not only on support prices, but on other issues connected with his department, because it has been recognized that members of this house must be the spokesmen of the people in their ridings and, in fact, of all Canadians.
Now, it appears that many organizations in this country do not in the least approve this afternoon's statement made by the minister in this house, and I shall, to this effect, refer to the brief submitted on March 18, 1959 by the Ontario Milk Producers Co-ordinating Board. On looking over this brief we find that it does not at all agree with the minister's statement. As a matter of fact, the Ontario producers' brief asked, amongst other things, for a support price, and this is what it said:
(Text):
A support price of 15 cents per pound for spray process powder be retained and that the support price for roller process powder be 13 cents per pound.

(Translation):
We now find that the Minister of Agriculture ignored the request of those producers, as he did the remarks made here by hon. members.
I understand the government has announced that the support price for dry spray processed milk is to be reduced from 15 to 10 cents a pound, and that the support price on any roller processed milk will be reduced from 10 to 8 cents a pound. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, time did not allow full consideration of the hon. minister's statement, for the simple reason that he did not send copy of it to the hon. members of this house, as he did to newspapermen.
Also, if I am not mistaken, the hon. minister's statement announces a lower support price on cheese.
The Ontario farmers' council asked that the support prices established last year be extended for at least another year. However, that body was not the only one concerned with hog prices; in fact, when those delegates came to Ottawa, they were also supported by several other associations.
I also remember that when we met with a farmers' delegation in our caucus chamber, Quebec farm representatives were in full agreement with the suggestions made by those of Ontario.
It is noteworthy, Mr. Chairman, that I have received from a single parish in my constituency-and I do not mean to say that others could not have done likewise-a petition signed by 75 farmers urging the government to continue support prices from May 1, 1959 to May 1, 1960, at the same level as those of 1958-1959. Those farmers asked, more specifically, that support prices for milk, hogs, butter and milk powder be maintained at the same level as those of last year.
Why is the government changing its position at this time? I wonder also if that decision is not in line with a speech made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture last September or October to a group of farmers, when he told them that they should reduce their production because they probably would not receive any government help in the way of price support. Besides there might well be a certain connection between the round the world trip undertaken by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the support prices that the Minister of Agriculture has announced today.

If I remember rightly, according to press reports dealing with the Prime Minister's journey, he was said to have offered, among other things, to the countries of south-east Asia our surplus of milk powder. Moreover, if I rightly remember those press reports, those countries were not too anxious to accept that milk powder surplus, but preferred the money that the democratic countries were making available to them, to help them organize their own economy and their own industry.
If, last year, there was overproduction of those products, particularly of milk powder, it is probably due to the lack of foresight of the government which let the farmers produce too large a quantity of milk powder in the hope that the countries of south-east Asia would become a good market for that product. But their hopes were frustrated, because those countries of south-east Asia preferred the money offered to them by the democracies. Obviously, we are involved; everybody knows that we, on this side of the house, have always advocated this development of south-east Asia, but not to the extent of increasing production in our country and creating a surplus for our farmers.
Mr. Chairman, I will not extend my remarks because I know that other members wish to deal with this matter, but, nevertheless, I will ask the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider the decision he announced today in the house, in order to enable farmers engaged in dairy production to secure a price equivalent to that obtained by producers in other fields of our national economy.
(Text):


Mr. Rogers:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to refer to the western farm delegation. I must admit that prior to their coming to Ottawa, as a westerner, I was somewhat disturbed at a delegation of this size coming to the government. I can say now that as a westerner it was with a deep sense of pride that I watched this delegation in action and their performance throughout their stay here in Ottawa. I might say too that I was proud of the Prime Minister and the reception he gave the delegation. His sincerity and the pattern he set were followed by all concerned. In essence I would say that the farm delegation made a favourable impression on the government, all members of the house and certainly Canada as a whole.
Let us not have any misunderstanding. The agricultural industry has a problem and a
Supply-Agriculture
big one. Agriculturists have been sitting right in the middle of the price squeeze watching wages and machinery costs pyramid year by year and they simply are not able to do anything about it. As a matter of fact, it seems to be an established fact that farm prices are the first to go down and the last to go up. So I say there is a problem.
The problem did not just come about two years ago when the government took office. The problem stems back to surpluses and to the time the quota system was initiated. What did this mean? The terminals were filled, the elevators were filled and the producers had to put out money to provide granary space or dump the grain on the ground. What happened? Thousands upon thousands of bushels were sold at fire sale prices ranging from 55 to 85 cents a bushel to feed mills and feeders. Grain was traded for cars and machinery. It stands to reason that if a farmer cannot make out today at present prices he certainly could not make out at those prices.
The point I want to make is that there is a problem, in the business world, using good business sense, vision and forethought, the only time to rectify the situation and solve the problem is before it gets too big. I suggest that the government at that time did nothing about the problem. On the other hand, when the present government took office they did bring in a number of corrective measures which have been referred to here before.
I wish to discuss two corrective measures at this time. The first is interest free advances on stored grain and the second is the stabilization board. Let us look at the first, interest free advances on stored grain. I submit that if the government at that time had had any vision and initiative we would not have the problem we have today because the farmers would have had interest free advances at very little cost to the taxpayers of the country. However, the result was that grain was sold at ridiculously low prices and the effect is being felt today by many farmers whereas with interest free advances they would have had enough money to take care of their operating costs.
As to the second point, I do not think we need say too much about the stabilization board. It has sold itself right across the country. When it was initiated it was not supposed to be perfect although it was made as workable as the government could make it. However, you have to learn by experience

Supply-Agriculture
and there is one thing I should like to mention today. As a matter oi fact I brought it up in a campaign speech. When the government raised the support price on hogs I said at the time I did not think it was a good policy and I still think that is so. It is easy to look back but experience simply shows that if the method the Minister of Agriculture is using today, deficiency payments, had been used instead of raising the support price the situation we now have probably would not have come about. The raising of the support price allowed the big feeders to get into the business. After all, the big feeder who feeds 3,000 hogs and makes $5 each is getting a lot of money. On the other hand, the ordinary farmer who is feeding 100 hogs only makes $500.
I come back to the point I have tried to make, that if the government then in power had had the vision to tackle the problem and establish interest free advances on stored grain I doubt if we would have had these big feeders in operation. I doubt that we would have had to do away with support prices and establish deficiency payments on hogs. It is quite easy, Mr. Chairman, to look back. The question arises, how are we going to solve this problem. When we look into the future and consider the potential of the communist countries our export picture is not too bright. Every Canadian has been taught to believe that exports are the lifeblood of our country. I do not think there are too many who would quarrel with that concept up to the present time but I submit we have got to look a bit further than that. In my opinion our most important market is our home market.
That brings up the matter of getting more people into this country. Having regard to our export situation in the years to come, I think it is most important that we take a very serious look at the immigration situation. We have to build up our home market. With the unemployment situation as it is today there are people who will say that to do so would simply create more unemployment. I doubt that very much. I have had a lot of experience with new people coming into the country because I have helped to establish quite a number of them. These people are eager. They see opportunities that we do not see because we are too close to the situation. They start small businesses and make work. In addition, it costs money to raise a Canadian from childhood to the point where he is capable of looking after himself and ready to enter the labour market. These new immigrants are ready to go to work, and I think we would be well advised to spend a little money in this regard.

Australia is certainly doing just that. They have adopted a plan whereby immigrants up to 4 per cent of their population may enter their country in a year. I think we have to do somehting like that too in the light of the fact that Russia's exports were considerable last year. Russia has more acreage under cultivation than United States and Canada combined so the potential is there. The Russians do not have to worry about prices. We know something of the cold war and we will certainly know something about the economic war.
With respect to the western grain grower, I think we will have to go to the two price system. After all, why should the people of Canada consume farm products purchased at prices giving a return to the farmer below his production costs? So far as I can ascertain we do consume about 45 million or 50 million bushels a year. If we add a dollar a bushel it would only mean about two cents per loaf to the consumer of local bread. This $45 million to $50 million, spread amongst the wheat growers, would contribute considerably.
I have no intention of taking up too much time. However, I know that patience is a virtue, so perhaps if I did take up time it would be good for the Minister of Agriculture. I expect to speak again on supervised farm credit, which is another solution to our pressing problems.


Mr. Michaud:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity which is now afforded to the committee of this house, to make a few observations relating to agriculture, as applied more particularly to the province of New Brunswick and the maritime provinces. Bearing in mind that the dairy industry has been the backbone of agriculture in New Brunswick, as well as in the rest of the maritimes, I should like at this time to quote from the annual report of the department of agriculture of New Brunswick for the year ended March 31, 1958, which was the last available report. Under the chapter headed "Dairy Branch" here is what is stated, in part, at pages 50 and 51 of that report:
The price received for butterfat for manufactured dairy products was slightly higher than the previous year, but was not sufficient incentive to increase production to any extent . . .
The figures attached to this report on production, volume and value of dairy products manufactured are for the calendar year 1957. The figures reveal that creamery butter production decreased about
500.000	pounds, while the cheese output was about
231.000	pounds greater. Ice cream production was also down about 50,000 gallons owing to the very cool weather prevailing throughout the summer months. Despite the lower production of butter and ice cream, the total value of dairy products totalled $7,000,323, an increase of $106,756 over the previous year...

The Canada agricultural prices support board, which was later changed to the name of the agricultural prices stabilization board, continued to apply a floor price of 58 cents per pound to first grade butter in solids delivered to Moncton and Saint John cold storages. To some extent this price regulated the butter prices throughout the year. However, the threatened shortage of butter had the effect of prices increasing considerably above the floor early in the month of August, and continued to improve, and accelerated still more, when the selling price of solids to the trade during the fall and winter months was set at 63 cents per pound in solids delivered to the distributor. Very little butter was sold to the stabilization board during the year, but about 70 earloads were required to supplement winter production ...
At the time of writing, the agricultural prices stabilization board has announced that the floor price on creamery butter in solids for the year 1958 will be 64 cents per pound delivered to cold storages, which is six cents per pound higher than for the year 1957.
What is the general inference then, Mr. Chairman, to be drawn from that report? It clearly indicates that while prices for dairy products for the last fiscal year were generally higher in New Brunswick, yet that was not sufficient incentive to increase production to any extent. It would indicate also that an increasing number of our rural population, year after year, are abandoning farms. Some might be tempted to say that in the light of these circumstances this is a desirable situation. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that any situation favouring any disproportionate dislocation of our rural population toward the industrialized centres of the country is not economically sound. Such a situation entails the disintegration of our rural community which should remain a vital part of the whole economic structure of the country.
Here is one strange aspect of the true economic picture in the maritimes. While we have the largest relative number of unemployed on the one hand, on the other hand we have a deficient agricultural production in almost every field, with an ever-increasing acreage of fertile land lying idle. A comprehensive study of local market conditions was published in 1957 by the Canadian Department of Agriculture, which is entitled "Atlantic Provinces Agriculture". I should like to give some of the findings and recommendations which resulted from that study. In 1950 there were 10,000 farms in Prince Edward Island; 23,000 farms in Nova Scotia;
26,000	farms in New Brunswick. Fifty-two per cent of the farms in Prince Edward Island had produced in 1950 which sold for over $1,200, while in Nova Scotia just over 28 per cent of all farms were in this category, and only 29 per cent in New Brunswick. Almost 90 per cent of the farms in Newfoundland produced less than $1,200 in produce in 1950.
Supply-Agriculture
Maritime agriculture produces insufficient crops and livestock for the needs of the people of the region, and for the Atlantic provinces in general. During 1955 only potatoes, some animal products such as hides, wool and by-products, apples and live cattle were a net export. During 1955 a net of
85,000	tons of canned goods were also imported. Of the major crops and products grown in the maritimes, potatoes, apples and blueberries were considered surplus; wool, strawberries, eggs and ice cream were almost in equilibrium with the total consumption. Milk and butter were in a deficit position, while poultry meat, cheese, honey, concentrated milk and red meats were markedly deficit. Two of the three maritime provinces are deficit areas with respect to red meat production in relation to consumption. Prince Edward Island produces double its needs; New Brunswick is 47 per cent self-sufficient and Nova Scotia only 37 per cent.
The dairy industry has been the backbone of agriculture in the maritimes. The production of a major portion of the beef has been as a by-product of dairying. This has resulted in the lower than average quality of beef. The aim of dairy farms should be toward marked expansion of milk cows, and for all livestock farming in general it would seem desirable to institute more research designed to determine the best rotation crop methods for beef and for dairy production on each of the major soil types in the Atlantic provinces. Hogs and poultry have been very useful as major sources of supplementary income, and in expanding total output on a limited land basis they should be expanded only to the point where the Atlantic provinces' needs are satisfied.
There is the situation, Mr. Chairman, concerning the general economic picture of the maritimes and the relative position of agriculture in that picture. That situation is a challenge, a challenge to the responsibility of both federal and provincial authorities, and a challenge to the initiative of the people themselves. We speak with great emphasis at this time of the urgency of developing industry in our part of the country. With that I fully agree. While proceeding in this direction, however, we should make sure that our efforts show balance and co-ordination. A more highly developed agricultural production in accordance with the domestic needs of our local population should be of the essence of a vigorous program toward the goal I have mentioned.
I urge the federal government, through the extended facilities of the Department of Agriculture, to take the lead in giving to the maritime provinces a prosperous and selfsufficient agriculture to meet the needs of the

Supply-Agriculture
population. When this is achieved I can assure the government that we will have gone a long way toward solving one of the most crucial economic problems of the maritime provinces, namely, unemployment.
I think we can already point to certain successful enterprises in the agricultural field in the maritimes where there has been a departure from traditional farm practices. In the co-operative field, for instance, the maritime co-operative services is proving a distinct success, while in the field of private endeavour there are Canada Foods Limited at Kentville, Nova Scotia, and Groves Limited at Berwick, Nova Scotia, which are operating important fruit and vegetable canning businesses. At Hartland, New Brunswick, there is the McCairn Foods Limited which is operating a successful fruit and vegetable processing plant. I think there are also similar plants in operation in other parts of the maritime provinces. We have also heard in the maritimes of the co-operative enterprise by Nova Scotia farmers to build an abattoir at Halifax. As a distinct result of that project, farmers in that province have already been urged to increase their hog production.
This is but an indication of what could result in every other field of farm production if facilities were made available on a more general basis to maritime farm people. Let us therefore put our heads together with a view to contriving more intensive and more flexible farming practices in order to attain an agricultural production in the maritime provinces which will at least be sufficient to meet the needs of our local population.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the statement made earlier this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) regarding support prices on dairy products. That statement is of great interest to farmers in the maritimes because, as I have indicated, dairying is the very backbone of agriculture in the maritimes. And I am sure that dairy farmers will be pleased to hear that the government intends to maintain at 64 cents a pound the support price on butter production.
A certain amount of cheese is also produced in the maritimes. So the minister's statement should cause no trouble in the cheese industry.
However I hardly expect milk powder producers to be as enthusiastic over the statement made by the minister this afternoon. I know that certain plants have just completed large alterations and expanded their facilities for the production of milk powder; and I am sure the minister's statement will be quite a blow to those people.

It seems to me that when the Department of Agriculture or the government are contemplating a move such as was announced this afternoon, they should give advance notice to interested parties so as to spare them the difficulties they will now have to face. (Text):


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, at this time I should like to spend a few moments referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia about the way in which western members had betrayed western Canada. I am sorry that the hon. member is not in his seat, but if his colleague would care to go up and get him I would be glad to repeat my remarks while he is in the chamber, because I would prefer he was in the house at the time I am making them.
I can assure the committee that I have not betrayed either my constituents or western Canada. I still live on my farm and in my constituency. I did not leave my people and move to Ottawa. I am still living there with my people. But it seems to me that ever since we came into this house we have had to listen to irresponsible remarks by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
We have only been in power for one year. During that period, however, this government has enacted the Agricultural Stabilization Act. It has amended the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Canadian Farm Loan Act. It has also amended the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, made a start on the South Saskatchewan dam project, has amended the P.F.A.A. and authorized subsidiary payments to western grain growers. Prairie farm assistance amounted to $25 million; acreage payments amounted to $41,300,000; the surplus disposal plan for wheat, to $35 million; interest on cash advances, $1 million, and storage charges, $37 million; a total of $139,300,000. And yet we have these irresponsible people in the C.C.F. group getting up and saying we have done nothing. I wonder why they do not take the trouble to look over the figures.
We have today a Prime Minister who knows more about the troubles of western Canada than any previous prime minister. He has representatives here from the farms of western Canada working together with him. We do not meet the press every day with a bunch of irresponsible remarks, but we are working, together with the Prime Minister, for the betterment of agriculture and for the betterment of this country. It is time the people

realized what is going on instead of listening to the bunch of rubbish put out by the C.C.F. along the lines of what we hear every day.
The C.C.F. group supports deficiency payments. They are in favour of everything. If we were to give agriculture $5,000, they would give $10,000. If we were to give $5 million, they would give $25 million. They are irresponsible. They have no responsibility to Canada, and they never will have. It is time they realized this themselves. The hon. member for Bow River suggested that the C.C.F. and the C.L.C. would be married off. That would be a sad thing to take place, because if it did it would be too bad for the farmers of western Canada; they would be playing the role of the unwilling bride in that marriage.
Now with regard to deficiency payments. They say we are against it. I am not against deficiency payments. Nobody would be better off than myself because I would get a cheque for $4,500 and my neighbour probably one for $500 or $600. That would be a great sin, would it not? We got last year $41 million to take out west and if we divided it up like a deficiency payment, how much would the small farmer get? Twenty-five per cent of the producers would get 75 per cent of the money. Then they brought down a brief and they want us to go back to 1955, 1956, 1957. Is that the responsibility of this government when the Liberals were in power and the C.C.F. from the western provinces were down here? It is not our responsibility to rectify those mistakes made by the representatives of the people of western Canada in those years.
Then there was talk of betrayal, that we betrayed western Canada. I will tell you who betrayed western Canada. It was Jack Wesson and the Saskatchewan wheat pool. In 1946, Wesson and the Saskatchewan wheat pool put pressure on the government to sign the British wheat agreement. The C.C.F. and the worthy member for Assiniboia were in favour of signing that agreement. When my colleague, the minister of northern affairs, accused them of this the other day, finally the member for Assiniboia said that was not true. Let us go back to the 1946 Hansard when they were discussing the British wheat agreement, and we see the hon. member for Assiniboia speaking, as reported on page 4839 of Hansard of August 15, 1946. He said;
I agree with the leader of this group (Mr. Cold well) who stated that we in this party welcome the agreement.
Then we turn over the page and see the member for Assiniboia again speaking. He said as reported on page 4841:
66968-9-190
Supply-Agriculture
I welcome the wheat agreement.
That wheat agreement cost the western farmers over $600 million, and now they want this government to give it all back in one year.
We had the march on Ottawa which was carried out very respectably. Why did they not march in 1955 or 1956? It was a different government then and there were a lot of C.C.F. members from Saskatchewan who were interested. No, they said they would wait. Then this year they decided to come down here. They said, "This Diefenbaker government is bringing in a lot of legislation and things will look tough for us, so let's get down there.'' We are supposed to believe that every member of that delegation was in agreement with deficiency payments. They were not. They came to present to the government and the people of this country the troubles of the farmers of western Canada, and a good 50 per cent of them were satisfied with the acreage payments if only we would pay just a little more. The payment last year was rather small. I had over 21 delegates from my constituency, and out of those 21 there was only one delegate who demanded deficiency payments. But he left, and he left in good spirits and in agreement with me. The rest of my delegates said that they were fairly well satisfied with what we were doing but they were still in trouble. I know they are in trouble in the west, because I am a farmer. They do not need to tell me that. I know we are in trouble because I am a farmer myself.
Then what happened? The march ended in Ottawa; they got off at the station and the member for Rosthern mentioned the greeting they had. Well, Mr. Chairman, my good friend the other night mentioned that there was an eight-ring circus down there. If you, sir, had been down at the station that morning you would have seen it in full force. The Minister of Agriculture was there; the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources was there; the Minister of Trade and Commerce was there; and a lot of western members were there. But we were standing back in the station not to embarrass these farmers coming to Ottawa. However, this eight-ring circus was going on. The member for Assiniboia was down by the door; the fat man was there, the thin man was there and they were carrying big C.C.F. signs. I watched those farmers come from the station and a lot of them dropped their heads to get by the ring leader at the door because they were ashamed of any political affiliation with their march on Ottawa. They did not want that. Then we got reports in the newspapers next day about how the C.C.F. met

Supply-Agriculture
them at the station and it looked like a C.C.F. delegation all the way. Those farmers from western Canada did not want publicity like that. The hon. member for Assiniboia told us how they were pleased about this reception in the committee room. I met a great number of the delegates, and I am telling you, sir, that they were ashamed of that performance at the station, every one of them.
This is some of the publicity. This is what took place. This is from Victor Mackie, the Ottawa correspondent for the Winnipeg Free Press. He had this to say:
A C.C.F.-hlred brass band played Happy Days Are Here Again.
As delegates began to enter the station from the first train. C.C.F. members of parliament also out jockeyed the cabinet ministers for positions in what amounted to an informal receiving line.
C.C.F. house leader Hazen Argue commented to a reporter.
"It's all good clean fun."
Mr. Chairman, that march was not fun. That march was business. Those farmers from western Canada had come down to Ottawa to present to parliament their problems. They were not down for fun but on business. I had a very good meeting with all my delegates. But what happened when they got home? You can see what happened from the papers. Such paper reports as that we need to educate the western members; that eastern members are all right; but I would like to put on record for my own constituency, with your permission, a letter from the Vermilion Board of Trade which says:
Dear Mr. Smallwood:
Mr. Karl Marklund, one of the farmer delegates from this district who visited Ottawa recently, addressed our board of trade at its meeting on the 25th of March and gave a very interesting account of the reception the delegates received at Ottawa.
Mr. Marklund was particularly warm in his praise of the cordial reception you gave to the members of the delegation from this district and others from the west. He stated you "went all out" to assist them to meet various members of the government and they felt you were a good man for the west.
At the conclusion of Mr. Marklund's remarks our board passed a resolution of appreciation to you, which I hereby convey in this letter.
From another part of my constituency, the F.U.A. wrote me this letter:
Dear Mr. Smallwood:
I wish to inform you of a motion passed at
our last F.U.A. meeting... The motion expressed
our appreciation for your continued efforts to put forward legislation beneficial to "western agriculture".
Yours truly,
Mrs. George N. Osness,
Secretary.
That is what our farmers in Alberta think of the members down here, yet we have to read all this rubbish which appears in the press because the press are misinformed.

Mr. Chairman, I did miss one point I wanted to make. The C.C.F. agree with everything in the brief. We agree with deficiency payments and the brief, and I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to go back to what the C.C.F. member from Port Arthur said. As I say, we agree with everything in this brief. We agree; oh, yes, we agree with everything in the brief. The hon. member for Rosthern who recently participated in this debate referred to the payment of $4,500. But let us examine what was said by the hon. member for Port Arthur as reported at page 2732 of Hansard of April 15, 1959:
As I understand it, we supported the position taken in the brief, which would be a maximum of $1,500.
The hon. member is apparently under the impression that there is a maximum payment of $1,500. But that was for one year and must be multiplied by three which gives a total of $4,500. That illustrates the kind of thinking of which C.C.F. members are guilty of.
I have in my hand a publication called The Western Producer. In my opinion it would be more appropriately entitled, "The Wesson Producer". It is interesting to note that this publication suffered a deficit last year of nearly $160,000. The Saskatchewan wheat pool owns it and this illustrates how they rim their business. I am prepared to make another prediction. If hon. gentlemen pick up a copy of this publication next week they will see that it contains an editorial about me.
I am down here working for the family farmer. I am a grain farmer and a mixed farmer. I am in Ottawa to work for the farmer of Canada and of the west.
I should now like to turn to a problem of great concern to the farmer of western Canada. The government expended $139 million on agriculture last year putting it in the hands of western farmers but we still find ourselves caught in a cost price squeeze. Let me place some comparative figures on the record. A combine which cost $5,600 in 1953 cost $9,000 in 1958. An Ontario farmer friend of mine bought a manure spreader for $350 in 1953 and in 1958 the same unit cost $700. A tractor which cost $4,600 in 1953, cost $6,500 in 1958. Freight charges on a tractor in 1948 were $96.47, in 1957 $201.78 and in 1959, $235.41. These examples serve to illustrate the difficulty the farmer experiences in equipping himself for his operation and it must be observed that throughout the period to which I referred during which prices continued to climb, the farmer's income constantly decreased.

The price of grain has not increased. Last year it might have gone up 10 cents a bushel due to better grades but since 1953 it has shown no substantial increase and in fact it has been continually declining. Western farmers are caught in the grip of a vicious cost price squeeze. Western farmers are told that they do not need to buy new machinery. How can we repair our old machinery in view of increasing costs and dwindling returns? I have not many examples of increased prices of repairs to machinery but I might state that a Massey-Harris disc spool which cost $2.25 in 1953 cost $4.35 in
1958.	That is what the western farmer is up against today. The price of everything we require is increasing due to freight rates and other things but our products have not increased in price.
I would define a family farmer as a man with a small section of land. Let me give an illustration concerning a farm family on one section of land with 500 acres under cultivation. The farmer is allowed to sell on a 6 bushel quota and would therefore sell 3,000 bushels. For this he would receive a price of perhaps $1.20 per bushel, or $3,600. As against this he must make the following expenditures in round figures: taxes, $600; fuel, $500; casual help, $200; seed and fertilizer, $500; the payment on his farm, $1,200; and estimated repairs on machinery, $600, giving a total of $3,400. If $3,400 is subtracted from $3,600 it is evident that the farmer has only $200 left. That represents his profit on his grain farming for the year. Although it is necessary for a farmer today to raise this grain and to engage in mixed farming, I feel it is unfair that he should be expected to produce this grain with so little return on his operation. In giving the illustration above I did not take into consideration the many small items on which a grain farmer would be required to spend money. The only way a farmer can exist in the west is to go into mixed farming but he should get a greater return on producing grain. These are problems for which adequate solutions must be found.
We must also protect the farm family from contract farming. This is gaining popularity in the pig industry and others. In my constituency last year I would say between 700 and 800 turkeys were raised in the entire area. When I left to come to Ottawa there were four farmers who had
8,000	turkeys. That is just an example of what is taking place. It is the responsibility of this government to find solutions to these difficulties.
66968-9-190J
Supply-Agriculture
In both the east and west I know there are farmers who are becoming too old to remain engaged in active farming and who would like to turn over their farms to younger people. There are many young men coming along who are eager to engage in farming but who have not sufficient capital to acquire a farm. I urge this government to consider the possibility of introducing legislation under which extended credit and long term loans would be made to young farmers to assist them in becoming established in farming. I hope this government will continue the acreage payment the same as last year. It was of some assistance but it was not large enough last year.
It is a sad situation in western Canada today to observe that on a loaf of bread costing 20 cents or 22 cents, that western farmer receives only 3.2 cents. In Alberta a year ago we had bread being shipped by train. One day one of the bakers decided to start something new and so he sent the bread on a truck and put it on the road. Another baker and then another decided to follow suit and so the trend developed. Not being satisfied with that they decided to put large trucks on the road and they hired additional men to drive the trucks. At the first of this year they decided they could not make enough money doing that so the price of bread was increased by 2 cents a loaf in Alberta. The western farmer received no benefit from this increase. I request that the government conduct an inquiry into bakery combines in Canada with a view to exploring their operations and having the western farmer receive a fair return on his grain growing operation to assist him to overcome the cost price squeeze in which he is caught, in other words a two price system.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the hon. member who just resumed his seat and who classified himself as a mixed up farmer, I cannot resist commenting that if one had a fairly weak stomach one might have had some difficulty in keeping the contents down during the course of his remarks. I do not intend to make any comment on the references made by the hon. member to my good friend the hon. member for Assiniboia. I will let him answer the vilifying remarks and character assassination in which the hon. member engaged in the last few moments. I feel that the personal integrity of the member for Assiniboia has been slandered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Hon. gentlemen opposite treat that as a joke. I expect that they look upon most other serious matters as a joke, too, and especially problems concerning farmers.

Supply-Agriculture


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You tell them all about it; you are a big farmer.


Mr. Lambert:: You know so much about it, of course.


Charles Benjamin Howard: About what?


Norman Platt Lambert: The problems of farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: When are you going to make your speech?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Did the hon. member for Assiniboia write your speech?


Charles Benjamin Howard: The difficulty at moments like this is that hon. gentlemen opposite are so eager to snatch an opportunity to say something that they jump all at once and it is impossible to make sense of their remarks and determine if any are deserving of comment. They all jump at a chance to speak and it is impossible to sort out the confused chorus that results.
We have been discussing the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture for approximately four or five days. It would seem to me that the length of the debate would certainly indicate that there is something basically wrong with the attitude of the government toward the farming people. We have had references to the farming problems of the people of the maritime provinces, of Ontario and the prairie provinces, and some reference to the farming people of the province of British Columbia. Many members have entered into the debate. That itself should indicate that everything had not been solved by the Minister of Agriculture and by his friend the Prime Minister.
We have heard some reference to the delegation of farmers who were here recently from the prairie provinces and the reason why the farm delegation was here. I would suggest that the basic difficulty is that they require and need for their own sustenance a fair share of the national wealth. That is primarily what they were interested in. Hon. members on the government side can confuse it as to which way is the best way of doing it, by deficiency payments, by dollar payments per acre on a handout basis, or in other ways, but the basic problem is that they have not sufficient income to maintain themselves, their families and their farms and to keep them up. Obviously, something is wrong or 1,100 to 1,200 farming people from the prairie provinces would not have come here carrying with them a petition signed by over 300,000 people. Surely, they could not have just come down for the trip, as has been indicated by some hon. members.
These complaints that we hear, Mr. Chairman, about the participation of the C.C.F. in providing some sort of welcome for them as they got off the train are very amusing.

I suggest it is nothing more than jealousy and sour grapes on the part of hon. members who are evincing nothing today but old Toryism. How many Conservative members were there? I know no one will admit it, of course, but the Conservative members expressed this thought the following morning -and I heard some of them say it-"Gee, I wish we had thought of something like that".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Benjamin Howard: All right.


Mr. Ricard:: Imagination.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Perhaps my friends the Conservatives wished they were like the Liberals who did not have anybody there at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will say this. The C.C.F. were there, certainly, out in the open with placards, in a sincere, warm way-


An hon. Member:: With bands.


Charles Benjamin Howard: My hon. friend says "with bands" but what we did not do was put on a booze party for them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You had no money.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Neither did you give them anything else, and you do not intend to. We did not pour out the liquor; we did not cart them into a back room and try to push aside their complaints and say, "Never mind about the problems of the farmers; have another drink; have another shot of scotch or rye", or whatever it was they had, no sir.


Mr. Henderson:: Pretty cheap.


Charles Benjamin Howard: My hon. friend says, "cheap politics". He ought to know about cheap politics; he is sitting in a government with over 200 cheap politicians.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Perhaps
the hon. member might reconsider that remark.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will reconsider it. I thank you for suggesting it and I hope that your suggestion that I reconsider it will be applied to the hon. member who made the interjection in the first instance; for I am sure that rulings of the Chair must be equally applicable to all members in the house.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Hazen Robert Argue: Shame on an equal ruling?


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is Toryism for you. They want this ruling to apply to one hon. member but not to somebody else. To those people who raise complaints about the farm delegation and about the participation by the C.C.F., I say again it is nothing but sour grapes and jealousy, and they are promoting this day after day, that farmers did not come down here wanting anything. They did not

have any problems when they came here. That is what they are telling us. They do not want any fair share of the national wealth of the country. This is what the Tories tell us. They came down, the 1,100 or 1,200 farmers, on some sort of a holiday with a petition signed by over 300,000 people. This sour grapes and jealousy attitude is in my opinion merely designed to cover up their own inadequacies.
I spoke to a number of people who were here. I suppose every hon. member did. Apparently they broke up into small subcommittees of half a dozen, or something of that nature, and visited every member of parliament and discussed their problems with them. I would say that the general attitude that I obtained from them by the expressions of the ones to whom I spoke indicated that they were utterly disgusted with the Tories who came from the prairie provinces. They were of the opinion that a great number- I am not saying all, naturally it does not apply to all-of the Conservative members of parliament from the prairie provinces are nothing more than apologists for the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with no great desire to do anything concrete about it, but merely to raise all those side issues about the delegation that came here not wanting something, confusing the issue and hoping that the people will forget about it and John will not have to live up to his promises.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is nothing but a bunch of lies.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Did you hear that, Mr. Chairman? As I understood the comment, it was that it was nothing but a bunch of lies.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that that is not a parliamentary expression. I would not like to hear it again in the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Charles Edward Rea: I do not think the remark is on Hansard but if it is, the hon. member should withdraw the remark.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will withdraw the remark if it is on Hansard; but the hon. member stated that the majority of the delegation were amazed at the opinions of the western members and at what they were doing down here. He implied that they were doing nothing for western Canada, which is not true.


Charles Edward Rea: Hon. members can have their points of view, of course.
Supply-Agriculture


Charles Benjamin Howard: I did not want to insist that the hon. member withdraw the remark. I merely drew it to your attention; but even if he withdraws it he still thinks it, and what is the difference? Whether he is made to withdraw it because of the rules he still carries the same misapprehension in his mind. Calling someone a liar is no substitute for a desire to resolve differences of opinion.
I should like to deal with another matter confronting agricultural people. This matter has gained a considerable amount of prominence both here and in the United States in recent years. It is commonly referred to as vertical integration or contract farming. We have seen substantially this same process develop over the years in other phases of our economy. It is something that is not confined to the agricultural industry or to farmers. For instance, we have seen it develop on the west coast in the fishing industry. I am sure, because of my talks with people from the maritimes, that the same condition exists there. We have seen the same process of vertical integration developing substantially in the logging industry on the west coast where slowly and slowly the small entrepreneur, the small logger, the small operator, had less and less chance to participate in running his own affairs, in running his own business, which was slowly and slowly gobbled up and more control exercised over the operations by larger and larger concerns. This is substantially, I say, what is happening in vertical integration in the agricultural section of our economy.
Slowly these forces, in my opinion, will put many farmers in substantially the same position, although probably not to the same degree and with the same humiliation, as were the sharecroppers in the cotton fields of the United States. There is this slow loss of control over their own destiny, a slow loss of control over the farmer's own right to produce what he thinks should be produced and what he is able to market, a slow loss of control over free marketing and eventually the possibility of loss of ownership of his own buildings and his own land. If this process of vertical integration is allowed to continue unabated the farmer could very easily find himself in the same position as the wage earner, possessing only his own muscular and mental ability but having no ownership of property, land, buildings and equipment.
I hear more smart aleck remarks. I would rather they were made in a loud enough voice for me to hear them although at the same time I know that when hon. members

Supply-Agriculture
make them they are violating the rules. The government's policy in this respect apparently is to let this process continue, to allow the farmer slowly to lose control over the things he has held dear to him for so many years and to allow the farmer's control of his right to produce what he wants, control of his right to market as he wants, control of his own destiny to Alter into the hands of a few small groups of people, many of whom are not even resident in Canada and have no intention of becoming residents of Canada.
I am of the opinion that this can be overcome to a degree in the same way it has been overcome in other sections of the economy. It can be overcome to a degree through the development of co-operatives whereby the farmer will have control over his own vertical integration system, control over his own contract and farming arrangements. Another way is through regulation of private Anancial and industrial concerns to ensure, in so far as farmers are affected by the activities of such concerns, that the farmers will get the squarest possible deal and will not be placed under the control of somebody else.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in this debate I should like to say a few words about the Minister of Agriculture himself. His constituency adjoins mine, and no matter what side of the house we may be on I think that as members of parliament and representatives of the people of Canada we will all agree that the portfolio of agriculture is not an easy one. The big trouble in dealing with agriculture is that it is like the seven blind men feeling various parts of the elephant which all feel different to them. Agriculture covers so many different items, so many different crops, so many different phases that when you cure one problem you may aggravate something else.
I certainly do not want to get into an argument with the last speaker but he mentioned that there had been a lot said in this debate and he thought there must be something wrong. I would say there is nothing wrong and as a member from western Canada I say there should be a lot of words spoken about agriculture because that is our primary industry. That is how all of us make a living because when the farmer in western Canada does well the businessmen of western Canada also do well.
I should like to deal with a few things that concern my province and constituency having to do with a phase of agriculture called ranching. Sometimes Albertans are accused
EMr. Howard.]
of being a lot like Texans but they can boast about having some of the Anest ranches in Canada. I can tell members who have not visited the area that in the foothhills of the Rocky mountains they will And some of the Anest herds of cattle you will see anywhere in Canada and a pound of beef can probably be produced cheaper there than anywhere else in Canada because in many places the cattle can graze all year round.
Therefore, when legislation is brought in or a program is suggested with reference to the production of cattle, what may apply to one section of the country may not apply to another. In many places in Canada, even in some sections of Alberta, cattle have to be barn fed for six or seven months of the year. The people who have to barn feed their cattle are faced with tough competition from the rancher because the rancher's cattle can graze for most of the year.
There is one matter that is of considerable concern to Alberta ranchers at this time, and that is what may happen as a result of diversiAcation in farming. I have discussed the matter with ranchers and many members have suggested that the farmers of western Canada should diversify their production. In the process of diversiAcation many of them have gone into raising cattle. In the last two years at least we have been very fortunate to have a good market for our cattle in the United States. This means, of course, that every ranch is producing every pound of beef possible and where there has been diversiAcation on farms there is also a lot of beef being produced.
There is always a danger when there is overproduction and there is the problem of what will happen if the United States market is cut off. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe referred to the situation when our market for cattle in the United States was cut off in 1920 and 1930. We know exactly what happened to cattle prices in Canada. It is a source of anxiety to the ranchers and other cattle producers of Canada to know that if this market is cut off they will be faced with an immediate problem. However, it bears repeating to refer again to the stabilization legislation. It is sometimes underemphasized that under that legislation there are two price levels. One price is written right into the act and cannot be changed except by act of parliament. It is provided right in the act that the price will never fall below 80 per cent of a 10-year moving average. That

is a matter of law and cannot be changed. Then there is the other level which comes into effect when a price level is set for a product by the stabilization board. That has given the ranchers and other cattle producers of Alberta stability and security in their industry and it is something that I think should be mentioned.
There is one thing that I should like to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture and also to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Members of parliament will have read about the recent case in British Columbia, I believe, in which the wheat board act and the regulations were interpreted to mean that wheat could not be sold by one farmer in one province to another farmer in another province. This has worked certain hardship, particularly in the case of those farmers who live near the border between Saskatchewan and Alberta. Some of the wheat which cannot be sold under the quota system is sold for feed and bought by feeders of cattle and in that way the surplus is being depleted. But under the wheat board regulations it is legally impossible to sell wheat from one province to another without at least the consent of the wheat board or rather through the wheat board. That is one of the big problems and I think it should be looked into because it does seem that when we provide certain protection for an industry by legislation problems always arise.
The wheat board is not new, of course, because the board was created by this party the last time it was in power, but I always think that new legislation is like a new baby. There are certain changes that must take place. I should like to make this suggestion in respect of this legislation without wanting in any way to harm the sytsem itself whereby the wheat farmer is protected. Perhaps some system could be worked out whereby the law and these regulations could be amended to enable a farmer in one province to sell grain to a farmer in another province. I know of a case in which a man in Saskatchewan wanted to sell wheat to his brother-in-law in Alberta who was producing beef. These regulations made such a transaction impossible. This is one suggestion I make, that the law and the regulations should be amended so that they would not work a hardship on anyone.
Now, returning to my constituency, I would say that when we leave the ranching district we move into the grain producing area. We
Supply-Agriculture
then meet the problems that have been discussed here. Hundreds of words have been said about wheat. I think George Brittnel, a professor at Saskatchewan, wrote p book on wheat, called "More about Wheat". Perhaps if everyone read it there would not be so many words said about wheat. I should like to say, when dealing with the wheat farmer, that the main problem is moving the surplus wheat from the farm to the markets themselves. It does not matter how you pay out the subsidies. After all, the most important thing is to be able to market the commodity at reasonable prices.
I think I have the honour of representing the district in which the two master farmers of Alberta reside. This part of the Bow River constituency is a great wheat producing area. One of the big problems is to get the grain off the farm into the market. One of the problems the farmers have met in this connection is the distribution of box cars. This particular government set up a commission to investigate the distribution of box cars. I have always been amazed by the fact that one of the largest crops western Canada produced in 1928-there were only two other crops to compete with that record-which was between 500 million and 600 million bushels, was transported to market without too much difficulty. There seemed to be plenty of box cars in 1928 to take the whole crop. It seems to me that today there is some aspect of this problem which we have been overlooking. Surely there is sufficient railway equipment today to enable us to get all the wheat off the farms quicker than we have been doing in the past few years.
If these large farmers could get their wheat to market, even if they could fill their quotas on time, then they would have the necessary capital with which to finance their farm operations. I feel that whatever findings this commission makes, the distribution of box cars is a very important item and that is why I have mentioned it. The supply of box cars to the country sidings should be speeded up.
I have heard a lot of members say a lot of things about agriculture, but it does seem to me that the crux of the whole problem can be set forth in a simple formula. How much will a bushel of wheat or a pound of beef buy? One of the big problems today is the cost of production. I wrote one of the farmers in the Bow River constituency for a list of the equipment which he has on the

Supply-Agriculture
farm. He is farming 1,500 acres of land and he has equipment which was purchased anywhere from 1947 up to the present. He uses all this equipment because he is a very efficient farmer; he is one of the master farmers in Alberta. The cost of the equipment he has, based on the cost price at the time of purchase, amounts to $37,493.40. If he went to the market today to buy that same equipment it would cost him $57,500. This illustrates one of the problems. If you consider the cost of that equipment at 1953 prices you will find the cost would be about $30,000, whereas in 1958 the cost would jump to $57,000. The cost of farm machinery has almost doubled, and this seems to be one of the problems.
When I was in the library this morning I was interested in looking back over the records and found that a commission was set up by this house in 1937 to inquire into the price of farm machinery. It may be that the time has arrived when this situation should be reviewed. The cost of farm machinery in Canada seems to be out of all proportion. I want to show hon. members, especially those who do not come from western Canada, how the cost of some of these machines has increased. I am one of those who believe that when the farmer is prosperous the whole economy of the country is in a healthy state. I am not one of those people who play one section of the country against the other section, as has been done by some political parties.
As an example let us consider a 14-foot combine. In 1953 it cost $5,750 and today it would cost $9,800. Then, take a swather; in 1953 it cost $948 and today it will cost $1,149, an increase of about $200. I think one of the most startling examples is that of a Caterpillar D-4 diesel bulldozer with a hydraulic lift. It cost about $5,000 in 1940 and today it costs $15,000. These are just typical examples of the increased cost of farm equipment. It seems to me the time has arrived when we should review the prices of farm machinery in order to keep agriculture in a healthy condition. I should like to know, as a member of parliament, how many dollars worth of labour goes into the construction of this Caterpillar D-4. I should like to know how many dollars of profit result from the sale of this item. The cost of this item would have to be worked right back to the cost of the steel. However, I think that could be done and it is time such an investigation by a new commission was undertaken. We need to know the reason for such increases in farm machinery.
There is one other thing I should mention. I believe the purchasers of farm machinery
[Mr. Woolliams.l
should keep in mind the fact that there is no tariff on farm machinery entering Canada. I ascertained this fact today. This means that a combine has no duty imposed on it. There is no duty imposed on farm machinery entering Canada from the United States. I discussed this question with a member of the customs branch, and he was kind enough to review the list of items I gave him. He said that there were no duties imposed on the list of machines, except two of them. I refer to the list of equipment used on the 1,500-acre farm in Alberta. I have heard many times from political platforms references to the tariff protection given farm machinery, but that just does not exist.
There is one thing about which I am not sure, and I should like to hear an answer to this question if it can be answered. Why does the machinery in the United States cost less? Why does it cost more when it comes into Canada and yet there is no duty imposed upon it? I have heard no answer to this question as yet. I should like, with the permission of the house, to put on Hansard the list of machinery to which I have referred. This shows the list of equiment used on the 1,500-acre farm and also the prices of that equipment in 1953. There are two pages, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: May I ask the hon. member the source of his information?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This information came
direct from the farmer who purchased the equipment, and from an agent in Calgary.


Charles Edward Rea: Is the committee agreed that this table should be placed on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Supply-Agriculture
When the hon. member for Assiniboia talks about betrayal, I never know whether he is talking about the betrayal of the Regina manifesto or of the Winnipeg manifesto or the Knowles manifesto or the Argue manifesto. I think the western farmer will know where the real betrayal lies when that marriage referred to in the Knowles manifesto is brought about between the C.C.F. party and certain labour groups in this country. Then the farmer will know when his machinery increases in cost just where the betrayal of western Canada took place. I am quite confident that when that marriage of the C.C.F. takes place the C.C.F. members from the four western constituencies will be defeated and the Conservative members who sit on the rump side of the house will be all back in their places.


William Hector McMillan: We have heard some discussion today about wheat farmers, both in western Canada and in Ontario. I think the western wheat farmer, like the farmer in any other part of Canada, is a realist and I do not think his opinions can be changed by a drink of liquor. If they were so entertained by some members of the Conservative party as has been said I do not think it is the business of any of the rest of us.
I have every sympathy for the western farmer, as I have for farmers in all other parts of Canada and certainly unless he is farming on a large scale with modern machinery he is facing considerable difficulties at the present time. After listening to the previous speaker this afternoon I have all the greater sympathy with him, because the hon. member for Bow River has brought home to us the high prices which must be paid for implements and machinery.
I do not intend, however, to discuss western farming. I want to refer to a special type of farming in the Niagara district. I want to refer to fruit farming in Ontario and, more particularly, to peaches. The peach crop in 1958 exceeded the peach crop of 1957 by about 15 per cent. The annual meeting of the Ontario peach growers marketing board was held about eight weeks ago at Grimsby and the secretary of that board reported that last year's peach crop was good and that it had exceeded the 1957 crop by something like 15 per cent. Purchases of peaches by processors in 1958 amounted, however, only to 27,444 tons compared with 30,027 tons in 1957. This was a decrease of 10 per cent. The total value of the crop amounted to $2,227,000, and when one includes the $13 a ton paid by the government under the stabilization plan, this amounts to $605,000 less than in 1957. And even with this $13
[Mr. WoolUams.J
taken into account the price obtained for peaches last year was the lowest obtained in years. The same applied to asparagus.
Now previous to 1957 the asparagus crop had been at 23 to 22 cents per pound. In 1957 it fell to 22 cents and 21J cents. When this government came into power I think they set a deficiency payment of three cents below the 18 cent floor price and the farmers never got any more than 15 cents from the processor after that. They got the 15 cents plus the three cents.
In 1958, the number of peach growers selling to processors in the Niagara district declined by nearly 12J per cent, from 1,362 in 1957 to 1,195 in 1958. One reason, of course, was the high cost of production and the low price received for peaches. Another reason this year was the closing down of processing plants. Some of these plants were bought out by United States interests and were not opened. In some cases it was not known whether or not these plants would open, and unless peach producers had made other arrangements for selling their crops, in cases where the plants did not open they could not get rid of them and the peaches rotted on the trees.
I think our two governments should cooperate in helping the fruit farmers to build processing plants. The money would not be lost; it could be amortized over a number of years and the fruit and vegetable farmers would be able to sell their products. Moreover, the money would be spent in Canada and avoid the importation of a lot of fruit from the United States and some other countries, fruit which, I think, is of an inferior quality. What I have said with regard to peaches applies in varying degrees to other fruits and to some vegetables. These processing plants could be used for other fruits and for some vegetables, apart from peaches.
I believe that the main problem which faces the farmer is the obtaining of long and short term credit. This applies to vegetable and fruit farmers as well as to farmers in Ontario generally. The fruit and vegetable growers need short term credit for fertilizer spraying, baskets and so on. At the present time they must pay at least 6 per cent for their money. They also need long term credit for the erection of storage facilities, packing sheds and other buildings. And I am sure they would appreciate it if this government would provide them with processing plants. I am sure this money would be returned. I realize that interest rates must be reasonable and that the Minister of Agriculture should see that they are reasonable.

I fail to see, however, that this government could provide any reasonable rates at the present time because, as you know, in the last two loans made the cost yield to the government was around 5 per cent. In fact, one of the loans was over 5 per cent, and when you take into account income tax gimmicks in connection with those loans they were up around 6J per cent. Therefore, I do not see how the government can lend money to farmers at a very reasonable rate when the net cost of money to them was around 6J per cent. I would hate to think that my credit had fallen so low that I had to pay as much interest as the Minister of Finance had in that last loan. I would appeal to the minister to help our farmers by way of a more reasonable interest rate in order that they might get adequate financing in this highly competitive field of farming.
I must say one thing to the minister. I am sure the fruit and vegetable growers appreciate the longer application of specific duties during the harvest period of the various crops. I do not know how this will apply in the Niagara district, whether it will tend in itself to keep these processing plants open. If it does not I would appeal to this government to do something along with the provincial government of Ontario for the fruit growers.
I also want to say something about the grades of fruit. Our processors have bought grade A fruit from different fruit growers in the past, but when the processors have imported fruit they have accepted a lower grade at a lower price. I think inferior grades have been getting in across the border. Our inspectors let them in. It does not happen any more now than it did with the former government, but it is happening, and I would appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to see that the people in the department at the border admitting fruit and vegetables see that they come up to a definite grade set by our own producers here in Canada.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be able to take part in this debate. I would like first to reply to the statement made by the leader of the C.C.F. party to the effect that the Conservative members of western Canada had betrayed the farmers of western Canada. I believe that the greatest betrayal of the farmers took place in 1946 when the British wheat agreement was signed. According to a statement made by Senator T. A. Crerar in 1953 at a Liberal meeting in Winnipeg, the western farmers had lost at that time over $500 million. In 1946 Mr. Coldwell, the then leader of the C.C.F. party, stated he had given some approval to the British wheat
Supply-Agriculture
agreement. There was nothing wrong with that agreement because it was made in order to help Great Britain, who had made great sacrifices during the war; but where the betrayal came in was that the gift made in the name of Canada was paid for by the farmers of the three western provinces.
When the farmers came to Ottawa last month some of them came to my office, those who came from my constituency of St. Boniface. I told them that their brief had not the proper background, that it had not a proper basis for the demands made. I said that I agreed they had demands to make and that they were not coming here as beggars. I said, "This country owes you at least $500 million." Why was that not mentioned in the brief? The Hon. J. A. MacKinnon, the then minister of trade and commerce, consulted with the western heads of the pools and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in regard to this agreement and they gave it some approval, although the then minister of trade and commerce admitted they had not been consulted as to quantity and price. So this was not a farmers' deal, it was a government deal.
The agreement was signed on July 24, 1946 and it was announced to parliament on the next day, July 25, 1946. It was then a fait accompli, but at that time the then leader of the Conservative party, Mr. John Bracken, and the late Mr. Arthur Ross of Souris, took a definite stand against that deal. They stated it was not fair to the farmers, and that if the farmers were going to sell their grain at 50 cents less than what it was worth in the world market they should be given parity prices.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, when you
called it six o'clock I was talking about the great betrayal of the western wheat growers by the Liberal and C.C.F. parties in 1946. I was amazed that in the last march on Ottawa by the western farmers who presented a brief, the greatest ground on which they could have claimed against the government was not even referred to. As I said before the adjournment, in 1953, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 24 of that year, Senator Crerar was reported to have stated that the grain growers of western Canada had lost $500 million under the British wheat agreement and the international wheat agreement.

Supply-Agriculture
When the delegation from St. Boniface came to my office I spoke to them about that and they urged me to mention it at the first opportunity and that is why I am raising this question tonight. When the delegation appeared before the committee on agriculture I referred to that point as well. Mr. Harry Marsh of Saskatchewan who had at one time been a director of the wheat pool agreed that if the march had taken place in 1946 it would have been possible for the farmers to obtain at that time what they are seeking now.
I am really surprised that the farmers did not march on Ottawa in 1946 when the Liberal party of that day without any authority and without consultation with the western farmers confiscated part of their income from wheat. It was really a conscription of wealth directed only against the three western provinces.
This afternoon I heard the leader of the C.C.F. party talking about the interests of the western farmers being betrayed by the policies of the Conservative party but the greatest betrayal occurred in 1946 at which time the C.C.F. and Liberal parties worked hand in hand. Mr. Coldwell admitted that he had given some approval to that agreement at that time.
It seems to me that hon. members of the C.C.F. were not concerned at all about the interests of the western farmer. They were concerned only in bringing about an enforced plan and fixed prices and government interference with the affairs of the western farmer. They did not consider what losses the western farmers were taking at that time.
I am surprised that Mr. Wesson, who I understand was also a leader of the wheat pool in 1946, did not look after the interests of the farmers then. Perhaps the organized march on Ottawa was caused by remorse or perhaps he is now repentant for what he did to the farmers in 1946. I am quite surprised that the leader of the C.C.F. party at this time is not interested in asking any questions about the British wheat agreement or about the stand that party took at that time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He does not like to hear about it.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Yes, indeed. I would invite him to explain the participation of his party in that agreement and tell the committee why they did not try to lead a march on Ottawa at that time when one was required. At that time there was no farmers' union organized in western Canada. Indeed, the very reason for the organization of the farmers' union in the western provinces was that the interests of the farmers were not being properly looked after by the C.C.F. or by the wheat pool organization. The farmers saw the necessity of having another organization and thus established the farmers' union. Personally I am

sorry they were not organized before they were. If that had been done what took place in 1946 could have been prevented. Such a thing has never happened to any other class in Canada. No other group has had part of the income from its produce confiscated and given away to another country with the cost of the gift being charged only to one class, namely the wheat growers of the three prairie provinces.
The province of Ontario was exempted. In some years that province has grown as much wheat as the province of Manitoba. Why was not the province of Ontario included? Obviously they knew they could not get away with it for political reasons and therefore it was limited to the three prairies provinces and to only one class. I believe this represented a mortal blow struck at the western farmer. In the course of a few years $500 million was taken away from them. I have taken this figure from Honourable T. A. Crerar who was a member of the Liberal cabinet at one time but who did not approve of it after he ceased to be in the cabinet. He said so in Winnipeg on January 24, 1953, at a Liberal convention, of all places.
In 1946 that great newspaper of western Canada, the Winnipeg Free Press, put up a wonderful fight against the policy of the Liberal party at that time and in defence of the interests of the three western provinces.
I was quite shocked last week when I heard the hon. member for Essex East expressing concern for what was happening at this time to the western farmer. Why did he not show equal concern when his administration was in office at which time he had some authority and power to protect the wheat growers of western Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Certainly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In 1946 did not the
hon. member share with me and with many other Liberals a strong faith and belief in the Liberal party as an active member of the Liberal party at that time?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I shall ever live down the shame of it. I remember the great Liberal party of 1946. I had a great deal to do with it. From 1946, except for the last two or three years, I attended Liberal conventions and particularly the Liberal convention in Winnipeg, and made it a point to attend the committee on agriculture where I attacked the Liberal government's policy on agriculture, particularly in regard to the international wheat agreement and the British wheat agreement and this had a great deal to do with my leaving the Liberal party.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You see, it is right from the horse's mouth, Paul.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to place on record the position of the Conservative party in 1946 by quoting some remarks made in this house by the then leader of the Conservative party, Mr. John Bracken. This is to be found at page 4822 of Hansard of August 15, 1946. Mr. John Bracken, made the following comments regarding the British wheat agreement:
It is a bad agreement because it proposes to sell 160 million bushels of wheat to Britain at 50 cents a bushel below the world price. It is either a gift or it is an improvident trade arrangement. If it is a gift, let us say so. But if it is supposed to be an insurance against low prices in the future-if because we take less for our wheat today than it is worth Britain is expected to pay more for our wheat two years from now than the world price when it may be lower, I say that as an insurance that this will be done, it is valueless.
It is a bad bargain also because it will create friction between Britain and Canada. If in two or three years from now the world price of wheat is low and Britain does not come through with a higher price to us than the world price then is, we shall feel that she has reneged on this agreement. On the other hand, if two or three years from now, when the world price of wheat may be low, we press Britain to pay us more than the world price, she will feel that we are unreasonable. So I say that the proposal is altogether likely to create friction between this country and Britain.
The third reason why this is a bad bargain is that it will cause friction with other nations as well. It will invite criticism from the wheat-producing nations, because here we are selling wheat to the greatest wheat importer of the world at 50 cents a bushel below the world price. What are other wheat-producing nations to think of a policy of that kind?
At page 4824 of Hansard of the same date Mr. Bracken said:
Now with respect to the government's wheat policy generally. I make this criticism: it is not fair to the farmers, it is not fair to a quarter of the Canadian people, it is not fair-particularly- to those who are growing wheat. It is not fair because of the price that is offered, $1.35, while there is a possibility that something more will be coming after the end of five years, there is no assurance that there will be. One dollar and thirty-five cents is not a fair price for wheat today. It is not a "parity price", if I may use that hackneyed term. "Parity price" is the name given to a price which is supposed to express a fair price in relation to other things. The parity price now would be about $1.53, but $1.35 is all the farmers are assured, at a time when the world price is nearly half as high again as that. If the farmers of Canada cannot be assured of a parity price now, when the world price is high, what prospect is there of their being assured of parity price when the world price is low, as it is sure to be later on?
If I may stop here, I think Mr. John Bracken gave a real good picture of what was going to happen. I would like to know
Supply-Agriculture
where the C.C.F. party was at that time when the Conservative leader was talking about parity price? I continue to quote:
The government's policy during the last two or three years has been a policy generally of floors and ceilings. That has reduced the wide fluctuations of prices, and to that extent is good; it has raised the floors and lowered the ceilings. Now there is a modification of that policy. The government comes along with this price of $1.35, which as I have said is less than parity. The policy has been one of floors and ceilings, but now it is one even more of a controlled economy; and when the government starts in to control the economy, then when things do not go right, or any inequity is brought about, the government has no one to blame but itself. This policy is not equitable. It does not assure equity to farmers, and this is one time when the government might have given them that assurance.
As I have said, the government's policy is one of no assurance of parity when the world price is high, and even less assurance when the world price is low. The government's policy is one of making agriculture carry the cost of the loss on this sale. It is not the nation that is carrying it. The nation's economy will suffer if it does not get as much for wheat as it might have got. But the price of the loss will be borne by the farmers. The government may say that the farmers are probably getting enough, but the fact is that this is a contribution by the farmers of Canada and not by the Canadian people as a whole. When you stop to think that on this one commodity the crop is sold at four different prices-wheat for flour at 78 cents, the so-called domestic price of $1.25, the British price of $1.55, and now the effort is being made to sell to other countries at over $2-you will realize that is very much of a hodge-podge, something which is most difficult to administer and does not work out equitably to the producers.
In Hansard for that year hon. members can also read the very good speech of the late member for Souris, Arthur Ross and the good speech of the present Prime Minister against this agreement. I believe I have performed the duty requested of me by the delegates who came from the constituency of St. Boniface by bringing this matter to the attention of the committee. Thank you.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, before I comment on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture I, too, also wish to challenge the hon. member for Assiniboia on the remarks that he passed this afternoon that the western members have betrayed the western farmers. Let us bring this question of betrayal out into the open; let us decide once and for all who is betraying the western farmers and who has betrayed the western farmers.
Regardless of what happens in the next election, whether one member present in the house tonight or present in this government or in this parliament is returned at the next election, I think they can all say, with the exception of one and that one is the hon. member for Assiniboia, that this government has been more sympathetic to western

Supply-Agriculture problems than any other government in the past. I think they have given a better hearing to western members than did any other government in the past. I think they can all say that never has a more united effort been put forth on behalf of the western farmers than has been put forth by the members of this government and of this party during the last session and up to date.
I just wonder how sincere this member from western Canada, the hon. member for Assiniboia, this preacher of doom, despair and destruction, has been in his support of the western farmer? How sincere are his colleagues in the group of eight, how sympathetic are they to the western farmers? I just want to read one short excerpt from Hansard of last year containing words uttered by a voice of the party that he represents. It is to be found on page 3509 of Hansard for August 14, 1958 and reads as follows:
This does not concern resources about which we know nothing. This relates to the breadbasket of this country, and I suggest to the minister that the breadbasket of this country is no longer on the prairies; it is in the boreal forests where we find our pulp and paper resources.
Then there was an interjection by an hon. member who said:
What does the hon. member for Assiniboia say to that?
Then the hon. member whom I am quoting went on:
He has just been complaining from behind. I do not mind somewhat overstating this point in relation to what the hon. member for Assiniboia tells me. but I think we have gone on long enough paying such marked attention to the agricultural interests especially to the grain interests.
What solution has the hon. member for Assiniboia put forth on behalf of the farmers? How does he propose to assist farming? How well has he briefed his group of eight? Without referring to Hansard I remember that last year one of his colleagues was speaking on agriculture and asked the western members who had been fighting for the western farmers why we could not solve our problem in the same way that labour solves theirs. He said that when labour encounters an increase in the cost of living all they do is go to the employer and make an arrangement with the employer whereby he raises their salaries. How can the western farmer go to his buyer and say, "My cost of living is going up; I want more money for my grain".
I also suggest that the hon. member for Assiniboia should brief the spokesmen for his party when he has duties elsewhere as to what the problems of the western farmers are. I suggest that by the tactics he has been following during this session-not so much during last session-he is doing every-


thing within the power of one man to divide the efforts of the western farmers in obtaining their rights. He professes to be an agrarian. From his numerous speeches we have heard that he is an expert in all fields. He is an expert on external affairs. He is an expert on shipping. He is an expert on labour. He is an expert on finance. In fact, last year when he was criticizing the budget he was asked how he would go about balancing the budget. He said that he would tax the millionaires and multimillionaires and get the money from them. I wonder how long that source would last. I wonder what he would do when it was exhausted. I wonder how long it would be before he got down to the timber barons and I wonder whether there would be seven instead of eight at that time in the little group to your left, Mr. Chairman.
I could say more but I think the remarks I have already made will prove to all Canadians that if he cannot convince that little group of eight he can never hope to convince the people of Canada. What does he hope to gain by his remarks this afternoon, by the co-operation that we as members from the west are getting from him? Is he seeking assistance for the farmers or political gain? I leave it to hon. members to answer that question. I suggest that the people of Canada are not as gullible as the hon. member for Assiniboia believes them to be.
With regard to the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, I have heard it said very often, quite often by the group of eight to your left, that the western farmer is not getting his fair share of the national wealth. The term "fair share of the national wealth" is one of many such terms that they use and the reason they use it is that there are no statistics to prove it. I have written to the dominion bureau of statistics to find out what the fair share of the national wealth is so far as the agrarian is concerned. The bureau does not have such figures on its files and is not able to give them.
However, I have heard the minister say that farmers comprise 12 per cent of our population and that that 12 per cent receive 6 per cent of the national income. I suggest to the minister that there is a problem in western Canada when 12 per cent of the people receive only 6 per cent of the national income. There must be something wrong with either the economy of our country or our mode of living. However, in my view the statement of the minister is not entirely correct because in the west at the present time stockmen are enjoying good returns from their cattle. There are a great number of stockmen on the prairies and this brings up the average.

Our concern as western members, and I think I can speak for all western members of this party, is with the situation of the grain farmer. That is the immediate problem. The problem of the grain farmer is that he purchases everything that he needs on a protected market while all the grain he sells is sold on a competitive market. This results in what is known as the cost price squeeze or high cost of production. Before there is a division between eastern and western farmers I would suggest that the problem of the high cost of production applies to the eastern farmers as well as the western farmers. As farmers let us not be divided on that point. As has happened in the past, let us not have eastern farmers fighting western farmers. Let us not have any member of the house, as we heard this afternoon, try to divide the farmers.
In the past members representing several different parties have been sent to the House of Commons and after what I heard this afternoon I can understand why those representing eastern ridings could not understand the western problem. The western members who were sent here could not even agree among themselves. They did not put forward the problem of the western farmer. They were fighting party politics.
For the benefit of eastern members I wish to point out one thing that has bothered the grain farmers of the west for many years. At the present time the people of Canada are buying wheat 15 to 20 cents a bushel cheaper than it can be purchased anywhere else. Let us suppose all Canadian farmers stopped producing wheat and the Canadian people had to buy wheat for home consumption from some other source. They would pay at least 15 to 20 cents a bushel more than they are paying today. Instead of the income of the western or other grain farmer going up, it has been gradually going down. Today the Canadian people are buying wheat cheaper than any person on the North American continent can buy it. This is not a fair situation in an economy that is rising.
For purposes of clarification I suggest that we divide our economy into three parts. We will call the first group labour, the second group management and the third group the consumers. The reason I call the third group consumers is that our western farmers come within that term. I think what applies to all western farmers applies to all consumers. I include eastern farmers in that group.
Now, which one of these three groups receives the most out of our economy today? All the members are supplied with the literature from the labour organizations. We receive the labour magazines, and I think
Supply-Agriculture
the labour people will admit that within the last 10 years they have increased their net income, over and above the increased cost of living, by 27 per cent. Management, on the other hand, can always look after itself. Whatever it costs management to produce an article, their percentage of profit can always be added to that cost of production and passed along to the consumer.
I would suggest that the consumer group is the only group that has not been protected by legislation. I would suggest that at this session or very soon the government should intervene on behalf of the consumer group. I would suggest also that so far as the farmers who are included in that consumer group are concerned, the minister might give serious consideration to the question of the two price system. I do not think any western member will maintain that the two price system will solve all the problems of western Canada. However, I think we will say that such a system would put western farmers on a firm basis and they would not have to come to the government year after year for assistance.
This two price system has been ignored by certain large farm groups in the west, to which reference was made this afternoon on several occasions. I should like to read a part of an article that was published in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on April 8, 1959. It was an article about the dean of agriculture in the University of Saskatchewan, Professor Rupert Ramsay. In this article it is stated that Professor Ramsay said the net farm income in Saskatchewan last year was $2,000 per farm. Professor Ramsay said that the prairie farmer had established a case for some kind of additional income. Canadian farmers had difficulty selling in the British market because agricultural prices in the United Kingdom were much lower than in Canada. The only alternative to this problem was to establish a two price system with one price for the domestic market and one for international markets.
Efforts have been made by one member from western Canada, Mr. Chairman, to belittle what other western members have done, particularly in connection with the farmers' march on Ottawa. I want to inform this house that any misunderstanding that has arisen between the marchers and the members from the west has not been in regard to the problems of western Canada. I think we will all agree that there is a serious problem there. Any misunderstanding that arose was in connection with the solution of that problem. They say deficiency payments are the solution, and most of us contend that the two price system would be. The reason we have
2S98

Supply-Agriculture
not supported deficiency payments, as the marchers thought we would and as the hon. member for Assiniboia tried to make out we should, is that while he was elsewhere last year all the western members were here studying the problem. We have studied the problem of deficiency payments and we have come to the conclusion that they will not solve our problem. However, we do believe the two price system will put us well on our way.
I should like to say just a word or two further in regard to the fence-sitting, if you wish to call it that, the hon. member for Assiniboia is doing. He professes now to be the champion of labour. He also professes to be the champion of agriculture, an agrarian. An agrarian is not against tariffs in the east. He is not against good wages for labour. But, when he starts to suffer he must do something. This afternoon the hon. member for Bow River mentioned that there is no tariff on farm machinery. He may be quite correct in his contention, but I wish to point out to him that we know we are paying $150, roughly, per ton for Canadian steel when we could purchase other steel for $100. We do know that the textiles the farmers are using can be purchased for one-third less. When your income starts to get so low you feel that pressure then you are bound to complain and you are bound to look around to try to ascertain the source of that pressure.
I recall that last year there was a strike on the west coast which prevented shipments of our wheat. They say a strike does not hurt anyone. I refer to labour's own words which may be found in a memorandum presented by labour to this government. They say:
We would simply say that compulsory arbitration is prejudicial to the tree play of collective bargaining; it substitutes third party intervention tor settlement by the parties themselves; it is a restriction on the very important civil right to strike.
It would appear from this statement that labour is not too concerned with the civil rights of other groups who also feel the results of any strike action. In a democratic country such as we have I would suggest that civil rights must apply to all persons and not to those of any special class, race or hue. We might well ask, what protection does the third party, the consumers' group receive under the present method of negotiation. I suggest they receive none. I wish the hon. member for Assiniboia would listen to this. Labour also states in their memorandum to the government:
We believe the increased wage earner purchasing power is essential to lift us out of the recession.
How can the hon. member for Assiniboia relate this statement to the declaration of the farm groups who state:

The drop in the purchasing power of the grain farmers was one of the major causes of the present unemployment problem. When farmers lack money to buy goods and services, other Canadians are deprived of their jobs.
How can he sit on the fence? Let him go one way or the other and inform this house which way he is going. He cannot serve two masters.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I be permitted to ask the hon. member a question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Certainly.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I wonder if the hon. member would be prepared to advocate or accept a principle of arbitration of price increases along the lines of those which the Prime Minister declared inexcusable?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not profess to set myself up as an authority on arbitration. I do say that I know agricultural problems. I would suggest the hon. member ask his leader whether or not the west would do that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You are the one who made the comment.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to assure the minister that I shall not try his patience for long; I just want to make a few short remarks on the position of farmers in my riding and in the district of Saguenay-Lake St. John.
While listening to the various speeches this afternoon, I noticed that there were problems, not only in our part of the country but also everywhere else in Canada, which obviously confirm the findings of the final report established by the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, as may be seen on page 149, and I quote:
Along the south and southeast coast of Nova Scotia, in much of Cape Breton Island, in the central and northeastern sections of New Brunswick, and in the Gaspe, as well as in Newfoundland, many of the farms are hardly above the subsistence level; and this is also true of northern Quebec and northern Ontario.
We also have many agricultural problems in my riding and throughout our district, Mr. Chairman. There are large families working on farms and, as the children grow up, they are to a certain extent attracted by the urban centres and industries and, little by little, because there is no possibility of finding adequate subsistence on the farm for the whole family, the young people leave the farm and increase the number of those who work in factories and offices in the cities of my riding and district.

This does not necessarily mean that young people dislike agriculture. I am certain that those who are born on the land are in many cases very much attracted by it, but today it seems as if the land had some difficulty in providing a living and certain amenities for those who till the soil. I think that it is not enough that the land should provide mere subsistence to those who work it, but that the young people, and the not so young too, should reap a few amenities when living and working on the farm. This, I think, is one of the main problems which must be faced by the farmers in my riding and in the whole area.
To those problems must be added more recent issues like agricultural mechanization, for instance. There are of course, I admit, the Agricultural Credit Board of Quebec and the Canadian Farm Loan Board who help our farmers and agriculturists, but I believe that at least in the case of the federal body- and conditions were about the same under the former administration-the interest rate is somewhat too high for our farmers. Farmers should be able to borrow money at a lower interest rate.
Farmers-those of my constituency, at least-have complained about the enormous difference there is between the cost of production of agricultural machinery and their sale price. I recall, in particular, a farmer of a rural parish close to Jonquiere who explained to me, for instance, how much a potato seeder would cost. He quoted prices to me on production costs and sale price of such a machine, and I believe that, if these figures were right, the situation is rather alarming, not only in our district, but in the whole country.
The minister or his department should try to investigate the discrepancy between the production cost of farm implements and their selling price to the farmers, because as a result of that discrepancy, the farmer is having a bad time today.
I note, for instance, in L'Action Catholique of March 14, 1958, an article from which I shall quote only one paragraph concerning the capital which the farmers must earmark for their farm machinery. I quote:
Quebec farmers who, from 1941 to 1946, bought a little over 30 million dollars worth of machinery, spent $130 million from 1947 to 1953 to mechanize their farms.
All those problems are being added to the difficulties facing the farmers of my constituency, of the area, and, I believe, of the country as a whole.
We are on the threshold of an era which is not new perhaps-it started some time ago-and I believe the government should en-
Supply-Agriculture
deavour to study the problem in a very special way, in order to come to the rescue of the farmers and develop their interest in their farms. That would avoid, no doubt to a great extent, the exodus to the cities because as farmers move into cities, after working on the farm all their lives, they have no trade nor any specific profession and they have trouble finding jobs. In fact, they are taken as temporary employees in industry, in office work or public buildings, and as soon as that temporary work is over, they go and swell the ranks of the unemployed in the larger centres of the country.
I think the government should look into this problem and try to do something in this field.
At the beginning of my remarks, I told the minister that I would not exercise his patience to any great length, but I should like to close my remarks with a quotation, from the final report of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, dealing with economic conditions affecting Canada's farmers. I quote:
Governments, however, will have a role to play in hastening and facilitating changes that would in any case be brought about by economic forces, and in tempering the winds of change so that individual farmers do not feel too fleeced and forgotten. There will thus be need for government assistance in agriculture over the next 25 years; but the assistance will probably take different forms than in the past.
That is why I have no hesitation in saying that the government should have an aggressive policy in the agricultural field. Gone are the days when grants were made to assist people in clearing their own land, or in building a small house as shelter for the father, mother and two or^ three children. This is a new era, and in my view, the government should begin to realize the implications of this new era which started not so long ago, and should try to do something to keep farmers on the land.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, since half the
constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot that I have the honour to represent in this house is made up of farmers, I owe it to my constituents to bring their claims to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness).
Mr. Chairman, it has often been said and repeated, and quite properly so, that agriculture is the backbone of Canada's economy. If it is not to become a stumbling block for our economic life, it must receive the full amount of attention it requires. As the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) has pointed out, it must be made attractive enough

Supply-Agriculture
to draw our young people towards the noble profession of farmer. The farmer is the feeder of mankind, and unless steps are taken to direct our young people towards that profession, it will merely go on declining. This, of course, has been understood by the present Conservative government, as evidenced by the particular attention given to agriculture since the government was elected to office.
During the 1957 session, in fact, we enacted the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which has certainly given the farmer a fairer share of the national wealth.
This year, the speech from the throne proposes consideration of further legislation which is very popular among farmers. I refer to the bill on crop insurance, which the Minister of Agriculture will be submitting to the house during this session.
We heard this afternoon the minister's statement on support prices for milk products in Canada. Recently, farmers were getting rather concerned, since they, and more particularly those engaged in the dairy industry, feared that prices would drop. Again, the Minister of Agriculture has shown that he wanted to do something for the farmers by keeping the support prices of agricultural products at about the same level as last year. For example, the support price on butter was maintained at 64 cents a pound. Other dairy products-cheese, milk powder, and so on- were given special consideration. There is no doubt that measure was welcomed by our farmers, since, according to the hon. member for Kent (N.B.), (Mr. Michaud) himself, it will certainly create much satisfaction among farmers and all those engaged in the dairy industry.


Hervé J. Michaud: With butter only.


Mr. Godin:: What is there special about milk powder?


Mr. Boulanger:: What about milk powder?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Milk powder has no doubt been given special attention by the government.
As I said a moment ago, the approval given by the hon. member for Kent (N. B.), was so spontaneous and so much in keeping with the facts, that it startled the agricultural critic of the opposition, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).


Hervé J. Michaud: You read Hansard tomorrow.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You have corrected it, I presume.
Mr. Chairman, I should like also to draw the Minister of Agriculture's attention to a matter which my constituents have asked me to submit to him.
The St. Hyacinthe-Bagot constituency is known as one of the most beautiful and

most prosperous farming communities in the province and in the country. There you find breeders of purebred cattle who, each year, win high honours in the various exhibitions that are held in the country. These breeders are alarmed at the devastation caused in their herds each year by brucellosis. Petitions have been signed by farmers, requesting vaccination for their cattle. I therefore urge the Minister of Agriculture to act upon the requests I have received from the U.C.C. and from the St. Hyacinthe agricultural society, in order that brucellosis tests be given as soon as possible in the St. Hyacinthe-Bagot constituency.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to say a few words on vertical integration, which is now being practised to the detriment of farmers. I rejoice with the farmers about the statement made some time ago in this house by the Minister of Agriculture who said that deficiency payments to hog producers would be paid shortly, because, at this time, it is alarming to see that feed companies are doing great harm to farmers. I rejoice, as I said, with farmers about the position taken by the Minister of Agriculture in this regard.
Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the Minister of Agriculture a request made by the farmers of my constituency that the price of sugar beets be fixed at $14 a ton. In my constituency, this crop brings returns of about $1 million during a normal year. The constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is the greatest producer of all the constituencies which supply the St. Hilaire sugar refinery.
So, I ask the Minister of Agriculture to give serious consideration to the different matters that I have brought to his attention, and I can assure him that the farmers will be grateful to him.
(Text):


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief comments I would like to make on item 1 of the agricultural estimates, and those comments will relate to the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and the members of the staff in his department for the good job they have made of this administration over the past year. All members in this house will recognize that the task of the minister and his officials has been a very difficult one.

There has been much talk and many exhortations from different quarters about holding the price line in our economy. The price line during the last fiscal year has not been held too well, and for that reason I would urge upon the minister and the government the necessity of holding the stabilization price line as it affects farm commodities. We had many instances during the last year of increases being granted in wages in our industries, and in transportation particularly. The other day we completed voting a grant of $20 million to subsidize freight rates so that higher wages could be paid those in the transport field. It is very important that farm prices should not be allowed to drop.
It was one of the undertakings of the party now responsible for our government, an undertaking made both during the last election and before, that they would do their utmost to see that the agricultural interests of this country received a fairer share of the national income. For that reason it is necessary now, to do everything possible to hold the stabilization price line.
Everyone will appreciate the statement of the minister today in connection with dairy products. This has been a very pressing problem. The method of stabilization has not given exactly the results that were desired in the dairy industry. Far-reaching changes have been made and other changes are promised for the future. I do not know whether the over-all results will have the effect of holding the stabilization price line in the dairy industry but I am sure it is the sincere desire of all interested hon. members that this new method will maintain or increase the over-all support.
In connection with soybeans that are grown extensively in the constituency which I represent and in the constituencies to the south and west of it, representations have been made to the government recently requesting that soybeans again be designated a commodity under the Agricultural Stabilization Act and that the price be stabilized for the 1959 crop. I hope it will be possible for the minister and the government to again hold the stabilization price line in relation to soybeans.
We do not grow half enough soybeans in Canada to supply our own requirements. It is felt that if an incentive price could be placed on soybeans it would take acreage out of the production of some other crops such
Supply-Agriculture
as wheat which are in surplus supply. Not only would the incentive to grow more soybeans have that effect but it would save us up to $15 million or $20 million a year that is spent for the importation of soybeans.
The same conditions apply to sugar beets. We grow but a small percentage of the sugar which we consume in Canada. From the point of view of the creation of jobs as well as from the point of view of conserving our exchange and keeping our money within our own country and promoting our own industry we should increase our production of sugar beets and beet sugar. The sugar beet growers have also requested that sugar beets again be supported for the 1959 crop. I am sure it is the hope of all concerned that the government will be able to hold the stabilization price line in regard to sugar beets or even increase the support price.
Some sections of our canning industry are complaining that imports of canned fruits and vegetables are creating extremely stiff competition within Canada for the canning industries located here. It is to be hoped that the committee which the Minister of Agriculture has set up to inquire into the whole canning industry in Canada will be able to ascertain whether or not the economic climate that now surrounds the canning industry is such as to encourage that industry to expand, at least to the point where it will supply our domestic requirements.
The Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act is only one feature of the over-all program which this government has devised for the creation of better conditions for the Canadian agricultural industry. The farmers themselves can do much to assist in the solution of their economic problems by organizing themselves more closely and efficiently under the farm products marketing acts which have been set up in most of our provinces. If they will take that action, organize themselves effectively and adopt the necessary measures to bring their production into line with our national requirements, it would go a long way toward solving our agricultural problems. It is my opinion-and I offer this as a suggestion to the minister and the government-that the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act should be used in every way possible, not only to stabilize agriculture temporarily but also to encourage farmers to so organize and control their own production and their own destiny.

Sup p ly-A gricu Iture


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, we have already had five days of discussion on the first item of the agricultural estimates and I do not propose to take much more of the time of the committee in making my contribution. In any event I certainly do not intend to deliver a diatribe such as was thrown at us this afternoon by the C.C.F. member who represents the constituency of Skeena and who, although a labour man from the Pacific coast, is now apparently one of that party's experts on the problems of western farmers.
I do, however, wish to make a brief comment concerning one or two matters. First of all I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for the great planning that must have taken place in the preparation of these estimates now before us. It has been brought out before but I should like to emphasize again that the minister in his estimates has expenditures of $106,079,852 for this year, expenditures all of direct benefit to our great industry of agriculture. According to page 2 of the estimate book, the estimates for the Department of Agriculture are the sixth highest of all departmental estimates. I believe this indicates very forcibly the great interest this government has in the welfare of farmers all across Canada.
I hold in my hand a very interesting statement on the farm situation, Mr. Chairman. It is a statement by the Leader of the Opposition which I think should be put on the record because it puts the farm problem in its proper perspective. The little pamphlet is entitled: "Statements from the Hon. L. B. Pearson, September-November, 1958, as Reported in the Daily Newspapers". It was circulated and apparently a copy was given to me.
According to a statement in the Edmonton Journal of October 3, 1958, as reported in the publicity from the Liberal party headquarters, the Liberal leader said:
It is clear that agriculture has not had a fair share of the national income for the past 10 or 15 years.
It goes on to say:
The government in power at the present time "has a duty to do something about that".
In other words, Mr. Chairman, the Liberal leader says that the former government did not help the farmers and this government should do something about it. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this government is doing something about it. Other speakers have

given an outline of the long list of things that this government has already done in our long range farm program. Other parts of the program will be introduced in the house in the next few weeks.
While out in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre during the Easter recess I noted press reports implying that western members on the government side were not friendly to the mass delegation. In fact, it was suggested that we were not working in the interests of western agriculture. That is not true, Mr. Chairman. Most of the western government members are farmers themselves, or are directly connected with prairie agriculture. The 47 members from the three prairie provinces realize that we represent the western farmers, as we also represent business and professional groups and labour in our various constituencies. I think we did everything we possibly could to help in the visit of the mass delegation to Ottawa.
This does not mean that all of us agreed with the demands of that mass delegation for deficiency payments. I am not convinced myself that deficiency payments on the wheat, oats and barley delivered in the last three crop years is the most equitable way of distributing any help that this government may see fit to give. I am in the same position as the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose who spoke earlier. If the government gave deficiency payments in the manner suggested in the mass delegation brief on the amount of grain delivered to the elevators in the last three crop years I, too, would receive most of the maximum payment of $4,500 suggested in the brief as the limit to any individual farmer. I know many farmers in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who would receive only a few hundred dollars by this suggested plan of cash distribution, and I imagine that their needs for cash are as great as mine, or as great as the needs of other farmers who, too, would receive the $4,500 maximum payment.
The problems of agriculture have occupied more of our time at this session than any other problem in Canada. I have stated this before and I certainly believe it. The standing committee on agriculture, of which I am a member, already has had several meetings, and we certainly will have many more meetings as other parts of the government's long range farm program are presented.
The question of the average cost of production for prairie grain farmers has been

brought up on many occasions. It is realized that such a cost of production figure is necessary before a definite relationship between farm income and farm expenses can be established.
As an example of how farm costs may vary, I have two recent statements from farmers in the northern section of my own constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. The one farmer from around Watrous has just over 1,000 cultivated acres. His statement shows that in 1955, the first year in which deficiency payments are sought from the government, his total farm receipts-and these are his figures-were $14,873.39; but according to his figures his total operating costs were $17,176.47, without allowing, as he says, for any interest on his investment or any wages for himself. The farm, he says, is strictly a grain farm. Therefore, it fits into the picture of most of the farmers who came down on the delegation. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, in 1955, his total farm receipts were $14,873.39 and his operating costs were $17,176.47. This grain farmer shows in his statement a net loss of $2,302.67. These are his exact figures as he gave them to me, down to the last cent.
In 1956, the second year of demand for deficiency payments, he shows total receipts of $21,082.70 from his farm, and total operating cost of $18,035.73, for a net income this time of $3,056.97.
In 1957, the third year of deficiency payments claimed, his total receipts are shown as $13,748.54 and total operating costs as $16,330.09, or a net loss of $2,591.55.
In 1958, his total receipts were $11,069 and his total operating costs $14,332.12, or a net loss of $3,262.43. This actual statement was presented to me, Mr. Chairman, as an argument for deficiency payments.
For the benefit of the western members who are practical farmers, I will repeat the operating costs as given on this strictly grain farm of 1,050 cultivated acres. His costs include depreciation on machinery but, as he says, make no allowance for interest on his investment or payment of wages to himself. In 1955, total operating costs were $17,176.47; in 1956, $18,035.73; in 1957, $16,330.09; in 1958, $14,332.12. As I say, the farmer states these figures do not include any interest on his investment or any wages to himself.
I make no comment on these operating figures, Mr. Chairman. I myself think they are very high for an efficient grain farmer, but I just put them on the record for the consideration of the committee.
In contrast to this statement for deficiency payments, I have another letter from a farmer
Supply-Agriculture
near Govan. This letter has been referred to in the house before, I shall read just one brief excerpt from the letter. This farmer writes:
I am a farmer, farming one section of average land, have no other enterprise but grain growing, so work at my occupation only about six months of the year. Have gathered assets to the value of approximately $60,000 in 18 years and still would be eligible for most of the proposed deficiency payments.
In other words, the maximum of $4,500 for any one farmer. This second letter includes a year by year statement which shows that in 1942 the farmer was a renter on a half section, with no equity in the land he was working. Now, by his own statement, he has clear title to a section of land, has nearly $10,000 worth of machinery, no livestock and 12,000 bushels of grain in store on his farm on December 31, 1958.
I mention these two statements given to me by grain farmers in my own constituency to emphasize the problem of arriving at an average cost of production figure that could have some application for all prairie grain farms. The grain farmer who reported he has had total receipts of $70,774.72 in the past four farming years asks for deficiency payments. The other grain farmer, who has paid for a section of land since 1940, writes in his letter:
I am of the firm opinion that any farmer operating a section or more of land reasonably efficiently should be in no need of assistance of any kind, excepting crop failure.
I quote these two statements, Mr. Chairman, to illustrate the great divergence in the views of western farmers themselves. I realize that the Department of Trade and Commerce, through the dominion bureau of statistics, is attempting to arrive at a fair figure for an average farm cost of production. I suggest that until we can obtain some such figure we cannot properly solve the farm problem. I think the example of the costs of the two farmers, as given by themselves, proves the need for some fair average figure.
I hope the Minister of Agriculture can help to impress on the bureau of statistics the necessity of quick action in this regard to obtain a fairly accurate cost of production figure. Again, Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the manner in which he is running his department. I am sure that under his leadership Canadian farmers can look forward to better years ahead. As the Liberal leader has suggested, this government is doing something about improving the agricultural situation.

Supply-Agriculture (Translation):


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this point of the debate, not as an expert in agriculture, but rather as the representative of a mostly rural constituency. I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) because, when he took on his duties, he was faced with a national agricultural situation that was particularly difficult, and even if, today, everything is not yet perfect, we must admit that the new leadership he has given to the government's farming policy augurs well for the farmer.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to launch into elaborate remarks about agriculture; I intend simply to express a few general ideas and a few proposals about problems pertaining to my constituency. Dairying is the chief agricultural industry in my constituency. So, today it was with great satisfaction, that I learned, as did all hon. members, that the price of butter had just been fixed at 64 cents a pound. It is good news for the farmers of my constituency and they will surely rejoice and congratulate the government for it. My colleague, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), has emphasized earlier certain problems which affect the agricultural industry of the province of Quebec, and particularly, the problem of the diseases which often cripple our herds. I can only endorse his remarks and ask, as he did, that the government increase its help programs aimed at protecting dairy herds.
There is also another problem which was emphasized the other day by our colleagues the hon. members for Bellechasse and Charlevoix (Messrs. Dorion and Asselin) a problem which also concerns the farmers of my riding, and that is the pulpwood problem. Those two hon. members have outlined the wrongs done to farmers who were cutting pulpwood on their farms. I can only approve what they said and ask that the necessary arrangements be made so that farmers be favoured in this field as well as in the others.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) referred in a general way to problems which particularly affect farmers. He emphasized in particular the exodus from the farm. It must be said that in our area, just as in many other communities, there is massive desertion of the farms. Different reasons account for this, but they can be related in many cases to the difficulties laid in the path of young men who would like to continue working on the farm. The situation of those young farmers is untenable on account of the very high cost of production which the farmers of the different areas of Canada must meet. The
[Mr. Pascoe.l
situation causes uneasiness and financial hardship which compel or incite farmers' sons to leave the farm and move to the cities to work in factories.
Mr. Chairman, that situation would certainly not be so bad if, during the last 20 or 22 years, the government had given the same attention to the farm industry as it did to other industrial sectors. Because the interest shown to the farm industry was not as great as that shown to the substantial industrialization which developed throughout Canada during the period I just mentioned, we now see that desertion turn into uneasiness and a most alarming calamity.
Mr. Chairman, mention was made a moment ago of another problem facing the farmers who want to earn their living on a farm, and that is the problem of mechanization; that problem is important because the cost of farm implements which the farmers must purchase if they want to operate their farm according to modern techniques is so high that they cannot meet the excessive price of the farm equipment they have to buy. Again in that field, there is plenty of food for thought; research should be made by the various governments in order to help the farmers meet the requirements of mechanized operation.
In conclusion, I would like to make a suggestion for the benefit of my constituency. My riding of Roberval is known throughout the province of Quebec, and I hope throughout Canada also, as the blueberry riding. It is, moreover, partly to this that we owe the name usually given to us. According to statistics supplied to me by the experimental farm of Normandin, between 1942 and 1956, about 14,220,000 pounds of blueberries were gathered each year representing an annual value of $1,961,641. You can appreciate that this is an extremely important income on which the farmers of my riding have come to rely. It is an important item because it is usually a net income since farmers are able to engage in this extremely profitable occupation at little cost.
During the past years, following research made at the Normandin experimental farm, it was found that the blueberry industry could be one of the most profitable industries for the riding of Roberval and the neighbouring area. But the development of this industry depends on certain research, on certain soil conditions, on soil analysis and on the reclamation of those lands known as "blueberry lands".
That is why, as was stated some time ago by the superintendent of the federal experimental farm in Normandin, the federal government should consider the possibility of setting up, at the experimental station

in Normandin, a sub-station to study and analyse the reclamation methods of those blueberry lands, to study the "control" of vegetation which has nothing to do with blueberries, and to look after the "control" of the diseases and insects which threaten blueberry production.
I make this suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture Mr. Chairman, because the farmers in my riding, since my election, have been urging me to to ask the Department of Agriculture to deal especially with this problem. As I mentioned a while ago, this is an important industry bringing as it does to the farmers in my riding a supplementary income which is, at least as far as I know, for a great number of them a convenient way to make both ends meet.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the time of the house any longer. I will have an opportunity to take up this matter again at a later stage when we consider the agricultural estimates. I shall then try to establish a case for some agricultural issues which affect the province of Quebec as a whole as well as the riding I represent in this house.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me even at this late hour to take part in this debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and to draw to the attention of the minister and the house some problems my fellow-citizens of Nickel Belt asked me to submit for their consideration.
I speak especially on behalf of my fellow-citizens who live in the French river area, the valley of Noeville, St. Charles and Alban, as well as the Warren area, Blezard Valley, Chelmsford, the heart of this riding, famous for its potatoes.
Notwithstanding this late hour, I would like to make a few remarks on the problems facing the average farmer in this country. Practically all day, we have heard representations mostly from western members. I agree heartily that the problems they are trying to solve are most important. But I would not like, on account of the serious problems confronting wheat growing in their provinces, to see a lack of interest for the problems facing the average farmer in northern Ontario and northern Quebec.
A while ago, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) brought to the attention of this house, and I agree with his remark, that the report on the economic prospects of Canada makes it clear in particular that the farm problems confronting northern Quebec and northern Ontario are probably as serious as in the west.
The people engaged in agriculture in my constituency are average farmers who in
Supply-Agriculture
fact own but some 80 acres of land. We have noticed, since this government came to power, that our farmers are faced with many problems and I would like to bring to the attention of this house that these troubles are probably due to the promises which were made to the farmers before the last election. In fact, the promise was given, and emphatically, that the Conservative government, if re-elected, would give Canadian farmers a greater share of the national income. After the election, the farmer was therefore justified in believing that the government would bring in the remedies it had mentioned.
But after some amendments were introduced last year to farm legislation farmers increased their production and hardly a year later, we realize that the problems facing us in agriculture as well as in other fields have grown worse.
Today, Mr. Chairman, the minister's statement in the house showed that the direction given by him to agriculture gave rise to certain problems. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) was hardly less than ridiculous, a moment ago, when he said that, according to him, the minister's statement this afternoon indicated that special attention had been given to powdered milk production. But if we look over the minister's statement, we find that he wished rather to stop the assistance given that industry. It is so true that on the last page of his statement, he states that the established price will be granted only in part, until September of this year and stopped completely at that date.
That is why I say that the government is responsible for the crisis in that field. In fact, we read on the first page of the minister's statement that over-production of powdered milk was 103 million pounds, since the total production was 187 million pounds. This is to say that over-production in this country was, in a proportion of over 60 per cent, the result of the department's action.
In the light of those figures, I trust the minister will try, in the future, to avoid creating such a serious problem.
Mr. Chairman, there may be a point which affects more particularly the people in my district and I am speaking of farm financing. Several times last year in this house and at least on one occasion this year, we discussed the question of the average Canadian farmer's financial position.
Mr. Chairman, a moment ago, I heard a government member outline the financial position of the farmer in regard to the rising prices of farm implements.
The problems of inflation and of rising prices in various fields have often been discussed here.

Supp ly-A griculture
The farmer, who must necessarily renew his machinery, is faced with additional expenses when he comes to buy farm implements which are indispensable to him. That is why I believe he should be, to some extent, granted help similar to that extended more particularly to village dwellers who were able to obtain loans from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In my opinion, the farmer could be granted assistance similar to that granted to citizens who want to set up what we often call a small industry. Our statutes include certain acts which authorize such loans, but the farmer has to rely on his own savings or on those of his family, or again on the good will of some of his friends who are able to lend him money, or still again obtain a loan from a caisse populaire or from a co-operative farm.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that up to now the institution which probably helped our farmers the most, at least in northern Ontario, is undoubtedly the caisse populaire where, from time to time, they may obtain the necessary loans to help them carry on their production, and provide for the needs of their families.
However, I believe we should establish in this country a farmers' assistance program, so that our caisses populaires would not be the only ones to contribute to the progress of agricultural development.
We may well admire the work of those caisses populaires.
It is recognized that they have greatly helped the farmers, but still, I feel we should set up what the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) has termed an industrial expansion bank.
I think the time has come, as pointed out by the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska, to move towards the establishment of an agricultural expansion bank, bearing in mind particularly that the cost of farm implements is so high and that the cost of running a farm is constantly on the increase. Young farmers could certainly benefit from the establishment of such an expansion bank.
Mr. Chairman, I know that Canada's farmers have always appreciated price supports, which incidentally were established by the Liberal government. The Minister of Agriculture has stated in the house today that the support price on butter will be maintained at the same level. However, it

must be remembered that the present support price of 64 cents a pound is hardly better than the 58 cents price set by the Liberals a few years ago.
Before closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with my colleagues in urging the Minister of Agriculture to insure a closer check on over-production of certain goods in Canada.
I drew attention a moment ago, for instance, to the fact that the department now faces a problem because, in one particular field, farmers have been allowed to produce a 65 per cent surplus that only the stabilization board could absorb.
(Text):


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a real privilege for me to say a few words at this time concerning the agricultural estimates. Waterloo county is one of Ontario's best agricultural centres and has produced outstanding livestock for many years; on many occasions our farmers have been prize winners at the Toronto exhibition and other prominent fairs. The A. Seiling farms in my home town, Elmira, Ontario, have produced many winners in top competitions. The Waterloo county federation of agriculture, incorporated in 1944, along with junior farmers and other organizations, have made a fine contribution to the welfare of the area and to the whole agricultural economy of our district. As a matter of fact, it has made a fine contribution to the whole of Canada.
One of our present concerns, however, is the limited facilities which are available for hog testing programs. The advanced registry and record of performance testing for swine has done a great deal to raise the standard. In 1934 a station was set up at New Hamburg, Ontario, on the advice of the advanced registry board. In 1938 a 48-pen piggery was opened at Waterloo in my riding. The building program for the advanced registry station was resumed after the second world war, and in 1948 a 60-pen piggery was constructed at the Waterloo station. At the present time the capacity of the Waterloo station is 112 pens. This is an institution which we are proud to have in our riding, and we all know the capable direction which Mr. Ken Cappin-dale has given it over the last few years.
However, the capacity of the present station at Waterloo appears to be inadequate. In the last few years particularly a considerable number of entries have had to be turned down because of the lack of sufficient facilities. I would strongly suggest to the government

that additional quarters be made available or that an entirely new and enlarged station be built.
It has played a most significant part in the breeding and selection of better hogs in the province of Ontario, and it must be increased in size to continue to fulfil this objective. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture and his department have been ever ready to assist the Canadian farmer. With this in mind I would appreciate if this problem were given serious consideration at an early date.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words-I promise to make them brief-in connection with one or possibly two matters that are not in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. Before doing so I should like to compliment the Minister of Agriculture upon the way in which his department, and he personally, has helped me in my constituency on many problems. I want to say that there is no minister of the crown who has such a difficult position as the Minister of Agriculture. That is particularly true when you have people making such statements as we heard in the house this afternoon. One statement was so irresponsible that you would not think it could come from an hon. member of this house unless he in turn was on the lunatic fringe.
We have gone into various matters. I say "we" because it has been my privilege to sit and listen to certain members of the opposition and those in the far corner who have been making estimates and suggesting increases in the national budget. About every item which has been discussed involved an increase in expenditures. They suggested that such and such had to be increased, and then something else had to be increased, and if you summed up their entire suggestions and placed a monetary value on them you would find that their estimates would probably total in the neighbourhood of $4 billion additional added to a $6.6 billion budget. What can you think of such irresponsible suggestions coming from a group such as that? Would you think their suggestions are for the purpose of giving light to the Canadian people, or do they have a desire to lead astray?
In coming to the next point which I intend to make, that is the cost of farm machinery, the hon. member for Bow River touched on this point this afternoon and I want to elaborate somewhat on it. May I say that in talking with my constituents, the farmers, there is no problem which is more in their minds than the cost of farm machinery. I venture to say that I talked during Easter recess with some 40 or 50 farmers, and I cannot recall one conversation which did 66968-9-191
Business of the House
not include discussion about farm prices, and about all of those cost items entering into the farmers costs of production. These are the things you talk about when you sit down with a farmer and talk to him across his table over a cup of coffee.
The farmers invariably talked about the cost of farm machinery. The cost-price squeeze may come about as a result either of prices or costs. In other words, costs and prices are like the two blades of scissors; you cannot tell which one is doing the most cutting. So we have talked a lot about prices in the house but we have said little or nothing about costs. Costs are what the farmers are talking about, and I would suggest to the government that they give thorough consideration to the advisability of appointing of a royal commission to make a study of farm machinery costs. That analysis would not conflict with the price spread studies which are being made by Dr. Stewart because that particular investigation deals with the margins which are taken by different handlers of agricultural commodities. The commission which I am recommending would deal specifically with the cost of farm machinery, and I would also suggest to the government that in analysing those costs and hearing evidence they not only ask for evidence from machine companies but also from the farmers themselves.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, after all is said and done, the operation of this commission would focus attention on the most important problem facing the farmers in western Canada, and if it were properly handled and speedily executed it would clear the air and give the farmers an opportunity to see where they stand with respect to farm machinery costs. That commission would also recommend action which this parliament could follow in the next session. I therefore humbly suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he give serious consideration to the creation of such a commission, and in closing I again wish to compliment the minister most sincerely in every respect on the way in which he has so ably handled the affairs of his department.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business is for tomorrow and as much of next week as the house leader can indicate?

Business of the House Mr. Green: Tomorrow we will continue with these estimates and then take those of the Department of Transport. On Monday we propose to deal with five different motions in connection with committees. One is No. 10 on today's order paper, a motion to refer the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to a standing committee; then No. 11, setting up a committee to deal with the C.N.R. and Trans-Canada Air Lines; then No. 6, setting up a committee to deal with the Indian Act. There will be in Votes and Proceedings tomorrow,
I hope, a resolution setting up a radio committee and another one to authorize the standing committee to deal with the elections act. We may have to ask unanimous consent of the house to deal with these on Monday; I believe they will not get on to be actual government orders before Tuesday. Then we will take item No. 7 on today's order paper, the resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial Tax Sharing Arrangements Act and then go on with the budget resolutions.


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