1959-02-03

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief announcement concerning the financing of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. Hon. members will recall that in November, 1955 the former government entered into an agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the construction and rental to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited of the northern Ontario section of an all-Canadian natural gas pipe line.
To launch the project and to enable Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to enter into contracts to buy and sell gas and to finance construction of its portion of the line, an arrangement between the government of Canada and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited regarding an assured rental of the northern Ontario section on a firm contractual basis was entered into. To determine the rental a firm interest rate was fixed at 3i per cent. Concurrently an agreement was entered into with the province of Ontario whereby the province agreed to lend to the crown corporation which was to be set up to construct the northern Ontario section of the line one-third of the cost or $35 million, whichever might be less.
The interest on the capital investment of the two governments was to be payable at rates related to the respective rates of interest prevailing for outstanding obligations of Ontario and Canada, and was to be agreed upon prior to the commencement of the construction of the northern Ontario section.
Although the lease with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited was based on a firm interest rate of 3J per cent, no firm arrangements with Ontario were made by the former government regarding the rate of interest on the province's share of the advances, and in the absence of any agreement on the interest rate no advances have been made by the province of Ontario. Consequently the crown corporation has been financed entirely by advances by Canada. To the 31st January, 66968-9-40
1959 we have advanced a total of $112,750,000 to Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.
In the course of recent discussions concerning the rate of interest which was to be paid on any advances that might be made by the province of Ontario, Premier Frost has taken the position that Ontario should not be called upon to make any advances to the crown corporation at anything less than the going rate of interest; that is to say, the rate of interest which the province of Ontario itself must pay on moneys it borrows, and that rate is somewhat higher than the rates prevailing at the time the original agreement was made and construction commenced, and certainly higher than the 3| per cent rate.
We have searched the records carefully and can find no place where in any discussion or any exchange of correspondence which occurred between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario there was any stipulation on the part of the former federal government as to the rate of interest at which the loan was to be made by the province of Ontario; and having nothing in that respect to rely upon the government has concluded that as the main pipe line of the northern Ontario section has been substantially completed on the basis of federal funds-although there will be some additional capital outlay for compressor stations-and as gas is now flowing through the lines, there is no point now in asking the province to advance any share of the moneys as originally agreed.
The fact is that if the province of Ontario were to advance moneys to this crown corporation at the rate of interest which it must pay on its public borrowings it would simply mean a deficit on the part of this crown corporation which the federal treasury would have to make good. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the government has decided that under the circumstances it has no alternative but to provide all the funds required to complete the construction of the northern Ontario section of the pipe line.



CANADIAN RADIO PATENTS LIMITED


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the house a brief report on the talks held in Washington
618	HOUSE OF
Statement on Canadian Radio Patents Ltd. on Thursday, January 29, between myself and Hon. William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States, concerning the extraterritorial effects of actions launched in United States courts under United States antitrust laws.
I was accompanied by Mr. T. D. MacDonald, director of investigation and research of our Department of Justice and by officials of the Canadian embassy in Washington. On the United States side, in addition to Mr. Rogers, the talks were attended by senior officials of his department and by an official of the United States state department. For the background of the discussion I should refer hon. members to my statement on January 19, 1959, reported on page 25 of Hansard. The talks were held in accordance with the arrangements outlined there.
In the course of those talks I outlined our concern about the effects in Canada of antitrust actions commenced by the United States government in United States courts. While our concern in this matter is of general application, it was illustrated and discussed particularly in the light of the current antitrust suit commenced on November 24, 1958, in which three companies in the United States are named as defendants and a number of companies incorporated in Canada are named as co-conspirators.
This suit arises out of the alleged activities of all of these companies in connection with a Canadian organization known as Canadian Radio Patents Limited. This is a company which was formed in 1926, to which the leading companies in Canada have assigned their patent rights. This company has in general licensed those patents only to firms intending to manufacture in Canada, and it is a significant fact that this organization has never since its inception been charged with any offence against any Canadian law. It is also significant that we have in Canada today a healthy and expanding radio and television appliance manufacturing industry, and that only a very small proportion of Canadian domestic requirements in this field is imported from the United States.
In the course of our discussions I made it clear that I was not commenting on the merits of the antitrust case in the United States in so far as it sought only to bring United States law to bear upon United States companies in respect of their conduct in the United States. I also made it clear that I was not discussing the merits of Canadian Radio Patents Limited as such.
I emphasized that what we are concerned about is the possible effect of the decree asked for in the United States in so far as it may require directors of Canadian companies to take certain actions with respect


to the operations of those companies in Canada, which actions would not be dictated by the requirements of Canadian law, or be in accord with Canadian business or commercial policy, but would be dictated by requirements of United States law and be in accord with United States policy.
I made clear that in our view such a result could only be regarded as an infringement of Canadian sovereignty. I suggested that if the United States government has any feeling that actions in Canada in this or in any other field are counter to United States interests or involve any infringement of arrangements with respect to commerce between our two countries, the proper course for them is not to seek to alter the situation in Canada by means of unilateral action in United States courts, but rather to raise the problem with the Canadian government and express their views through the usual channels.
I further stated that it is our view that in matters of this sort the ultimate decision as to what is done in Canada must be the responsibility of the Canadian government, and that we felt that the answer to the problem lies in the exercise of restraint by the United States government in seeking from their courts or applying measures that interfere directly, substantially and deliberately with matters that are essentially matters of Canadian commerce within Canada.
In particular, I emphasized our view that to follow any other course could only be based on the unacceptable proposition that foreign subsidiaries of United States parent companies are merely projections of United States trade and commerce and subject to United States policy in priority to the laws and commercial interests of the countries in which such subsidiaries are incorporated and carry on business.
The United States Attorney General assured me that the action taken by the United States government in this or any other antitrust suit is not taken by them with any intent of infringing the sovereignty of Canada but is taken only in discharge of the responsibility resting on their government to enforce the United States antitrust laws in their own country. He expressed the view that no threat to Canadian sovereignty is involved and also his concern that the contrary view should have been taken. He emphasized that the United States government did not take the position that United States laws should supersede the laws of any other country, but acted only in accordance with what it regarded as its obligation to ensure that all persons in any way subject to the

United States laws, including American antitrust laws, lived and acted in accordance therewith.
As a result of these talks it was readily agreed that in any similar situation in the future, discussions will be held between the two governments at the appropriate stage when it becomes apparent that interests in one of our countries are likely to be affected by the enforcement of the antitrust laws of the other. Such discussions would be designed to explore ways and means of avoiding the sort of situation which would give rise to objections or misunderstandings in the other country. It was, however, made clear that each government would have to reserve its ultimate responsibility to decide for itself what action it should take, and that such consultations should not be regarded in any way as necessarily implying approval of the action ultimately taken.
I believe that the arrival at an understanding on prior consultation is a real accomplishment. At the same time I do not wish to over remphasize the extent or effect of this understanding regarding consultation. It should be realized that there was revealed in the course of these discussions, a wide divergence between our two views as to what amounts to an infringement of sovereignty and as to the restraint which one country should exercise in seeking decrees from its own courts when those decrees may have effects within another country. Until there is a satisfactory reconciliation of views on these points there can be no guarantee that causes for complaint will not arise again.
While I believe that I should in fairness place these facts squarely before the house, nevertheless I repeat that in my view the talks may prove an important and useful first step toward an improvement in the situation, by enabling each side to understand what is the other's point of view, and by opening the door to further consultation which may in turn lay the ground for progress in the reconciliation of those views.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made a statement about a matter which is causing a great deal of concern in this country, because it represents what certainly seems to be unwarrantable and indefensible interference by the United States in the affairs of Canadians. The minister has indicated that as a result of his discussions in Washington on this matter with the appropriate member of the United States government he has received an assurance of consultation on matters of this kind to avoid this particular situation arising in the future.
66968-9-401
619'
Statement on Canadian Radio Patents Ltd.
While we all welcome that assurance, Mr.. Speaker, I cannot help but point out that similar assurances were received in regard to consultations last summer during the course of the President's visit to Ottawa, and they were repeated in this house by the Prime Minister on July 11. We must hope, therefore, that these assurances will be more effective in their implementation than they seem to have been in the last six months.
There is an item in the supplementary estimates which concerns the administration of the Department of Justice, that will be coming up shortly. During that discussion we on this side of the house propose to go into this subject in more detail than is possible at this moment.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: As we of
the C.C.F. have said on other occasions, Mr. Speaker, we feel it is most regrettable that companies in Canada which are subsidiaries of United States companies would appear to be required to follow laws laid down in the United States, contrary to the policy of the Canadian government and contrary to Canadian law. Without talking at this moment about the principles involved, I can say most emphatically that we agree with the principle that companies in Canada should follow Canadian law only and should not be required in any way, shape or form, to follow laws laid down in foreign countries.
We think it is time the Canadian government not only talked in this manner to the United States, but considered introducing in our parliament a law which would make it crystal clear that companies operating in Canada must obey Canadian laws and must operate in our commercial interests. In addition, it should be made clear that in any instance in which there appears to be a conflict between the commercial interest of this nation and the law of some other country, our law and our commercial interest only should apply.
Perhaps this is a difficult subject upon which to make this kind of statement, because there is evidence that we have in Canada a trust so far as the Canadian radio patents pool is concerned. I want to point out immediately that the Ilsley royal commission is inquiring into this subject and will be making a report to parliament. It may be that Canada should take its own action so far as the monopoly in this field is concerned, but that in no way detracts from the statement I have made that in principle Canadian law and Canadian interest only should govern the actions of Canadian companies.
I want to repeat to the minister a request we made in this house in another form and on another occasion. I do this not in any
620	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry partisan political way. I would ask the minister to give consideration to referring this general question to a committee of this house so there may be a discussion of the whole broader question of the actions of Canadian companies so far as foreign orders are concerned, possible refusals in the interests of parent companies, and so on.
We do feel that the minister is thoroughly justified in laying down the principle he has laid down at this time. We hope, we trust and we expect that the method of handling these disputes in the future will be more satisfactory to Canada than the result of similar assurances given in this house last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I recognize that it is not desirable to debate this subject at this time. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, there will be an opportunity to discuss the subject later, probably today. I rise therefore at this moment only for the purpose of referring to what the leader of the C.C.F. party said a moment ago. He stated that there is evidence that we have in Canada a trust so far as radio and television patents are concerned. I have made it clear in all my discussions that I am not defending the merits of Canadian Radio Patents Limited as such. But I should also make it clear that we have no evidence of the nature suggested by the hon. gentleman at least if he refers to a combine or monopoly. If there is such evidence we should be grateful to have it brought to our attention.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received, as I have, a telegram from the British Columbia federation of labour and its affiliates demanding immediate action to alleviate unemployment in British Columbia and requesting the immediate calling of a conference of provincial and municipal governments to meet the unemployment crisis. If he has received such a message, I should like to ask what action he intends to take with regard to it.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.
[Mr. Argue.)



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister inform the house as to when he will file the McRuer commission report on criminal sexual psychopaths, and also when copies of this report will be available to members of the House of Commons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his question. On inquiry I find that the report has been received, that it has now been translated and is in the course of being printed. As soon as it is printed in both languages the report will be tabled in parliament, and I will do what I can in order to make sure that copies are available for hon. members.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to know whether the government has sent a note of protest to the United States government in connection with Bill HR 1 now before congress for the further diversion of water out of the great lakes into the Chicago drainage canal.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the house a few days ago this matter relating to the purport of Bill HR 1 is under consideration. We are considering various representations that have been made by officials and by other organizations. We have not made a protest.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, with optimistic anticipation I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the minister's assurance on August 28 last that a documentary film of the Columbia river basin in Canada would be undertaken by the national film board, and in view of the importance of and interest in the development of

this glorious area, will the minister inform the house of the progress made to date in the production of this long awaited documentary film?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me well the hon. member inquired last August whether or not such a project would be undertaken some time in the future. I think the ensuing five months is a small bite out of anything so broad as the general future, but I can assure him that the answer I gave him at that time is still correct. The matter is not being lost sight of. It cannot be proceeded with until the film on the Fraser river is completed, and we hope to have it ready for distribution this spring. The Columbia river film is at present in the project stage.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. He will recall that the Minister of National Revenue informed the house that the Prime Minister's aide memoire in the Premium Iron Ore case by request was circulated among departments of the United States government. Does the minister know whether or not that aide memoire has been drawn to the attention of the United States federal court of appeals which is hearing the case? If not, can he take any steps to see that this is done?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the government of Canada is not in any way a party to the proceedings of that appeal, naturally it would be inappropriate for the government of Canada to take such action. I have no knowledge as to whether or not the aide memoire has been brought to the attention of the court. The original one, as I recall it, was dated November 28, 1956, and was sent to the appropriate minister in Washington by the then government. On December 23, 1957 this government associated itself with the terms of that aide memoire. Further than that-and I am sure the hon. and learned gentleman will realize the correctness of this view -governments cannot interfere in the courts of another country in matters in respect of which they are not parties.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. On Friday, January 23 I inquired of her whether she had received from the government of British Columbia a request for federal cabinet approval of liquor rights, as they are generally called, for native Indians of British Columbia, and her answer at the time was that no representations had reached her desk. I wonder if that is still the situation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: At that time I made inquiries and found that nothing had come into my department. I have not asked about the matter in the last couple of days, but to the best of my knowledge and belief nothing on this matter has yet reached us.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the recent report of the Auditor General. Can the minister indicate what action the government is contemplating with regard to the facts brought out in this report?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the contents of the report of the Auditor General have been referred to all the departments of government concerned, and appropriate action where necessary will certainly be taken.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the hon. gentleman read the editorial in last night's Ottawa Journal?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You should read it every day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is quite a lot of reading matter I should like to recommend to the hon. gentleman.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say whether any protest has been made to the United States, or whether any inquiry has taken place, regarding the apparently unwarranted refusal of United States officials to allow Louis Smrke, a hockey player of the Belleville McFarlands, to pass through the United States en route to play hockey in Europe?
622	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can
assure the hon. member that no protest has been made in this regard, and I might add that as far as I know no request has come from any person for assistance in this matter.
I also understand from the press, and only from the press, that Mr. Smrke was able to make alternative travel arrangements in connection with his trip to Europe.
The action taken by the United States immigration officials on this occasion appears to have been of a routine nature under the provisions of the United States immigration and naturalization act. A Canadian citizen seeking temporary entry to the United States must be able to satisfy the United States immigration officials examining him that he could have qualified for the grant of a United States visa had he applied for one. The question of the admissibility of an individual to any given country is, of course, a matter for the authorities of that country to decide.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Smrke-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Sidney Earle Smith: -Mr. Smrke, I may say, is a member of the Belleville McFarlands team which is going to contest the world amateur hockey championship in Prague, and we wish them all every success.


Mr. Speaker:: For the record, I think I should ask the Secretary of State how he spells the name "Smrke".


Hazen Robert Argue: According to the press report it is "S-m-r-k-e". I wonder whether in the light of the minister's statement an inquiry could be undertaken so that similar refusals might not be made in future. Surely this is an appropriate thing for Canada to inquire about, since it affects one of its citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is asking a question to which he has already had an answer.


Mr. Grills:: For the information of the house, Mr. Smrke was playing hockey in Scotland last night, and the result was a tie game.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister any statement to make on the latest developments since yesterday concerning the producers' strike? Has he further information to give on this subject?


(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to make any statement with respect to new developments. It is true that over the week end, so I have been told, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) in whose constituency many of these producers and other employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation live, was waited upon by them and discussed the problem with them, as a result of which yesterday, in Ottawa, he contacted the officers of the C.B.C., who said they would be very glad indeed to resume discussions with the producers on the understanding which resulted from the discussions on Sunday night, which apparently implied that the producers are prepared to take a different attitude than heretofore.
I believe discussions are going on now, or will be going on in the near future, tonight or tomorrow, so I think it is advisable to say no more at the present time; but I am sure everyone in the house will be glad to know that these discussions are taking place, and we hope satisfactory arrangements can be made to bring an end to this unhappy situation which has prevailed during past weeks.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another question of the Minister of National Revenue. Had the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) been officially designated by the government to negotiate with the interested parties concerned?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is not in a position to speak for this government, and I am sure he would be the last to say he was. Any statement made on behalf of the government or the C.B.C. will be made by this minister for such time as he remains minister in charge of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Revenue misunderstood my question. I asked whether the government had made some suggestions or representations or whether it has a statement to make about that strike, and not what might have been done by an hon. member who was not officially designated by the government. I understand the minister wants to give some

credit to the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but my question was directed to the government, not to the hon. member.
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: In reply to that somewhat lengthy question which could have been expressed, I feel, in far fewer words, the government has given no instructions and made no suggestions to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George or to anyone else.
As I have said time after time in this house, and I repeat it now, this is a matter for negotiation between the corporation and the representatives of the producers. It just happens, as I understand it, that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is a good representative of his constituency-as we all had to be in the days gone by-who has a large number of these C.B.C. employees in his constituency and used his good influence to discuss the matter and bring them again in touch with the corporation. I assure him of our appreciation.



INQUIRY AS TO REPRESENTATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Bearing in mind that the United States government will be reaching a decision at the end of this month as to oil imports from other countries, would the minister advise the house whether or not the Canadian government has made representations to the United States in an effort to protect our oil interest in this direction.


Sidney Earle Smith: I have nothing to add to the statement which is to be found in the communique issued after the meeting of the joint committee on economic and trade matters which met here early in January. That communique has been tabled in the house.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him when I may expect a reply to the question I asked last week; namely, whether it was the intention of the government to provide a second ship to the West Indies
Inquiries of the Ministry federation and whether or not it was a fact that the plans and specifications of the first ship were not yet ready.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which is of interest to two or three departments of the government. The Department of Trade and Commerce is particularly concerned with regard to the actual details as to the type of ship to be built and the plans and specifications required therefor. Our officials have been in consultation with officials of the government of the West Indies to determine the type and size of ship that shall be built. Those consultations are continuing, but I believe they are very close to being settled.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the Minister of Finance if a second ship will be given to the West Indies by the government of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall endeavour to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. It may be recalled that on September 23 last the Prime Minister issued a press release following negotiations which he had conducted with the Prime Minister of the West Indies and these are the terms of the press release:
The Prime Minister announced today that following the exchange of letters with the Prime Minister of the West Indies, Sir Grantley Adams, the Canadian government proposed to recommend to parliament that $10 million be made available to the West Indies over the next five years as economic assistance from Canada; and that a sister ship be built under this program as a partner to the first Canadian ship, which Canada has already agreed to provide for the West Indian interisland shipping service.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on January 27 the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me a question supplementary to his question to the Minister of Agriculture regarding a reported reduction in the price of eggs. He asked me whether the officials of the combines investigation branch were making an investigation into the situation. I told the hon. member that I would take his question as notice and give him an answer later. I apologize for the delay in giving my answer, which was due to my absence. I can now advise him that the combines investigation branch has received no complaint about this reported attempt to reduce egg prices, but discussions are under way with the Department of Agriculture to determine whether or not there is any basis for an investigation.

Supply-Agriculture COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE



REPORTED DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING MEETING OF PRIME MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would care to comment on a press dispatch out of London to the effect that discussions are now going on between the government of the United Kingdom and other governments of the commonwealth with a view to a conference of commonwealth prime ministers to be held in late June or early July of this year.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is that there have been some communications, but as I understand the situation at the moment there is no indication of the convening of a conference of commonwealth prime ministers in June or July of this year.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
695.	Science service-Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $375,000.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the details of this item are to be provided by the Minister of Agriculture at this time, or by the Minister of Finance. In any event I believe the ministers will recognize that while on the first page we are referred for details to page 5, no details are provided on that page. Consequently we could perhaps have an indication of what buildings, works, land and equipment are to be provided by this vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to supply such information as I can. The item in question here in the amount of $375,000 is required for the construction of a forest biology laboratory at Laval University.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
696.	Production service-health of animals-compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $400,000.
Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, under the heading of this vote I should like to bring to the attention of the committee the seriousness of the current rabies epidemic in southern-central Ontario. I would ask the minister to bear in mind the seriousness of the losses suffered by farmers in that part of this province. The majority of the farmers there are engaged in dairy farming and in the raising of beef cattle for marketing, and it is here

that the disease has been most rampant. Certain measures have been taken by the department to curb the spread of this disease through the biting of untamed and domestic animals, and various steps have been taken by the local authorities as well to prevent the spread of the disease. In consideration of the losses being sustained, however, I feel that some other measure of assistance should be considered.
There were 2,218 cases of rabies reported in Canada in 1958. Of this number 896 were reported in Ontario and were diagnosed through the federal laboratory. In addition there were a further 169 cases in Ontario that were clinically diagnosed by government veterinarians in various areas.
In my own riding of Grey-Bruce 178 cattle were lost to December 31, not to mention the considerable number of other animals including sheep, horses and others, with an additional 50 clinical cases diagnosed. This represents a considerable loss to the farmers in that area, and I know that other hon. gentlemen report a similar experience in their ridings.
I am aware of the statements that have been issued by the department, and I am familiar with the attitude of the department in this respect. The department realizes that the disease is not spread by the livestock themselves but is spread mainly by foxes and other such animals, and there is no discretionary authority for the minister to compensate for these losses.
In view of the seriousness of the epidemic I would ask the minister and his department to give consideration to paying compensation in those cases. My suggestion and the considered suggestion of farm organizations and farmers themselves in representations that have been made to me is that a flat sum outside of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act be considered as compensation for those farmers, and that it be provided through some enabling legislation under which the federal government would pay one-third, the provincial government one-third and the county level of government one-third. I would ask for the sincere consideration of the minister and his department in this particular case.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to please give some explanations concerning the amount of $400,000 provided for in item 696.

(Text):


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question just asked as to an indication of what this particular amount of $400,000 is for, during the present fiscal year we have greatly stepped up the tuberculosis and especially the brucellosis eradication programs. This became particularly necessary because of a change in the United States health of animals regulations which was put into effect in November, and which made more stringent the regulations as far as the United States was concerned concerning those two diseases as applying to cattle which were imported into the United Sates. Therefore in order to protect our position and leave us in a position to export cattle from here to the United States we had to improve or increase our brucellosis and tuberculosis testing programs. That is one of the reasons why this extra $400,000 is required this year. We started last summer with a very greatly expedited program of brucellosis testing particularly.
The other reason that more money is required is that hon. members will recall that at the last session of parliament we increased the rate of compensation for cattle slaughtered under those two programs from $40 to $70 for grade animals and from $100 to $140 for pure bred animals. Those two things combined have caused the need for this $400,000 more than was provided in the main estimates.
In regard to the matter of rabies, which was brought up, the proposition the hon. member for Grey-Bruce has put forward that the municipal authorities, the provincial authorities and the federal government should compensate the owners of animals which have died as a result of rabies seems reasonable. It is one which, if the municipalities and the provinces wish to put it up, I will be prepared to look at very seriously. Up to date I have had no representations along that line from either municipal or provincial authorities.
However, as the hon. member indicated, under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act there just is no provision for payment of compensation for animals which die from rabies or from any other such diseases. The whole purpose of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act is to eradicate or control contagious diseases which are passed from cattle and other animals, from one to the other. Rabies do not fall in that class. This disease is spread chiefly by foxes, part of the wild life of the country. The chief danger from rabies and the chief means of control which we have
Supply-Agriculture
exercised is to prevent rabies from becoming common in the dog population. If a considerable number of dogs contracted rabies, then we would have a very rapid spread of the disease by dogs biting one another and biting human beings.
We have not had one single case of transmission of rabies from dog to dog. That has been prevented by control measures exercised by the municipalities, and by the inoculation or vaccination clinics which we have carried on in every county in Ontario in which rabies have become a threat. We are continuing to carry on those clinics. We think the disease is dying down, and we hope it will die down very rapidly during the coming few months.
As far as the general subject of compensation is concerned, on which I may say I have received a large number of letters, I regret to say there is no power under the act as it stands to pay compensation for animals which die from rabies.
(Translation) :


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us what proportion of the $400,000 is to go in compensation for slaughtered animals, and what per cent to bovine tuberculosis control?
( Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry; the translation system was not working satisfactorily; thus I do not know what question the hon. member asked. I wonder whether he would mind repeating it?


Samuel Boulanger: What proportion of the $400,000 is to go for compensation for slaughtered animals, and what proportion is to go for the control of diseases?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not any breakdown of that, but I think at least a good part of this is for the increased compensation which we have been required to pay because of the increase in the amount per animal, and because of the very greatly increased tempo of testing.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? Is he aware that an infectious disease of poultry is now prevalent in the province of Quebec, and could he tell us whether this government intends to do something about it, or wait until the provincial government asks for it?
If I remember rightly, the hon. minister said a moment ago that, at the present time, control of those contagious diseases of poultry is not a central government responsibility. Now as this disease seems to be contagious, and in view of the policy adopted by the

Supply-Agriculture
federal government a few years ago in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, if I remember well-
(Text):
I refer to foot and mouth disease in the west. Some government money was spent in this regard. Will the minister tell us about this disease in Quebec and the other one as well?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am not
particularly familiar with this matter. How-over, I do remember that a report came in not so long ago which I saw which indicated there had been an outbreak of psittacosis, I think it is called, in certain poultry flocks in Quebec, and the health of animals branch was taking measures to deal with it.


Mr. Peters:: Can the minister indicate how .much of the $400,000 in the supplementary estimates comes about by reason of the increase in the amounts payable as compensation last year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 1 am not quite clear as
to the purport of the question. Does the hon. member refer to the increased amount paid over the amount paid last year?


William Arnold Peters: Yes. How much of the $400,000 is required because of the raising of the .amount from $40 to $70?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry, I have not that breakdown here. I can readily get it and supply it to the hon. member at a later date if he is interested, but I have not it with ,me today.


Azellus Denis: Will the minister tell us tomorrow or next week what amount of money has been spent by the government in the last few years on account of foot-and-mouth .disease?


Douglas Scott Harkness: To my knowledge nothing has been spent on foot-and-mouth disease in the last few years. The last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was in 1952, and once that was cleaned up fortunately we did not have any further foot-and-mouth disease. Therefore nothing has been spent. Of course I might point out that has nothing to do with this particular item in any event.
There is one other thing I might say in connection with the rabies question, which has caused a great deal of concern. I think that numbers of animals alleged to have died from rabies have been very much exaggerated. I have a table here showing the number of animals that died from rabies during the period April 1 to December 31, 1958. The 
table covers all Canada and not just one province, and is as follows:
Dogs	 57
Cats	 84
Cattle	 720
Horses	 23
Sheep	 77
Goats	 1
Swine	 15
Donkeys	 1
Foxes	 947
Raccoons	 7
Skunks	 86
Bats	 2
Gophers	 l
Bears	 l
Groundhogs	 l
Wolves	 l
These are the total numbers of animals where it has been definitely established that death was due to rabies through the heads being sent to the laboratory in Hull for examination. I have put these figures on the record because I constantly receive letters which would lead one to believe that hundreds of cattle, particularly, and, also horses have died in one county. This is just not the case. The total number of cattle in Canada that died in that period was 720. While it is a considerable number and is very regrettable, the situation is not nearly as serious as many people believe.


Mr. Gour:: I should like to congratulate the minister on putting this item of $400,000 in these estimates, but it is just a drop of water in the bucket compared with the expense the government is going to have to face this year. I would be pleased if the minister would secure more veterinarians in order to deal with brucellosis. In my riding of Russell the department does not have nearly enough doctors. Please use this money to get more doctors. We need this protection in order to be able to sell our cattle to the United States. If we do not have the United States market the farmers will suffer greatly, because only when they can ship their cattle to the United States can they manage to make a living.
I am not in favour of the motion of one hon. member that the municipality should pay one-third of the cost of the animal dying from rabies. Let us pass a law; we are here for that purpose. Let us pass a law that the government should pay so much for these cattle. Never mind about cats and dogs; take care of the cattle. I congratulate the minister on raising the payments from $40 to $70 and $100 to $140 for cattle destroyed under the tuberculosis and brucellosis programs. He should have raised the amounts more, because when the farmer is forced to sell his cattle he has to do so in order that the meat and milk the people in the cities consume will be free from tuberculosis. The farmer is forced to sell his cattle when they

are condemned by the doctor. He is given practically nothing for his cattle. Any cow is worth $200. He is paid $70, and he sells the carcass for $50. Therefore he has lost $80 for the benefit of the Canadian people.
I think the payment for a milk cow should be $100 instead of $70; otherwise the farmer will take a big loss. He will not be able to ship to the United States if the department does not get as many veterinarians as possible and do the job right now. If the minister will do this it will be a very good thing not only for the farmers of my riding but for the farmers of all Canada who want to ship their cattle to the United States in order to get a good price.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I should point out that the hon. member for Russell is under a misapprehension if he thinks that all a man gets for a cow that has to be slaughtered is $70. In addition he gets the value of the carcass, and in most cases the value of the carcass is not much less than if the animal had not had brucellosis or had just been slaughtered in the ordinary way. The result is that in many cases the farmer gets more for the animal than if he had sold it commercially. The hon. member has said that the payment should be much higher. He has said that the animal is worth $200 and therefore the farmer should get $200, but in effect this would mean that he would be paid twice for the animal. I think the present level of payment is very generous indeed.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I know what I am talking about and what the farmers in my riding have received. They have had to sell cattle for $30, $40 or $50, and I say they should be paid at least $100.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated the number of cattle and other animals that died last year, and I should like him to give us the figures for the two previous years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not the figures here for those years, but the numbers were considerably less. As a matter of fact, the year before last losses of cattle and so on were chiefly in the province of Quebec and to some extent in northern Ontario, and for two or three years before that the losses were almost entirely in western Canada.


William Marvin Howe: I think I am correct in saying that the number of cattle that died throughout Canada in the previous year was 101. Last year there were over 700. That would indicate that there was a lot more rabies in the country this year than last year, and I think special consideration should be given to the situation. In my own riding 126 cattle have died in the last year, and 78 humans have
Supply-Agriculture
been treated for rabies. I have one farmer who lost 9 cattle, and several who have lost 3. The minister may not think it is important to these farmers, but I certainly feel it is. It is quite a blow to the farmer who lost 9 cattle. It is something over which he has no control.
I notice that the province of Ontario has agreed to start a vaccination program for animals at present in barns so that when they go out they will be immune to attacks of wild animals, but that does not help the farmers who are having trouble right now. As a matter of fact, some cattle put in barns last October are dying of rabies in the barn.
In my opinion special consideration should be given to the situation. If compensation were paid the farmers would be more careful. The fact that there is a 60-day quarantine period makes the farmer feel that he cannot sell anything off his farm. He feels that he is going to have trouble selling; therefore when he sees an animal that he thinks might have rabies he sells it. Who is to say that the meat from the animal is not consumed by humans, or that the animal does not reach the stockyards where some of the handlers may get the disease?
I think the act could be changed in some way to make it possible to pay compensation. After all, a farmer whose sheep have been worried by dogs is paid for the sheep that die. That is not his responsibility, and here is a situation with regard to cattle that is no responsibility of the farmer. It does not arise through neglect on his part. Therefore I think the government should give special consideration to the situation and see if compensation cannot be arranged.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can only repeat that the purpose of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act is to prevent the spread of disease, and to pay compensation for cattle affected with rabies would not fall in that category. I have every sympathy with people who have lost cattle or other animals as the result of rabies. It is a very severe blow. As the hon. member has just stated, every year throughout Canada there are thousands of cattle which die, and there is no more reason to pay compensation for an animal that dies from rabies than for an animal that dies from any other cause. Unless we want to adopt a different policy so far as the health of animals is concerned and pay compensation for every animal that dies, no matter what the cause may be, I do not see any good reason for completely changing the basis of the act in order to start paying compensation for rabies.
I feel that the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce might be a reasonable way to handle this rabies problem.



S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Sup p ly-A griculture
If some proposition along that line were put forward to the Department of Agriculture, as I said before, we will certainly be glad to consider it seriously. As I say, the basis for the payment of compensation under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act is so that people will be encouraged to come forward if they have a sick animal, it may be foot-and-mouth disease or some other contagious disease. We pay them if that animal is slaughtered, and in this way we prevent a spread of contagious diseases and people are encouraged to assist in wiping out these diseases. That is the whole basis of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and I do not think it would be reasonable to start paying compensation for any animal that dies from any cause.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has any consideration been given to the insurance of livestock under the proposed crop insurance scheme?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman; as indicated by the words "crop insurance" it is a matter of insuring crops, and not a matter of insuring livestock or tractors or other chattels.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In a broad sense, livestock could be considered a crop.
(Translation):


Mr. Leduc:: Mr. Chairman, could the hon. minister tell us whether last year, in the provincial constituency of Papineau, farmers were compensated for the loss of their animals, because many herds died as a result of the veterinarian's error, who had injected serum that was a bit too strong? Were those farmers compensated for the loss of those animals?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, at the
present time an epidemic is causing great losses to poultry farmers of the province of Quebec. The disease is known as Newcastle disease. In the last three or four months, some farmers lost entire flocks and I understand that many incubating plants in the province of Quebec had to shut down for several months.
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether Quebec provincial authorities have made representations to him about this, and whether he has sent veterinarians to investigate. Unless drastic measures are taken to stop the progress of that disease, the Quebec poultry farmers will lose many of their fowl because the disease is spreading from north to south and from east to west.

Of course, the member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) cannot ask that question, because whenever he rises in this house, it is to pay homage to the government of the province of Quebec.
I therefore ask the minister whether he has received inquiries from the government of the province of Quebec, and whether he has investigated.
(Text) :


Douglas Scott Harkness: Whenever an outbreak of disease occurs in animals or poultry, Mr. Chairman, we are informed of it through our district officers almost immediately. Under those circumstances we take whatever preventive action it is possible to take in order to prevent the outbreak from spreading. I have just received the information so far as Newcastle disease is concerned. The province of Quebec orders the slaughter and pays compensation itself. It is a provincial and not a federal operation so far as Newcastle disease is concerned in Quebec.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Have the Quebec farmers, agricultural organizations, or co-operatives asked the minister whether the federal government would help the farmers who have had these difficulties, regardless of the Quebec provincial government, since the minister has just indicated that the Quebec government has made no request to this effect? (Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I do not know what the hon. member means by asking if I have had any requests from co-operatives in Quebec. I do not know if he means requests in connection with Newcastle disease or something else. In any event, as I indicated before we are always ready, through our health of animals branch, to take whatever steps are possible in order to prevent the spread of these animal or poultry diseases. I do not recall any particular requests from co-operatives or others in the province of Quebec in connection with either of these two poultry diseases, psittacosis or Newcastle disease, except an indication that there were outbreaks and certain steps were being taken in connection with them.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to express my agreement with the hon. member for Welling-ton-Huron as well as the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. There is a great deal of concern amongst the agricultural people of Ontario over the fact that they are not being compensated properly for animals they lose.
I should like to refer to one disease, brucellosis. As the minister explained a moment ago, if compensation were paid for beef cattle it is quite true that the meat

would be worth nearly as much after the compensation was paid as it was before. However, brucellosis is not a disease that affects beef cattle to the same extent that it affects dairy cattle. In so far as dairy cattle are concerned, at the last Holstein sale in Ontario the average price for a cow was $375. A dairy cow selling for meat will bring less than $200. I feel, therefore, the farmer is not getting what he considers to be fair compensation for his animals.
In the matter of rabies, I think the federal government has some responsibility. While it is true that one cow does not pass on this disease to another, the disease is continually being spread. It may be necessary for the government to implement a program of eradication of rabies in the province. I feel that the provincial government of Ontario should be congratulated on the vaccine they are making available for the control of the disease. A great deal more effort must be put into it to see that the wild life of the country do not carry this disease, because it seems odd that it spreads into Quebec one year, the next year into Ontario and another year it is in the west. I think there is some justification for the farmer saying that it is not his responsibility because his cow dies from this disease. It is a contagious disease and the cow did not develop it; she caught it from some other source.
The minister also pointed out how many cattle died. I think it is not fair to use the figures he used. I am quite sure he will agree with me that if you had seven or eight cows die, you would only send in one head. If the veterinary treated some across the way he would say, "I just treated the neighbour's cattle, and we sent in one head and this cow died of rabies. Therefore your seven or eight cows that are dying also probably have the disease".
I think this disease has much more importance than we sometimes attach to it. I am sure that more money can be spent on this matter in order to see whether an eradication program can be implemented in order to rid Canada of this terrible problem of rabies. On the other hand I should like to say this in connection with the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. While the farmer is appreciative of any increase that has been made-and we are appreciative of the one that was made last year-there still has not been taken into consideration, particularly in the case of brucellosis, the matter of pure bred cattle and extremely expensive dairy cattle. The amount that is allowed will in no way replace the animal that has to be destroyed.


Mr. Robinson:: Along with the hon. member for Grey-Bruce and also the hon. member for
Supp ly-Agriculture
Wellington-Huron, being up in a district that has been in about the centre of the rabies outbreak for the last eight months, I should like to make a few remarks. I am in agreement with the remarks made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce in connection with some compensation being paid. I should also like to say that the members of our county council passed a resolution to the effect that one-third of the loss should be paid by the dominion, one-third by the province and one-third by the county. What will become of that resolution I do not know.
I understand that rabies does not come under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I was just wondering whether there was not something under which, in years gone by, compensation was paid on sheep in cases which did not come under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I may be wrong on the matter, and if I am wrong the minister will put me right. However, I remember something being paid out in the west at the time, if I recollect aright, but it did not come under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
It is a big job at the present time to make any swing over from the act as it is at present in order to include this matter. I should like to say that I am of the same view as the hon. member who spoke last. I believe that any preventive measures that can be carried through should be adopted. This problem is extremely serious in our district. I have had several resolutions from people there asking for compensation. There is now on foot a large movement in favour of the inoculation of cattle that are in the stable. I understand that the inoculation must be done for so many months before it takes effect. The serum for that inoculation I understand is provided by the province. I think it would be only fair to the farmers of Canada if this parliament would look into this matter thoroughly with a view to paying compensation for those losses.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as sheep are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the outbreak in the west to which the hon. member refers a few years ago was an outbreak of scrapie, which is covered under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I see the hon. member for Assini-boia smiling over this matter. I did not think he and his party would be able yet to smile about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why not?


Douglas Scott Harkness: They made certain allegations in connection with it, and those allegations were not sustained at all when the matter was investigated by the agriculture committee.

Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: It was with regard to the comparatively low compensation for pure-bred cattle, as compared to the sheep involved, and that is a vastly different thing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As to the hon. member for Timiskaming, he said we should do something about wild life through which rabies spread. I should like to point out to him that the dominion government has no control over wild life except in the Northwest Territories, and has no responsibility for and no power to do anything in connection with wild life except in those areas. The wild life is one of the natural resources which are under the control of the provinces.
At one time we had in mind putting on a poisoning campaign or making a contribution to a poisoning campaign in connection with foxes; but the Ontario wild life authorities, taking into consideration the number of dogs that would probably have been poisoned, the danger to children and to other wild life of all kinds, felt that it was too dangerous a way to try to cope with the matter, and I think probably they were right. In any event the eradication of foxes, which are the chief means by which rabies is spread, is in the hands of the provinces and not in the hands of the dominion.
I might also make reference to one remark made by the hon. member in which I think again he shows his lack of familiarity, as he has done several times today, with agricultural matters. He said that brucellosis is not of particular concern to beef producers but that it is chiefly of concern to dairy producers. That statement of course is completely incorrect. Most of our exports of cattle to the United States, as a matter of fact, are beef cattle; and it is particularly in order to protect our exports of beef cattle to the United States that we have been obliged to step up, as we have, our brucellosis eradication campaign.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: I do not want to hold up the committee, Mr. Chairman, but I want to make a few comments on this matter. First of all I should like to express agreement with the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that perhaps we could have a program of co-operation with the various provinces right across the country. As the hon. member has said, this act will not cover the rabies losses, and quite rightly so. This is an act to prevent the spread of disease. One of the hon. members in the opposition made some remark about foot-and-mouth disease. Just in order to give an idea of the importance of Canada's health of animals division in the government, may I say that the loss to Canadian cattlemen through foot-and-mouth disease in Canada was something in 
the nature of $600 million. Fortunately this government has taken the lead in a campaign to wipe out brucellosis, which could mean as much in savings to the cattlemen in Canada as was lost through the foot-and-mouth disease a number of years ago.
I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the minister's department in the health of animals branch for the active and excellent work they are doing. I have only one suggestion that I should like to put forward. The fact is that we in Canada require more men who are trained in veterinary medicine. I would suggest that if at all possible the federal government give some consideration to a grant to a veterinary college in western Canada.


The Chairman:: Order. I must remind hon. members that while an hon. member is on his feet speaking, they must try to keep their voices to as low a pitch as possible. There is far too much talking going on in the house during the speeches. I must also remind hon. members that although they may go to sit with and to talk to someone, they may not go to a desk, remain standing and carry on a conversation while debates are in progress. I must also remind hon. members that although they may use the lobbies on each side of the house for smoking and chatting purposes, they must keep their voices as low as possible and should use the smoking rooms, preferably, if they must carry on a conversation. It would be highly appreciated by the Chair if these regulations would be followed.
(Translation) :


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, unlike the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I see no reason to congratulate the government, because the T.B. control policy was inaugurated by the Liberal government. However, I must congratulate the Minister of Agriculture who, during last session, increased the compensation for slaughtered livestock.
My province is losing a substantial U.S. market for pure-bred livestock because in certain districts, no effort is made to ensure that our herds are certified. I know the department made tests in some constituencies, and that in certain areas farmers have been allowed to export their pure-bred stock to the United States. However, I would ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to step up this activity in the eastern townships, where our pure-bred stock cannot be exported across the border because we are unable to obtain permission from the inspector of the health of animals division.

May I suggest to the minister that he ask the house for adequate funds to conduct tests in those constituencies, and particularly in constituencies where pure-bred animals are raised, because as I was saying earlier, we are losing a substantial share of the American market. Our farmers are unable to export their stock because of a lack or supervision on the part of Department of Agriculture officials.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely incorrect. There has been no serious loss of exports from the province of Quebec or anywhere else in Canada as a result of failure to pass animals for export because of tuberculosis and brucellosis. Animals can be exported on the basis of individual tests and this has been going forward as far as counties which have not been declared free of brucellosis are concerned.
We are employing, I think, practically all the veterinarians who are free for this work in Canada at the present time to deal with this problem of tuberculosis and brucellosis, and the work has been going forward much more rapidly in the past eight months than ever before. We hope to have all the counties in Canada tested and declared brucellosis-free as quickly as possible, but in the meantime as far as exports of a particular man's cattle are concerned, these animals can be individually tested and exported on that basis.


Samuel Boulanger: How many counties are free from tuberculosis and brucellosis at the present time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The actual number free from brucellosis in Quebec at the present time- I am not certain; I am speaking from memory -is two. Testing is going on in quite a number of others.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must remind hon. members that resolution No. 696 reads as follows: Health of animals-compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $400,000.
I have been listening with great interest to the many comments made by hon. members concerning this matter and I must say that hon. members have been straying away from the resolution and covering a great many fields. I must remind hon. members that they must confine their remarks strictly to the item under discussion, otherwise they will be called to order.


William Arnold Peters: While this sum has not been broken down into detail, I assume it does cover moneys paid under the terms of the contagious diseases act. I am not familiar with the minister's agricultural background,
Supp ly-A griculture
nor is he with mine, but I know he would agree with me that the amount of money now paid to beef producers is supplementary to the beef price. I agreed that this had a relationship and was therefore not too important as far as beef producers are concerned. But I think the hon. minister, to be fair, would have to agree that this does not apply in the case of dairy cattle. When such diseases as brucellosis affect dairy cattle, it becomes a very serious matter. I am not very familiar with the diseases of cattle, but I do know that brucellosis-or Bang's disease as it is commonly known-is another term for contagious abortion. When this disease strikes, cattle are unable to produce calves, and in consequence are unable to produce milk; the farmer has to dispose of them, and the compensation paid does not meet his loss to anything like the same extent as compensation paid with respect to beef cattle which can be slaughtered and sold. For this reason I think the people who are producing dairy cattle are not receiving sufficient compensation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services.-
697. Freight assistance on western feed grains- Further amount required, $2,500,000.
Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister in charge of this item-I think it is the Minister of Agriculture-could give us some explanation why this further amount is necessary? Is it because there were greater quantities of feed grain moved requiring assistance of this kind? What part of this amount, if any, has to do with increases in freight rates?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are two reasons for this increase. The first is that the volume of feed grain which was moved last year was considerably in excess of the quantities moved in the preceding two or three years. As a result, about $1,500,000 extra-I think it is somewhere in that neighbourhood-is required because of the increased volume of grain being shipped from western Canada to the east and to British Columbia under the freight rate assistance policy. I have the figures here. To the end of December, this year's volume was 2,029,000 tons compared with 1,815,000 tons in the previous year.
The second reason is to compensate for the increase in freight rates. When the 17 per cent increase in freight rates went into effect, had no action been taken it would have thrown out of balance the payment of assistance on feed grains. The payments were made on quite a complicated basis and I do not think we should take the time to go into it here, but the final result was

Supp ly-A griculture
that a 100 pound bag of feed in British Columbia, in Ontario and in the maritime provinces was sold at approximately the same price. There might have been a difference of five or ten cents between one town and another, but the price of a 100 pound bag of feed was approximately the same everywhere.
When the increase in freight rates came into effect we made adjustments under which about half the increase was absorbed by the taxpayer, and it was absorbed in such a way as to keep the cost of 100 pounds of feed at relatively the same price in the three areas to which this feed grain is shipped.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to make a few general remarks on this item and on the way in which the feed grain subsidy has been applied over the years. They will be quite brief. There have been sometimes arguments in this house about which area of Canada the freight subsidy helps most. I would imagine that if the economists went into this very carefully they would say that the greatest benefit went to the feeders in the remote parts of Canada. But without endeavouring to assess the proportionate benefits that accrue as between the feeders and the producers I wish to state that this is' one action taken by the government that has definitely been of benefit to the producers of feed grains and the livestock producers of this country. We are pleased to support this item as we have over the years supported items of freight assistance.
I must point out, however, that this particular policy is becoming a casualty of inflation. I say this for the following reason. I believe this was first implemented in 1941 and during the period from 1941 to 1948 the federal government generally paid the total cost of moving feed grains from Fort William to the basing points. The subsidy in those years was $6, the basic rate to the Montreal zone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: From what year?


Hazen Robert Argue: From 1941 to 1948, if the information I have is correct and I believe it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was established in 1941?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes. The subsidy paid the
entire cost of moving freight under this formula which was arrived at by averaging the lake and rail rates with the all-rail rate so the flat average in general was adequate to meet the cost of moving feed grains.
In 1948 there was an increase in freight rates. With each subsequent increase in
[Mr. Harkness.l
freight rates since that time the effect of the freight rate subsidy has gradually become less. Again my figures may be in error but I have been careful in my computation and I believe they are correct. My figures indicate that since 1948-since the time of the first increase in freight rates-there have been increases in freight rates on feed grains totalling 184 per cent. That is the measure of inflation as it has affected freight rates in reference to feed grains. Prior to 1948, as I have said, the subsidy was $6. This was reduced to $4.50 at a later date.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought that after 1953 the average was around $8?


Hazen Robert Argue: There are two types of subsidy. One is the subsidy from Fort William to the main basing point. The other is the subsidy from that area to some other area and the arbitraries which are the subsidies from the basing area to the final destination have been fully paid. I am now talking about the main basic rate from Fort William to Montreal.
In March, 1957 under the Liberal administration the reduced rate of $4.50 in the form of a subsidy payment was increased by 50 cents to $5 a hundredweight. Since that time the $5 payment has remained the same until this recent increase of $1 on this base formula because of a 10 cent per hundredweight increase in freight rates-$2 a ton- and the government by this vote is absorbing half of that cost. At the present time the current base rate from Fort William to the Montreal zone is 71 cents a hundredweight or $14.20 a ton. The subsidy that is paid is $6 and so the subsidy which once covered the total cost on this basis now covers just 42 per cent of the cost even though the $1 increase in the freight subsidy now being paid brings the subsidy to $6 which is the same as the payment from 1941 to 1948.
The item we are asked to pass today is one which I am sure will commend itself to all hon. members of the committee. We are pleased to support this item. No matter what argument may be advanced as to what group or area may derive the greatest benefit from it I believe it is a good policy and one that helps maintain the price of feed grains to producers in western Canada. At the same time, as the minister has pointed out, this serves to keep the final or retail price to feeders in the maritimes, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia at the same level. However, because the entire problem of inflation has not been dealt with effectively the subsidy now amounts to only 42 per cent of the total cost involved despite the fact that the subsidy now is as high as it was during and after the war. This is working a hardship on the feed producers and grain producers of

western Canada because what was in earlier days the payment of the cost of transportation over this bridge has now been reduced to just 42 per cent of the cost.
I am glad that the minister has agreed to take up a part of the 17 per cent increase in freight rates and I express the hope that in keeping with the general announcement in the speech from the throne as to action that will be taken to reduce the effect of increased freight rates across this country the situation I have outlined will be kept in line.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is a very complicated matter and I do not think we should attempt at the moment to go into it in detail. However, I should not like to leave the impression that may be created by one statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I believe if he examines the question in more detail he will change his opinion. The hon. gentleman has said that the subsidy being paid represents only 42 per cent of the total cost and his figures may be accurate. However, in actual fact most of the feed grain goes to the province of Ontario and the western part of Quebec and most of it is carried by water. The subsidy of $5 a ton covers the entire cost of the freight from Fort William to quite a number of ports around the lakes. I mention that simply to correct the impression conveyed by the hon. gentleman's remark that the subsidy was now paying only 42 per cent of the amount of the freight that it was paying approximately ten years ago. The biggest bulk of the freight goes by water transport and the subsidy fully pays the cost.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for the contribution he has made.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: That is mighty white of you.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know what the joke is about, Mr. Chairman. I do not know how it helps the people in the maritime provinces to have the assurance of the minister that the subsidy covers the cost of transportation of feed grain to parts of Ontario. I do not know how it becomes a joke that the people in British Columbia do not have the advantage of water transportation. I am not endeavouring to become involved in an argument with the minister and I accept the statement he has made.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, if some of the minister's energetic supporters would get up and say something that the Hansard reporter could take down it might be more effective.
Supp ly-A griculture
As I said, I agree with the minister's statement. As far as the main basing point of Montreal is concerned, I believe the statistics are accurate and I accept the minister's statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister said the beneficiaries of the legislation introduced in 1941 are largely Ontario and Quebec. Is that a correct statement? Taking into consideration the population on a proportionate basis I should think the minister's statement would have to be modified. Surely this benefits the maritime provinces considerably.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no question about that at all. It also benefits the province of British Columbia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under another measure?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under the same measure exactly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought it was another.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. The point I was making was that the bulk of those subsidies is paid on account of grain which is fed in Ontario and Quebec, because it is in Ontario and Quebec that we find the bulk of livestock. Naturally you would expect that. I was also pointing out that as far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned, most of the grain is moved down by water and therefore the subsidy covers the great proportion of the total cost; in some cases it covers all of the cost. This is one of the things that made it difficult to make any adjustments in regard to this after the increase in freight rates, and still keep the cost of a hundred pound bag of feed relatively the same throughout the different areas. Also, in connection with what the hon. member for Assiniboia said, that the help amounted to only 42 per cent, this is not correct because in Ontario-


Hazen Robert Argue: On the basic rate, I said; the arbitraries are paid entirely.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In the province of New Brunswick, for example, the freight from the lakehead is $22.40, and the assistance which is provided under this act is $15.70, so that the percentage which is paid by the taxpayer really under this act is 70 per cent rather than 42 per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nobody is quarrelling with that; nobody is saying anything but that. The minister did not give the best example that he might have. I understand the best example is Sydney, Nova Scotia-
634	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Newfoundland is the best example.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well,-


Douglas Scott Harkness: More assistance is paid on grain going to Newfoundland than to anyplace else.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister had better inform somebody in his department that Newfoundland is in confederation. I got my information from the same source as he did. My information is that the total cost to Sydney, Nova Scotia, is $24.40, and the subsidy amounts to $17.07. But initially it is made up of the base rate to Montreal, plus, as I said to the member for Essex East, the arbitraries, that is the amount from the base point to the actual point of destination which is fully paid.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
698. To provide for payments to western grain producers of $1.00 per acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $1,300,000.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, hon. members are not used to my speaking at any length on an agricultural item. I do so, of course, at this time with some humility and trepidation but with no apology. It is known that my constituency, in so far as members of the Liberal party are concerned, is the one nearest to the grain-growing people of the western provinces.


Hazen Robert Argue: And you are in Ontario.


William Moore Benidickson: I am, of course, prairie-born and prairie-raised and the constituents of Kenora-Rainy River have a great dependence upon the prosperity of western agriculture because I think there are more railway divisional points in my riding than perhaps in the riding of any member in the House of Commons. A large and successful movement of grain through our constituency is of the utmost importance to us.
This is an item that is strictly of benefit to the people of western Canada. I have another reason to be interested in a matter of this kind involving a contribution based on national necessity to a national industry of importance because, as hon. members well know, in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River we have a substantial production of gold. For a long time, on this basis, where there is an exceptional national industry in temporary need of help we have had a formula for assistance to gold mines and I can assure the house that it has been extremely successful. In so far as our mines are concerned, when the policy was in-


troduced their production was just about one-third of what it is at the present time. In addition to that, I think every mine in the Red Lake district was at one time in receipt of the emergency gold mining assistance which was provided some years ago. I am very happy to say that now, after the passage of time only one, the smallest producer of gold in Kenora-Rainy River, is today requiring any assistance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, this is an item covering the payment of $1 an acre up to a maximum of $200 to western grain producers. The hon. member is speaking entirely on gold subsidies.


William Moore Benidickson: I have completed the reference by an analogy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can understand that he would be speaking on gold subsidies but I do not think he should do it on this particular item.


William Moore Benidickson: I was simply establishing the analogy of the payments to a national industry for the purpose of assisting it through a period of national emergency. I am through with that reference and I want to hasten to say that we are concerned with this particular item because the question of Canadian agriculture, and western agriculture in particular, was very much before us in the recent election campaigns. The Prime Minister very properly, as a longtime member of the house, made it quite clear that he had no lack of understanding of western grain requirements and problems and he painted a very glowing picture of the kind of measures that would be expected from an administration that he would head. We all admit that the Prime Minister is a great artist in colours and he can accompany that painting with proper thespian touches. They were very convincing indeed, if the vote in western Canada is to be remembered, as most of us remember it. But, if rising costs are the yardstick of inflation, I think it certainly can be said that the farmers are one group who have carried on a very obstinate and a very difficult fight against inflation.
I think the people of western Canada- and I visited there rather extensively in the recess between the sessions-are wondering just how long we have to wait for the long range program which has been talked about in so far as improving the condition of western grain producers is concerned. If we heard anything as an indication of the likely policy of the new government with respect to agriculture and western grain producers, we always heard the ringing phrase from the Prime Minister that an administration under him would provide to

iarmers a fair share of the national income. These are the words he repeated so often.
It has been drawn to my attention that the assistance under this particular provision, temporary though it was announced it would be, probably amounts to one-sixth of one per cent of the national income. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, there was every reason for the agricultural community to leap to the conclusion that a Conservative administration would divert a great deal more of the national wealth to their purposes than seems to be provided under this particular measure. Quite irrespective of any legal niceties such as we heard in the debate last session when this item was under consideration on August 30 and on September 6, and irrespective of any legal niceties we may get from the Prime Minister or from the Minister of Agriculture in defining deficiency payments, parity and the like now, there is no doubt in my mind- and I think most members from western Canada will agree-that most of the voters in western Canada certainly had in their minds glowing deficiency payments and parity about which they heard so much from the Prime Minister, not only during his entire career in parliament but in particular during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, once more on a point of order, none of this has anything to do with this $1 an acre acreage payment. I would ask the hon. member to stay within the rules of the house and stay with this topic which we are discussing rather than going into gold mining assistance and general statements.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I have been listening very carefully to the hon. member and I should like to refer him to May, 16th edition, page 738. Under the heading "On Supplementary and Excess Grants" there is the following:
Debate on supplementary and excess grants is restricted to the particulars contained in the estimates on which those grants are sought, and to the application of the items which compose those grants; and the debate cannot touch the policy or the expenditure sanctioned, on other heads, by the estimate on which the original grant was obtained, except so far as such policy or expenditure is brought before the committee by the items contained in the supplementary or excess estimates.
I am sure that the hon. member realizes what that means.


William Moore Benidickson: I have every desire to keep within the rules and am familiar with that rule. I suggest that the chair will find that I am adhering to that rule. You will recall that this was a completely new policy even if it was announced that it was to be short lived. You will also remember that the debate with respect to it took place on
Supply-Agriculture
the last day of the last session. You will recall that there was considerable discussion about such matters as its equation with parity, deficiency payments and matters of that kind that are still under very active discussion by the people of western Canada. My point is that we have constantly had difficulties relating the policy of this new administration represented by this $1 per acre grant to parity based on a fair price-cost relationship. My suggestion is that this proposal and extension of it by this additional vote is not arriving at that avowed purpose.
As we have just come back from a recess I am sure that the committee would want to discuss the reaction encountered by members visiting in western Canada since this policy was debated on the last day of the last session. It was announced, I believe on August 30. In my experience I have found, as so often happens in the case of something that is admittedly a stopgap and a rather desperate expedient by way of delay before a final policy is decided upon, it receives probably less appreciation and less thanks than criticism. That has certainly been my experience in western Canada with regard to the comments that have been made to me about this legislation. The best that has been said about it is that it is merely a sign of recognition that some help is needed. That is the best I have heard about it. When the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made its submission to the federal-provincial agricultural conference last November it had this to say:
There is general recognition of the importance of wheat in the national economy. While special payments are being made to grain producers by the government of Canada these payments do not bear any relationship to a long range price support policy for wheat.
I imagine that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture would probably admit that is so. But the question is how soon are we likely to have unfolded, so far as monetary compensation is concerned, the proposals of the government with respect to its long range policy? When the Prime Minister was referring to the long range policy on August 30 last he gave an indication that it involved several categories. The speech from the throne simply refers to the possibility this session of having a new measure with respect to crop insurance and it refers also to some reorganization of credit facilities for agriculture. But there is nothing there to indicate that we are likely to get a measure on a long term basis in substitution for this admittedly temporary measure.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Standing order 59 (2) reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.

Supp ly-A griculture
I am sure that the hon. and experienced member for Kenora-Rainy River will once more understand what that means.


William Moore Benidickson: I go on with a point which apparently met with your approval. I refer to some of the comments that have been made with respect to the value of this particular type of legislation which we are asked to increase and continue. The Saskatchewan wheat pool made this comment, as found in the Regina Leader-Post of September 3, 1958:
It charged Prime Minister Diefenbaker with failing to realize the seriousness of the situation by implementing a relief measure for one year only when he has admitted in the past that only a long range program can succeed.
I think that most members from western Canada would admit that one of the most important things for western agriculture and the products grown there in abundance which depend on markets beyond our shores is an active and buoyant trade policy. I also think that many people in western Canada, as a result of certain actions taken by the government last session, are very apprehensive about the result of trade policies such as expressed in the increase in the tariff on wool and the difficulties and complaints we are having from the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend may not intend it but in effect what he is doing is simply defying the ruling of the chair. It was bad enough to go into a discussion of gold subsidies on this item but now the hon. member is even farther afield, this after having his attention drawn to the rule several times by you, Mr. Chairman. This is neither a continuation of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne nor is it consideration by the committee of the administration item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. What is before the committee at this moment is item 698 which relates purely and simply to an additional sum of $1,300,000 required to carry out a program approved by parliament last September, and surely this does not warrant any hon. member going outside a discussion of the provision of these payments with a view to assisting western grain producers. What my hon. friend has been saying is a far cry indeed from the subject of aid to western grain producers.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair feels that it has been lenient with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I am sure he will try to abide by the thoughts of the Chair and stick to item 698.


William Moore Benidickson: I have not discussed one matter in my remarks today that was not
[The Deputy Chairman.]

under debate on the supplementary item on September 6 of which this is merely an extension or when the item was explained by the Prime Minister on August 30. This is an item that is based on need and the point I am endeavouring to make is that it is not satisfactory. It was admitted to be a stopgap, a temporary measure, and I think we should hear from the administration whether or not during this session we are going to get another proposal in substitution for this at the expiry of its first year that will be more in keeping with the expectations of the farmers as a result of the former policies of the Prime Minister and as a result of the need in western Canada particularly because of rising costs and inflation that is still unchecked.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on this item at this time. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. While I am not going to try to cover the ground he covered because I do not want to get the same reception from the Chair, I do wish to say that as far as western Canada is concerned this item, as a general solution to the problem faced by the farmers of that area, is in their opinion entirely inadequate. The dollar per acre, which we are discussing at this time as a supplementary payment, means very little today in relation to the budget of the agriculture producer and the costs that he must assume.
The reaction to this policy, in general, has been one of disappointment; it has been one of great concern because the producers have felt that this policy of one dollar per acre for one year is completely inadequate and does not constitute the fulfilment of the government's agricultural program as they have understood it. A dollar per acre related to the average yield is a very small sum of money. If it is related to the crop yield only on an acre it would be about five cents per bushel. One would have to relate it, of course, to the fact that it is paid on all acres and it could be, therefore, between 10 cents and 15 cents a bushel.


An hon. Member:: How about relating it to domestic consumption in Canada?


Hazen Robert Argue: When the farmer hauls his grain to the elevator he does not divide his load between domestic consumption and export. He is interested in the price he gets, although he would be interested if, in paying for this grain, the government would adopt a policy of dividing the payment and by that means providing the farmer with a larger payment.

Another reason the farmers feel that this is most unsatisfactory is that it is a temporary measure. It is a one-year measure; it is a one-shot affair. I think, perhaps, I heard those words this afternoon, and I think I used them myself many months ago. This is a policy that has brought great disappointment to the producers of western Canada. This is the reason the western farmers are coming to Ottawa in a mass delegation within a few weeks. I noticed the applause from the government benches, and that is the best response that this mass delegation has yet received from those benches. When this delegation was first mentioned in this house, I was accused of having organized it.


An hon. Member:: You tried it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister said to me, "You hoped to bring a lot of western farmers who would march on Ottawa, but you came alone." I came all alone, so far as the opposition is concerned, as has been pointed out very effectively this afternoon. We have had contributions ranging from gold to international trade made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, while dealing with the policy of parity prices and deficiency payments-I apparently came all alone.
There are a great many farmers coming to Ottawa and a general representation of the people of Saskatchewan by occupational groups, according to press reports that we all read, within a matter of some weeks. I congratulate the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for the versatility he has shown in this house, and for repairing what was a very serious omission, I believe, in a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a very interesting and very enjoyable speech, a speech that I thought was more effective than similar speeches on other occasions. The omission to which I refer is the lack of any substantial reference to the problem now under discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not forget his speech of September 6.


Hazen Robert Argue: But the Leader of the Opposition did not say where the Liberal party stood. Of course, that was in keeping with the general attitude of the official opposition. We ask the government its policy; we tear down the government, but divulge our policy-never. As I was saying, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is the only member, and he can correct me if I am wrong, who runs on a Liberal-Labour ticket. Now, of course, he is going to take on a third dimension because he is taking in agriculture.


William Moore Benidickson: We have some good
farmers in northern Ontario.
Supp ly-A griculture


Hazen Robert Argue: He is the financial critic of the opposition, so we are most interested in the statement he has made.
The reason the producers are dissatisfied with the dollar per acre under consideration is that, with this and everything else the government is doing, the agricultural producers are painfully aware that the prices they receive today in terms of purchasing power are lower than at any time in the history of this country with the exception of three years in the thirties when we had the R. B. Bennett government. We are hopeful that the government may yet change its attitude; that they will consider the matter of deficiency payments for western grain, and adopt a policy which the Minister of Agriculture has incorporated in the Agricultural Prices Support Act, a technique that has not yet been used in the sale of grain under the Department of Trade and Commerce.
I do not feel that the deficiency payment technique that has been used so far is adequate. There is one detail concerning the application of this measure about which I should like to ask the minister. Payments are made in general, I think perhaps exclusively, on the basis of the acreage listed in the permit book held by the wheat board. I have found, and I was surprised at this, a great many farmers who are unable to qualify for assistance under this measure because they do not have a permit book. They are farmers who produce grain but who feed their grain to livestock. I do not know how many would be involved, but I would think several thousands in western Canada would be involved.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would think this would be particularly true in the province of Manitoba, and it is certainly true in areas that are being developed where the farms are small, quarter section or bush farms, so-called-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is he aware that was rectified? It was a regulation of the Canadian wheat board and the commissioners of the wheat board knew nothing about it. Most of these farmers are now receiving permit books.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am pleased to have contributions from all sides of the house. If the minister confirms that fact, I shall be pleased because I think it is a serious omission. I think these people are bona fide farmers and are entitled to this dollar payment.

Supply-Agriculture
I would be most happy if it applied to all farmers on an equal basis, so that every person would be entitled to receive payments because he has a cultivated acreage. If that is being done, as I say, it is most welcome and it probably accounts for a substantial part of the supplementary estimate under consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do I understand that you have ruled we are not, under this item, permitted to discuss the adequacy or inadequacy of this particular proposal, which inevitably involves us in a discussion of the government's support price program and whether or not the government's general assurances, at other times, have been fulfilled? Do I take it that is your position?
Before you reply, may I say with great respect that you would want to consider the situation which prevailed in this house when this item was discussed on September 6 last. I must point out to Your Honour that sitting in the chair which you now occupy at that time was the chairman of committees.
The item before the house was precisely in the wording which now confront us. On that occasion the Prime Minister spoke. If you will examine what he said when speaking to this very item as part of the principal estimate at that time, it will be found that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River certainly was in order if the Prime Minister on that occasion was in order. The Prime Minister on that occasion, in discussing this particular policy, referred to old age pensions, unemployment insurance and his own election promises. He dealt with the over-all policy of the government in the matter of agriculture. Since that day the house has not had an opportunity of taking up the discussion from where the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Assiniboia left off.
In effect, Mr. Chairman, what you have said to those of us in this group who are seeking to examine the government's agriculture policy as a whole, is this: "It is true that the Prime Minister had this opportunity; it is true that the hon. member for Assiniboia had it; but you in this particular group are to be denied it because parliament prorogued just at the end of that particular discussion." I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this rule does not lend itself to the restrictive interpretation that you have given it. I suggest that on this item we should be allowed to examine whether or not this proposal meets the need of the farmers in western Canada and whether it is in fulfilment of assurances given by the administration to these farmers. That examination will involve a discussion as to whether or not there are
available other solutions-some promised,, some offered on the side-to meet with a situation which undoubtedly has provoked the anger of farmers all over western Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say first of all that the last remark of the hon. member in speaking to the point of order was completely out of order and also was completely incorrect. The statement made by the hon. member for Essex East that everything concerning agriculture should be discussed on this item is, in my opinion, manifestly not correct. This is only one item amongst scores of items with regard to the agriculture estimates. To attempt to say that price supports are an integral part of this discussion is complete nonsense. Price supports have nothing to do with this payment at all and have absolutely no relevancy to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We did not say
that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Essex East did say that. He said that price supports were definitely connected with this matter and that it should be possible to discuss them in dealing with this item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As alternative policies; certainly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as the Prime Minister was concerned, I think the hon. member will find that the Prime Minister did not make his statement in connection with this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; he did.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not on this item. If my memory serves me correctly, I think it will be found that the Prime Minister made his statement on motions.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I might correct the minister may I say that he made it in both places.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He made it first on motions. In any event the general statement in regard to the matter was made on motions and not on this particular item.


Mr. Pickersgill:: He covered four pages of Hansard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This general contention of the hon. member for Essex East and, before him by practice, by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, that under this item we should be able to discuss any matter concerning agriculture is, in my opinion, just not reasonable in view of the fact that, as I say, there are scores of items with regard to agriculture in the regular estimates; and it is manifestly unreasonable to try to discuss all these things in a supplementary estimate of this kind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order,
Mr. Chairman, may I say this. If you will look at page 4738 of Hansard of September 6, 1958, you will find an item in exactly the same terms as the item that we have before us in the supplementary estimates at this time. On that page and the following two or three pages, Mr. Chairman, you will find a record of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture and in which he discussed, among other things, price supports. Then a little bit later on you will find a record of a long statement made by the Prime Minister in which he discussed a great many things. Indeed, he went so far that, as reported at page 4753, the hon. member for Assiniboia referred to the Prime Minister's dragging in everything but the kitchen sink. That discussion on that occasion in respect of an item exactly similar to this one was allowed to range over the whole field of agriculture in so far as it affected the item. I assume that you, Mr. Chairman, would want to take now exactly the same stand as you took then.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one observation I should like to make on the point of order, if I may. We are here dealing with a supplementary estimate.


William Moore Benidickson: We were doing so then.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The position is quite different. There we were dealing with a new item introduced into the estimates. It is true that they were supplementary estimates but it was a new item. Here what you have before you is an item that calls for an additional sum for the same purpose. The question before the committee on this item, I therefore take it, is whether this additional sum should be voted for this particular purpose. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that is no occasion and no warrant for wide ranging debates over the whole field of agriculture or every agricultural problem or every kind of policy or panacea that might be put forward by any hon. member in order to meet the problems of agriculture. We are here dealing with the question whether, in relation to the problems facing western grain producers, there should be voted an additional sum of $1,300,000 to complete the program approved by parliament last September to provide these acreage payments to western grain producers. That is the matter that is before the house, Mr. Chairman. The rule is well established that, in these discussions, the speeches must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word on the point raised by the Minister of Finance. As I understood my hon. friend from Essex East, Mr. Chairman, all we were asking you to give us the latitude to do is to examine
Financial Administration Act the arguments used by hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches when they introduced this item in the first place in order to see whether, in fact, this item was doing what hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches asserted it would do. We as representatives of the people are being asked to vote $1,300,000 more money for the purpose which was outlined by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and, in an extremely irrelevant speech to which I took some exception, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who ranged all over the world in his speech as he usually does. It seems to me that any argument advanced for this program by hon. gentlemen opposite on the treasury benches is something we should be allowed to examine when we are asked to vote more money for the purpose they outlined at that time and of which the minister has given the committee no further outline today. That is all we are asking for in the Liberal party in this debate.


Charles Edward Rea: I should just like to suggest to the hon. member for Essex East that there is a significant difference between this resolution and the one which was before the house last session. I suggest that the difference is that the words "Further amount required" are included in this item. I have already read to the committee standing order 59(2) which states as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I must say that the Chair is bound by the rules. I would ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair in order that we may proceed with the business of the house in an orderly fashion.
It now being 5 o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15(3), to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Samuel Boulanger: the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Financial Administration Act.
He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for just a few minutes on this bill, so it can carry before the house takes recess.
640	HOUSE OF
Financial Administration Act
As the explanatory notes indicate, the purpose of this bill is to enact that every cheque, draft, traveller's cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar remittance of any department as defined in paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Financial Administration Act or of any crown corporation enumerated in schedules B, C and D of the said act, shall be printed in both the English and the French languages.
Last year, even more than this year, we noted among all hon. members a desire for greater understanding of the provisions of the British North America Act and what it involves, namely the use of both official languages in Canada.
In fact, ever since I have been sitting in this house, I have been amazed at the extensive use being made of French to express opinions. I wish to commend all members, and particularly those who, though they may be only learning to express themselves in French, are making efforts that we, Frenchspeaking members, appreciate and admire.
This explains why the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) promptly saw to it that speeches made in the House of Commons be simultaneously translated, so that members of either language may follow proceedings without having to wait for the official translation which is published the following day in Hansard.
Certain members may find it odd that after 90 years under a federal system which places the French and English languages on an equal footing in Canada, it should be necessary to introduce in this house a bill designed to give official recognition to a principle contained in the very constitution of this country.
The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), whose worthy efforts to learn French I heartily commend, will certainly agree with his predecessors in the high office he holds in the cabinet, that, from a technical point of view, absolutely nothing forbids the printing in both languages of federal government cheques and other negotiable instruments. The technical difficulties are no greater than those involved in printing bilingual money or postage stamps which proclaim to the face of the world that Canada is a country basically made up of two great races, living in harmony and mutual respect.
I know that, by virtue of the authority he holds within the treasury board, the Minister of Finance could request that federal


government cheques and other negotiable instruments be printed in both languages, as are family allowance cheques issued to residents of Quebec, cheques issued by certain other federal services, and many official federal documents.
The bill I am introducing would, in fact, be pointless if its main purpose were not to reiterate to the Minister of Finance and to all the members of the cabinet the will that was clearly expressed in this house during the last session of the 23rd parliament, when a bill similar in every respect received a practically unanimous vote.
I do not expect that any member will feel it necessary to express his views about an obvious matter, even if the house has undergone certain changes at this session. That is why I am convinced that my Conservative friends, as well as the members of the C.C.F. party, and even the Liberals, will feel it desirable to reiterate without delay the unanimous will of the house on the matter now before the house.
Right-minded English Canadians are showing great regard for the French language and it can be said that culture-loving people learn this language. This is why, in 1957, we have heard our gracious Queen give a flawless reading of the French version of the speech from the throne. Again last year, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Hon. Harold Macmillan, used perfect French in the address he gave to this House of Commons.
Quite recently, a professor at the university of Western Ontario expressed the hope that both official languages would be used equally in all ten provinces, and he added:
-according to legislation, Canada is a bilingual country, even though the law finds its application only in the official documents of the federal government and in the province of Quebec.
That same professor suggested that French be taught to all school children 8 to 9 years old, and, he said:
*-where it is done, this teaching is successful.
In the same line, Dr. Jeanneret, pioneer of the teaching of French in Ontario, suggested the same thing and, after the adoption of the resolution by the Canadian Conference on Education, he added:
-that the teaching of a secondary language should be practised from coast to coast, in public and secondary schools, French being taught in the English provinces and English in the province of Quebec.
And so, he went on to say:
-the same harmony, the same spirit of "live and let live" between English-speaking Canadians and

French-speaking Canadians, would prevail as they do between English, Scottish and Irish Canadians.
If the views expressed by those educators were put into practice, the government would find that the whole nation would welcome an official decision which would implement the people's will, so clearly expressed through their representatives. I know that two of my Conservative colleagues, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Messrs. Pigeon and Ricard) have put on the order paper a bill for similar purpose.
I therefore call on their co-operation not to delay the debate and prevent the second reading of this bill, before the house takes recess. Any delay caused by their colleagues on the government side would create the impression that they cannot count on those colleagues' co-operation in having this bill passed when their own bills are submitted to the house in the near future.
I therefore urge the movers of these bills to use their influence on their Conservative colleagues to have the question put immediately.
(Text):


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, at this time on behalf of both myself and the group in this corner I should like to endorse the principle of this bill again as we have done on other occasions in the past when similar bills were before us and were debated at some length. I have not yet met an hon. member of this house who had anything to say either in or out of the house, against the principle of this bill. Its enactment will create no hardships for anyone and no harm can flow from it. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think the motion should be brought to a vote so that this bill may receive the unanimous endorsement it deserves.


Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion during this session on which it has been my privilege to speak in this chamber and I shall address it only briefly. I am glad the occasion I choose to address this honourable house for the first time this session is one on which there is under discussion a proposed piece of legislation of considerable national interest and importance.
The proposed legislation put forward by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska would, if it were enacted, require that there shall be printed in both the English and French languages every cheque, draft, traveller's cheque, bill of exchange, postal note,
Financial Administration Act money order, postal remittance and any other similar remittance of any department of government as defined in the relevant section of the Financial Administration Act.
This question has come before the house on previous occasions. Those of us who were elected as recently as I was and as some of my colleagues were on June 10, 1957, recall some very interesting debates concerning this legislation that took place during the session after that election. But the subject has been discussed on numerous occasions prior to that and one's knowledge of the subject is enriched very considerably if he avails himself of the opportunity to study the debates and some of the very learned contributions that were made to the discussions of the subject by some of the distinguished hon. members who participated in the debates on those occasions.
One question that has not been raised by the hon. member who moved this bill but which was raised by an hon. gentleman during the session held between 1957 and 1958 concerns whether or not there is a need for legislation of this kind; in other words, whether or not the legislation in its present form would authorize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to direct that cheques of the kind contemplated by the proposed legislation be printed in both languages without any resort to new legislation at all.
As a matter of fact, the present Minister of Finance was questioned about this possibility in this house in December of 1957. The minister then quite frankly stated to the house that this was a matter as to which a legal opinion would have to be obtained and given. It may be, then, that if no legislation is needed the debate that takes place on the proposed bill of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) is academic.
Certainly as I understand the practice and from what I have been able to observe in the study I have given the subject, in the province of Quebec cheques of the kind referred to in the proposed legislation are already printed and distributed in the French language and unless there has been some recent change I have also discovered that some of the cheques distributed on behalf of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are likewise printed in the French language.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to make a brief intervention. I think, and in fact I am sure, the cheques of the St. Lawrence seaway authority are bilingual.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: I am sorry. I understood
some of them were printed in English and
642	HOUSE OF
Financial Administration Act some of them in French and I am in the hon. member's debt for having corrected me. I take it that the cheques issued on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would also be bilingual and it would thus appear that bilingual cheques are in fact used by the two crown corporations to which I have made reference. This would tend to give some weight to the suggestion that legislation may not be needed and this is perhaps a matter for which a legal opinion ought to be sought by the officials concerned from the appropriate persons.
I was very much distressed to hear the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) imply that anyone who ventured to express a view on the subject of this bill was putting himself in the position of being open to accusations of attempting to talk out the bill. Because of the provision made for them under the rules of this house in the case of private members' bills, rightly or wrongly, adequate time is not provided to enable this house to deal effectively with such bills on the occasion of their first introduction.
I believe that a bill of the importance of the present one, the subject matter of which tends to be controversial, should be discussed by as many hon. members as possible so that all hon. gentlemen will have an opportunity to express a point of view. The house having heard the widely representative and perhaps divergent points of view of hon. members from coast to coast will then in due course and at the appropriate time be better qualified to determine the merits of the proposed legislation. None of us is always completely right or completely wrong and those of us who take one position have no right dogmatically to attempt to impose his point of view upon those who entertain an opposite point of view.
The facts as I understand them-and it is in the light of the facts that one attempts to make up his mind-in respect of this legislation are of considerable interest. For example the French Canadian population that resides outside the geographical boundaries of the province of Quebec numbers well over one million. In other words the number of French Canadians residing outside the geographical boundaries of that province is in excess of the aggregate population of all the prairie provinces. I believe that is a factor of considerable importance.
The census of 1951 when our population was a good deal less than we now know it to be, 14 million, indicated that that portion of our population who speak exclusively the French tongue was almost 3 million; the precise figure being 2,741,812.


I was rather interested to discover some statistics that were unearthed for use in a similar debate by the then hon. member for Kamouraska, Mr. Arthur Masse, as recorded at page 867 of Hansard for January 31, 1957, volume 1, as follows:
After the 1951 census, the percentage of people of French origin in Canada was stated as follows
in the different provinces:
Newfoundland	 2.7
Prince Edward Island	 15.7
Nova Scotia	 11.4
New Brunswick	 38
Quebec	 81.9
Ontario	 10.4
Manitoba	 8.5
Saskatchewan	 6
Alberta	 -
British Columbia	 3.5
Yukon and Northwest Territories _____ 15.6
Apart altogether from the very substantial part of the population whose racial origin is French-Canadian, the distribution of that population outside the province of Quebec is a matter of very considerable significance in determining the merits of this piece of legislation.
I am one of those Canadians who has always believed that our fundamental characteristic as a race of people, our basic national characteristic, indeed, and I hope I won't be accused of being melodramatic about it, our very national soul is our complete lack of uniformity in such matters as race, religion, language and culture. It is that lack of uniformity that gives us the characteristic that sets us apart from everybody else in the world and marks and stamps us as people who are distinctively Canadian, quite unlike any other people of the world. All this stems from the historical incident of two races, widely different in all of these matters, living side by side over the years.
I am one of those Canadians who believes that all that is to the good; I am one of those who believes that that makes us a more important country in the catalogue of countries of the world. In the light of the views that I have expressed I think it is not difficult and does not leave much to the imagination to determine upon what side my sympathies lie in respect of the proposed legislation. I support it and I speak in its favour.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the bill now before the house, I think it is proper that members, where possible, use both official languages. My attitude towards this bill is clear. As I have often stated in the house and outside the house, I am among those Canadians who have always felt that diversity in matters of race, language and religion, as is found in our country, is a

characteristic that has greatly helped Canada's progress and has never been a hindrance. It is a characteristic that has increased my pride in being a Canadian. The introduction of bilingual cheques will simply be a further illustration of what we mean by Canadianism.
(Text):
Politicians-we are all accused of being politicians and I have not made up my mind yet whether it is a bad word or a good word -it seems to me, with the very brief experience I have had, labour under some fears that I think and in my experience are rather needless. I often think that this is perhaps because politicians often accept their advice from quarters which are not properly informed.
You know, speaking as a member from one of the Toronto constituencies and as someone who does not believe in having too many secrets, I cannot help but think how often some of us are admonished that we must not say this, or even think this, if we come from Toronto. I often wonder what hon. members who do not come from Toronto think of us after some of the things they hear. It is apparently suggested that if we talk along this line or along some other line in respect of some particular subject it is going to harm us back home. As a matter of fact, I think if I listened to all the advice I get as to what I should say and not say and do and not do I would never say anything and never do anything once I got to Ottawa. I think I would refrain from speaking on any subject and I think I would abstain from voting on any issue if I followed the unsolicited advice of some advisers.
Speaking for myself, I think politicians have an obligation of frankness. If a person in my position entertains a view on a controversial subject, I think he is lacking in frankness to the electorate if he is careful to conceal that view.
You know, actually there are people who say that if you are from Toronto you should not talk about bilingual cheques. That is a lot of nonsense and the facts prove it is nonsense and I speak with a good deal of experience. Anybody who says that if you are from Toronto you should not talk about bilingual cheques does not know Toronto and does not know its people and is suggesting, when he uses that kind of terminology, that there is some kind of anti-French element in Toronto which I have never found. I think that kind of accusation is a slander against my city, and it is my beloved city, and I would not think of it as my beloved city if I thought the accusation were true. But facts, as facts so often do, have the habit of proving the falsity of the accusation.
66968-9-414
Financial Administration Act
What happens to you politically in Toronto if you dwell upon the glories of French Canada; what happens to you politically in Toronto if you speak boastfully of the contribution of that ancient culture to the development of our Canadian nationality? I can tell you from personal experience what happens. I spoke in this house in October, 1957 and my words, just a few sentences of them, are recorded on page 203 of the proceedings of this house of October 21. On that occasion I said what I said in different words just a few moments ago. This is what I said then:
I am of the belief that our nation is a greater nation because of the historical association of two great races of people, the English and the French. They have lived side by side, more often than not. in harmony and good will. Out of this association has developed a nationality which makes us, not only a more interesting country in the eyes of the world but an example in tolerance and understanding.
When I used that language, Mr. Speaker, I did not whisper, I spoke out loudly and as forcibly as I was capable of doing and Hansard, with its usual accuracy, reported every single syllable I uttered. In due course those comments, and comments like them, found their way into the Toronto press, into all three of our daily papers. They were even quoted on the radio and indeed formed the subject matter of editorial comment. But that was not the end of it, because a few months later an election, as we all know, was held. A few months later we had to submit ourselves to the electorate and everything we said, everything we did, all we had not said and all we had failed to do was something in respect of which we then were required to give an accounting to the electorate. There were uninformed advisers who remembered what I said, who recalled the theme that I had sought on that occasion to develop it, who expressed the fear that it would do much harm, expressed the hope that what I had said then would be forgotten.
I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that you and I and all hon. members have an obligation of frankness to the electorate. Under my direction, the campaign literature which was distributed throughout my constituency, from the north end to the south end and from the east to the west contained extensive references to what I had said in my maiden speech and what other people had said about it. But more than that, whenever I spoke in my riding prior to that election, whenever I spoke in my city prior to that election, I attempted to develop the same theme.
What was the result in Parkdale, some of whose people are Catholic, most of whom, of the Anglo-Saxon element, are Protestant, some of whom are Jews, hardly a single
644	HOUSE OF
Financial Administration Act one of whom is French Canadian? I as the Conservative candidate received the largest majority that any candidate of any political party had received in almost thirty years. Does this not give us reason to question the advice that you have got to count to ten before you open your mouth in this house about something you believe to be good?
I have viewed the history of my party in respect of matters that have to do with the principle involved in this legislation. It was my party that introduced simultaneous translation. We are all benefiting by that. Those of you who cannot speak English or have difficulty understanding it now have the privilege of turning off this piece of equipment and thereby do not have to listen to me. Simultaneous translation was introduced here under the aegis of a government that I have the privilege to support and is already, in a brief experiment, doing more to cement national unity than anything else in a long interval of time.
It was a Conservative administration that in the year 1934 enacted legislation whereby currency was printed in French. Admittedly currency was printed either entirely in French or entirely in English but it was a step, the first step of its kind taken in that direction under the authority of a Conservative administration. Two other similar bills are on the order paper which would have the effect of introducing bilingualism into the field of cheques. These bills have been introduced by two members of our party, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). Both have private member's bills on the order paper whose objective is similar to that of the bill we are now discussing. If those of you who are interested in the subject wish to do so you can refer to Hansard of January 31, 1958 where you will see, when the motion for second reading was put and a division of the house took place, that a very great majority of the Conservative members of parliament voted on that occasion in favour of legislation of this kind.
Another fact that indicates the thinking of hon. members of the house is the effort of so many of them to learn the French or English language, depending on the language of their origin. I think immediately of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) whom I have heard address the house on previous occasions in the French language. While I do not recall him having addressed the house in the French language, I also know something of the efforts of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) to study and learn the French language. These to


me are evidences of a desire on the part of hon. members, certainly on our side of the house, to develop a knowledge and understanding of the French language that will enable them to speak fluently in that tongue,
Opposition to this legislation comes from different quarters. It is not bounded by party or by race. For example, if you will look at the debates in 1956 you will find that the then minister of finance, Mr. Harris, in what was obviously an effort to put a stop to a debate on this very subject on a private member's bill, got up on a point of order and said that it was out of order for a private member to introduce this kind of legislation because it involved the expenditure of public money. When he attempted to develop on what basis the expenditure of public money was involved he said that it was because it would cost more to print cheques in the French language. But quite happily his point of order did not get very far.
I only bring that to the attention of the house for the purpose of showing that this is a subject on which there has always been controversy and opposite views are expressed and have been historically by members on our side of the house and by men like the former minister of finance, Mr. Harris, a member of the party now on the opposite side of the house.
There is certainly nothing to fear from this kind of legislation. If you trace the history of comparable legislation you will find that in 1927 postal orders, money orders and excise stamps were all made bilingual. In 1934, as I have already mentioned, we had the first experiment with the use of currency in the French language. I recall that it was in 1936 that bilingual currency as we now know it was first implemented.
All of these things have not tended to disunite us. If anything, they have promoted unity. The circulation of such items throughout the various provinces of our country has fostered unity rather than set it back and so, in my opinon, will cheques which have become such a widely used medium by means of which the government transacts its business. It will not only tend to further the advance of unity at home but, as one member put it in the debate in 1957, it proclaims abroad our bi-ethnical character. It is simply a further extension of a principle that is already fully recognized and has been traditional over the years.
The hon. member who moved second reading of the bill commented upon the fact that so many visitors who come to Ottawa

address the house in its two official languages. I had intended to make some comment on that too. You will all recall the efforts of Prime Minister Macmillan, Her Majesty the Queen and President Eisenhower. Indeed, all the officials of other lands who come to this country expect, by reason of their knowledge of what is really meant by Canadianism, that that is the thing to do when they come here, and as far as I am concerned that is very desirable and commendable. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to the house. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak in support of the principle put forward by the hon. member who has moved second reading of the bill.
(Translation):


Mr.  J. J. Mariel@Chapleau: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to address the house during this session. It is no easy task to address the house just after we have heard so brilliant a speech as the one just made by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney). Undoubtedly he dealt exhaustively with the matter and there is not much more to be said. Nevertheless I would like to express my own views in the matter.
Of course, Bill No. C-4 introduced today by the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Boulanger), is not new to hon. members. Its history was given a moment ago and it indicates that this matter has come up on several occasions. Before discussing the matter in detail, I must say that as a French Canadian living in the province of Quebec, and simply as a Canadian, I am in favour of the principle of the bill. But, as the hon. member for Parkdale indicated a moment ago, the constitution already provides for the use of the French and English languages in the country and, consequently, I do not think it should be necessary to adopt special legislation to that effect. If you refer back to the act of confederation, the British North America Act of 1867, which, by the way, is the work of great Conservatives like Macdonald and Cartier, you will realize that Section 133 clearly states the rights of the French language and of the English language. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read into the record those sections so often referred to, which are known to many people but which others may not be familiar with. I quote:
133. Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those
Financial Administration Act languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
It seems evident to me that the rights of the French language were protected from the time of the adoption of the new constitution in 1867 and that the fathers of confederation had had this very matter in mind. Anyway, the Conservative party has always protected the rights of real Canadianism, and has always endeavoured to foster national unity in the country. I am sure the Conservative party will keep working for the continued advancement of Confederation which they established in Canada, and whose centennial it will be our pleasure to celebrate a few years hence. While French Canada has its own beliefs and traditions, its contribution to Canadian culture has been a very important one for the whole country. So important was it, Mr. Speaker, and this is worth pointing out-that it prevented the absorption of our country by our powerful neighbours to the south. Long before Alaska, Canada would have become the 49th state. I believe that the French-Canadian culture, joined to the English culture, has helped us to safeguard our country's independence, because the Americans were in the process of assimilating the whole of North America. French Canadians-nobody will dispute this -are an asset to the Canadian nation and a natural barrier against American assimilation.
The Bank of Canada Act is quite clear about the printing of government's negotiable instruments, because under subsection (3) of section 20, chapter 13 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, Canadian government cheques are payable or negotiable at par. Nothing at all prescribes that they be printed solely in English. Besides, subsection 1 of section 21 gives to the Bank of Canada the exclusive right to issue bank notes.
Consequently, I believe that, in this matter, French Canadians and English Canadians are of one mind. In any case, it is provided for in the Canadian constitution. Last year, in this house, our Prime Minister expressed surprise that this right had been disputed, for, according to the constitution, it would be normal that all government instruments be printed in both languages, since our constitution guarantees the use of both French and English.

Financial Administration Act
With all due regard tor my good friend the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, and I congratulate him on having introduced this bill, thereby giving us a chance to go into this matter-I say that, if we had to vote on the question, I would prefer, in my humble opinion, to consider bill number C-9, introduced by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), because it is more comprehensive and includes, in a more specific way, all negotiable instruments that would have to be printed in both official languages. Therefore, since that bill will come up later, it might not be necessary to vote on this one, convinced as I am that the Conservative government will settle the matter.
As pointed out by the previous speaker, the Conservative government has already granted simultaneous translation. The former government had done a great deal of talking about it; many times, it had been asked to establish this system, but never did. That is why I have no doubt that the Conservative government will take the necessary steps to grant bilingual cheques from one end of the country to the other.
As was mentioned earlier, as early as 1934, we obtained that money be printed in French. Today, our money is bilingual, and as far as I know, the fact that a dollar is printed in both languages does not prevent it from circulating throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, may I stress the advantages offered by bill C-9 as proposed by my friend, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, a bill which I have approved and which, in my view, expresses the principle of bilingualism with much greater precision. I think it lays much greater stress on the country's official bilingualism and, if we were called upon to vote on the bill now under consideration-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member in discussing another bill on the order paper is going beyond what the rules permit him to debate today, which is the principle of this bill. While I have no objection to the statement that there are other bills relating to the same principle, I think it is out of order to discuss the contents of the other bills.
(Translation):


Mr. Martel:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In any event. I did not intend to go into Bill No. C-9 in detail. In closing, I shall simply say that I favour the principle of the bill. We will, in any case, have the occasion to discuss the other bill which, in my opinion, is more comprehensive and more

fully recognizes the principle of bilingualism in government negotiable instruments.
(Text):


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to take part in this debate concerning the printing of negotiable government documents in both the English and French languages. The previous occasion when this bill was brought before us was in the dying days of the 23rd session of parliament. It was brought forward for our attention on the Friday before the house prorogued, when we had very little time to discuss the issue, and the vote was sprung on us very quickly. As the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) said we, as politicians as he preferred to call us, have a duty to be frank in our thinking and in our discussions. I think if that were not the case, we would not be here.
This is a subject of great national importance and of national interest. It is an extremely controversial subject. At the outset, Mr. Speaker and members of the house, let me make it clear that I fully appreciate the thought that lies behind the British North America Act. I appreciate also the fact that these two races are living side by side in Canada and that they have managed to get along well. I am very proud to be a member of this party which, as was said a few minutes ago, was instrumental in having the money of our country printed in both languages. I am proud also of the fact that it was the Conservative party that installed the simultaneous translation system. Personally, I have found it to be of great help in following the debates that have taken place in this honoured house. I think, in addition, it has done much to maintain the attendance of the house and to arouse interest in all the debates that have occurred in French or English.
I appreciate also the fact that this bill refers to government documents only. The remarks I have to make, which may express a view contrary to some of the views already expressed, will certainly not be uttered in any spirit of animosity whatever. I assure my French-speaking friends in this house and outside of it that my thinking in this matter will be in no way whatsoever a reflection on their nationality. I would think that this bill is a matter that we should discuss carefully. I think we should give it a good hearing. As I have said before, and as one of the hon. members who has spoken has said, this is an extremely controversial subject. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we should make haste slowly on this subject or that, as has been said, perhaps we should count to ten before we proceed. At this stage I am

wondering just how great is the importance of this bill at this present time when this country is confronted with great international problems. I refer to the race for supremacy of the air, in the days of the sputniks, and getting control of the orbits; our great problems of international trade; the economic war confronting us at this particular time; and all those matters which are of such great importance. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether we should not be spending our time on such matters as these. I am wondering whether we should not be debating a subject which is perhaps more important just at the present time.


An hon. Member:: Let us vote on it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. The matter has importance, but having regard to the order of importance, I would think that there are others that should come first. At this particular time I think we should be thinking of the curtailment of government expenditures. Many of us were elected on the platform that we would watch government expenditures and would curtail them. By putting into force a bill such as this one and having all government negotiable documents printed bilingually, of necessity some expense will be incurred. Some may say that it is only trivial. It is only a small point but these small points add up to big totals. I still say it would be an added expense at this particular time.
I believe this bill is designed to extend the use of bilingualism and that it goes beyond the provisions of the British North America Act. If this attitude were adopted by ethnic groups, the result might well be multilingualism rather than bilingualism. What about all these other groups in our country who have their native tongues? Perhaps some of them would like to see cheques and government documents printed in their language. I think we must stop and consider this point with respect to its ultimate results. I would ask myself and hon. members of this house these questions: Is there a real need for this bill at the present time? What hardships, if any, are being created by the lack of bilingualism on any of the government money documents? What about people in the areas of Canada where French is spoken by a fairly high percentage? Is there any great suffering occurring among these people? How many folks, say in Quebec, would hand out a $10 bill for a dollar bill, or vice versa? I believe it has been stated here that the cheques of the C.B.C., and the seaway corporation and possibly the baby bonus cheques
Supply-Agriculture
are now printed bilingually. If this is the case, I cannot see the need for this bill at the present time.
As to these cheques to which reference is being made, even although they are printed in only one language, namely the English language, the figures appear as 10, 20, 30 or 40, whatever the amount may be; and those figures are the same in English or in French. I therefore do not think there is any great hardship on anybody with respect to these cheques being printed only in the English language.
I would suggest to my hon. friends and to the house that we should weigh this matter in the true light of its necessity at this particular time. I would think that the hon. member who introduced this bill would have been accomplishing something that met a greater need or would be of greater use to this country at this particular time if he had introduced a bill, as I intend to do at some later date, to provide that all cheques be of a standard size and that they will be standard in their printing. The name of the bank issuing them and the amount will appear in a certain place. The signature and everything about that cheque will be uniform. No matter where you go in Canada the size, the printing and everything about the cheque will be uniform. For those in business and those in banks who are obliged to handle thousands of cheques each day, this fact of having uniform cheques would, in my opinion, be the first step in this direction.


Mr. Cresiohl:: Will they be bilingual?


Joseph-Omer Gour: Will they be all in French?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Let us get them uniform in size first. Then if the need arises, even more than I would humbly suggest it exists today, I will consider the bilingual aspect at a later date. I hope this matter will be given more serious consideration. I hope that time will be given us to study this matter and to look into it more thoroughly and that we shall make haste slowly.


Mr. Jones:: May I call it 6 o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6 o'clock, the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at 5 o'clock.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. McGee in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
698. To provide for payments to western grain producers of $1 per acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $1,300,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
The Acling Chairman (Mr. McGee): It being 6 o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At 6 o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we were discussing the matter of the dollar an acre payment up to a maximum of $200 covered by the vote now before the committee and before our consideration of this question was interrupted at five o'clock a request was made to me to explain why this increased amount of money was required. In addition, some complaint was made by one or two hon. members of the Liberal party, I believe, that I had not given an explanation of this matter.
The committee will recall that when this vote was originally passed last session it provided for $40 million out of which these payments would be made. On the basis of the number of permit books which had been issued in previous years it was estimated that $40 million would be ample to cover these payments. However, once the announcement had been made that the payments were to be disbursed the wheat board, which had been designated as the agent of the Minister of Agriculture for the purpose of making these payments, began to receive a large number of applications for permit books, in some cases from people who had had permit books in previous years but who had not applied for them in the 1957-58 crop year, and in other cases from people who had never had a permit book previously.
There were some 4,000 applications, as I recall the figures, from people who had had permit books before. The acreages which they claimed could, of course, be checked against the acreage recorded in their previous permit books. There were a further 4,000 applications from people who had not had a permit book before, and in these cases there was no means of checking whether the acreage claimed was, in fact, the acreage which these farmers held. In these circumstances some other means had to be taken to check these claims. Payments were, however, made as rapidly as possible to the farmers whose claims could be readily authenticated, and by November 24 a total of 214,194 payments had been made to a total value of $37,712,156. This completed the main body of the 1958-59 permits which had been issued and processed by the wheat board to that date.
The wheat board proceeded to make all the investigations it could into the other cases,

and the Department of Agriculture also made investigations with regard to the further applications which were pending for permit books, and as at January 29 payments had been made to a total value of $39,887,459 to 227,919 permit book holders. The average value of the cheques issued was $175.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How many acres?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not got the number of acres, but the sum covers that number of permit holders. At the present time the wheat board is in the course of processing some 6,000 further applications and it is expected that an additional 2,000 applications will be received before the end of the crop year. As new permits are issued acreage payments will be made to the permit holders. On the basis of the average amount paid out so far we calculate that these extra permits will necessitate the payment of an additional $1,300,000. That is the amount of this present vote, and that is the reason why the money is being asked.
I should now like to say a few words in connection with some of the statements which have been made in the course of the discussion so far. The hon. member for Assiniboia says that the reaction to this scheme was one of disappointment and concern. An opinion along the same lines was indicated by the hon. member for Essex East and by certain hon. members. The figures which I have just given, figures which indicate that a very large number of people who did not have them before have now applied for permit books, indicate that these people, at least, were not disappointed. On the other hand they seem to have been delighted.
I have received more letters in connection with this subject than anyone else in Canada, I should think, and I must say that the reaction I have noted is not the reaction indicated by the hon. member for Assiniboia and by other hon. members opposite. The great majority of the people who have written to me about this are extremely pleased to get these payments, and tell me how much the payments will help them. The only difficulty expressed is by people who have not yet been able to get a permit book or who have not yet received their payments and are wondering why it has not been sent. My impression that this scheme has been very well received has been confirmed by the many conversations I have had with farmers in the west and by my experiences in addressing the conventions of the Manitoba farmers' union, the Saskatchewan farmers' union and the Alberta farmers' union.
Naturally, everybody in this country- farmers, trade unionists, manufacturers and

so forth-asks for more. If a manufacturer wants us to increase a tariff and it is by any chance increased, he wants us to increase it a little more, and the same applies with regard to everyone else in this country no matter to what section of the community he belongs. It is only natural that the farmers would like more. That is human nature, and it is to be expected. However, the general reaction which I have received-and I think this will be confirmed by a large number of other members in the house-is that this scheme has been received with considerable gratification on account of the payments which have been made.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said this measure was strictly for the benefit of the people of western Canada. I should like to take issue with him with regard to that statement. These payments have been of great benefit to people all over Canada. They have resulted, and will result, in a great deal of employment in manufacturing communities in the central part of this country, and the general benefits which will flow from this $40 million are by no means confined to western Canada. They will be spread all over Canada and have an important effect on maintaining employment and on sustaining the general economy.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River also talked as if this $40 million was all the money which had been devoted to agriculture during the past year. Nothing could be further from the truth. I recommend the hon. gentleman to read the speech I made in this chamber on January 23, because he will find in that speech some indication of the very large number of things which this government has done for agriculture during the past year, including reference to the fact that well over $165 million was paid out in direct payments to assist agriculture, and that in addition at least $100 million was added to the income of dairy farmers through the operation of the stabilization board, money which these farmers would never have received had it not been for the operation of the board under the appropriate legislation.
I should like, further, to point out to the hon. member that last year was the best year that farmers have experienced since 1952. Their cash income was 10 per cent above that of the previous year, and 20 per cent above that of 1955 or for 1954. At the same time the increase in the cost of the goods and services which farmers have to buy went up by just over 1 per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: In one year?
Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, in one year. As I say, this is the first time since 1952 that the cost-price squeeze of which we have heard so much in this chamber has been finally halted and reversed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may ask the minister a question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister say the halting of the cost-price squeeze also applied to grain producers and to the price of grain?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, it applied to the grain producers. They received 6 per cent more by way of cash last year than they did the year before. I believe that is all I should say at this moment in connection with this matter. I feel that I have explained why the extra $1,300,000 is required and I trust that the committee will see fit to agree to this vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to embarrass the Chair by departing at all from the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture in introducing the original item of $40 million to which they are now asking us to add $1,300,000. I am going to follow very closely certain statements that were made, the first made by the Prime Minister on August 30, 1958, and the second made by the Minister of Agriculture on September 6, 1958, with reference to this particular item.
I may say, sir, that the approach I am making to this item is this. The present government asked the house to vote $40 million out of the treasury and the taxes of everybody in Canada from coast to coast for this purpose. We acceded to the government's request without dissent from the house. We are now being asked to vote an additional sum of $1,300,000. It seems to me that it ill becomes the members of the treasury benches who are responsible to this house to question our right to examine whether the claims they made when they introduced this policy have in fact been carried out and it is some of those claims that I now propose to examine somewhat analytically.
I wish first to refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister on August 30, 1958. For convenience I am using the unrevised edition of Hansard and I would refer hon. members to the words of the Prime Minister in a statement made on Saturday, August 30.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Page?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page 4345. It may not be
the same page in the revised edition of Hansard but in any event it is the first page

Supply-Agriculture
for August 30. I shall give the minister a chance to look it up. I do not mind giving my references.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then you differ from your colleagues in that respect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the Prime Minister speaking, and he used these words:
Our concept of a national policy is based on the belief that the national welfare demands positive action to meet the basic causes of distress and maladjustment in particular industries and regions.
In other words, at that time we were being asked to vote $40 million to the grain farmers of western Canada because there were causes of distress and maladjustment in that industry in that region. That is what we were told on August 30 last. I must confess that I listened with some surprise on January 19, 1959, to the glowing picture of prosperity in Saskatchewan painted by the Prime Minister who told us that in no year in history had Saskatchewan been so wealthy and that the people there had never before enjoyed such a high degree of prosperity as was the case in the year 1958. It occurred to me that there was some inconsistency which perhaps some of the people in Saskatchewan would see between this statement and the earlier statement made by the Prime Minister in another context in order to support another argument.
If this concept of national policy is being followed, and if the reason why we should be voting this money is to remove the basic causes of distress and maladjustment in particular industries and regions, that policy should be applied all over Canada and to every industry in the country. I am not going to traverse a great many industries or talk about manufacturers and trade unions as the Minister of Agriculture just did. I am not going to talk about other agricultural measures as that hon. gentleman did. I am going to stick to this one subject.


Mr. Monteiih (Perth):: Let us get the cod
quickly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to deal with other subjects as he did in complete disregard of the rules of this house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not talk about those things.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I took down the minister's words because I expected him to deny it. What I am seeking to point out, Mr. Chairman, is that the oldest industry in the country in the year 1958 was subject to basic causes of distress and maladjustment far greater than anything painted by the Prime Minister in his description of conditions in the province of Saskatchewan in his speech on January 19 last. It would be a great deal

easier for those of us who represent constituencies like mine-and after all the Canadian constituencies in which no wheat is grown still outnumber those in which it is grown- if we knew that this policy was going to be applied all over the country in respect of all situations of a regional character where there is distress and maladjustment in particular industries.
On August 30, 1958, as reported at page 4348 of Hansard, the Prime Minister went on to say:
What we are trying to do is establish a concept of national policy designed to ensure equality of opportunity for all Canadians.
Mark those words, Mr. Chairman: "concept of national policy". This is not something we were asked to vote for because it was especially for the wheat or grain growers. This is referred to as part of a national policy. That was the basis on which we were asked to cast our votes. That is why the hon. member for Assiniboia begged us not to say anything about fishermen when he spoke about it. He told us not to drag them in.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, my hon. friend will have at the appropriate time ample opportunity to talk about fishermen but with great respect I submit this is not the time. My hon. friend is taking up a speech not made by the Prime Minister on the main item to which the present item proposes to add a sum. He is dealing with a speech made by the Prime Minister on August 30, a lengthy statement made by the Prime Minister on motions that day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Announcing this policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In this statement the Prime Minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Announced this policy and nothing else.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit, Mr. Chairman, (his is not a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in this statement the Prime Minister made a general announcement of the government's agricultural policy. Out of that policy later emerged the item of $40 million. However, that does not render in order the remarks the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is attempting to make now. There will be other opportunities for him to make the kind of speech he is now seeking to make-


Mr. Hardie:: Now we have another speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -about another industry. With great respect I submit that by no stretch of the imagination can the hon. member's remarks be relevant to the item under discussion which simply proposes that the house add the sum of $1,300,000 to a vote of $40 million that the house approved last September.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would not attempt to stretch the minister's imagination because before you can stretch something you must have it. I submit that my remarks are strictly related to the item. The announcement to which I am making reference was one made by the Prime Minister in which he invited the house to grant this $40 million. It had to do with nothing else. He was putting it in a framework it is true and I am attempting to deal with that framework because it was the basis on which he asked us to vote the money and today we have the Minister of Finance asking us to vote more money.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was nothing of the kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is asking my constituents in Bonavista-Twillingate to vote more money for this purpose-


An hon. Member:: Are you opposed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and he is asking the constituents of my friend the hon. member for Essex East, with all the unemployment they face in that riding, to vote money for this purpose.


Mr. Starr:: Is he against it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the purpose of this item.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Vote against it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. First of all I would ask hon. members to please refrain from making too many comments while any hon. member has the floor. The resolution we have before us reads as follows:
698. To provide for payments to western grain producers of $1 per acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $1,300,000.
I am asking hon. members please to limit their discussions to the item before the committee at the present time. It is quite out of order to ask that such a measure be applied to other industries throughout the country. We must limit our discussion on this resolution and on others to the item before the committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, it will not, of course, have escaped
66968-9-42i
Supply-Agriculture
your notice that this is a final supplementary estimate to a supplementary that was introduced in the last session in terms that have been referred to, when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture made statements which covered, and I think quite properly, a very wide field. It will also not have escaped your mind that in speaking to this supplementary estimate tonight the Minister of Agriculture also saw fit-and we did not challenge his right to do it-to discuss agriculture in pretty broad and general terms in explaining government policy not only regarding this matter but others.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And in that explanation he brought in what the government has been doing for other industries in the country. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is just following that example which he has every right to do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I would like to comment on what has just been said and point out that what was said by the Leader of the Opposition is not correct. I did not introduce any other matters not relating to this item. What I did was meet one or two of the statements which were made by hon. members opposite and which, strictly speaking, were out of order. I pointed out the error in those statements but I did not introduce any matters which are extraneous to this item or this vote in any way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and I listened also to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture. With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition I must tell him that because one member strayed away from the resolution that is no justification for another member doing the same. I must say to the Minister of Agriculture, with all due respect, I noticed that his remarks were not limited strictly to the item under discussion. The point is that we must now limit ourselves to the item under discussion. If any hon. member strays away from the item under discussion he will be declared out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, of course you did not say that I had ever strayed away; it was only certain hon. gentlemen opposite, and I respect you for that because you showed your usual justice and your usual courtesy. I have no intention of straying away from the item at all. I do not intend to stray away from the words of the

Supply-A griculture
Prime Minister and the words of the Minister of Agriculture in relation to this particular item.
A moment ago the Minister of Agriculture told us that he replied to irrelevant arguments with even greater irrelevancies. He also introduced things that nobody talked about at all such as manufacturers and trade unions, the benefits all over Canada and other agricultural measures that no one else had talked about. I am not claiming any like leniency.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman behind me who wants to introduce closure into the committee was not here a few years ago. I am not claiming any leniency at all. I am considering what is before the committee, namely the question of whether or not we should grant to the government this $1,300,000 more than they asked for this purpose, for purposes which were defined by the Prime Minister and whose definitions I am reading. I am saying-and I repeat- that it would be easier for some of us to do this with a willing heart if indeed the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the government had carried out what they professed when they asked us to make the original vote. That is what I am doing.
Now, what did the Prime Minister say about this? He said:
What we are trying to do is to establish a concept of national policy designed to secure equality of opportunity for all Canadians.
That is the point I want to underline, equality of opportunity for all Canadians, not a special handout to any special group but equality of opportunity for all Canadians. The Prime Minister also said:
The immediate and long term approach to the basic problem facing Canadian farmers is a recognition of the fact that the prosperity of Canada is indivisible-
A proposition with which no Liberal certainly would quarrel.
-and that a reasonably high and stable level of income in Canadian agriculture adds to the welfare of all Canadians.
All I am saying is that that should not be applied exclusively to agriculture. Each of us speaks for himself. I know of one industry where the need of such measures is even greater and that industry, of course, is the fishing industry.


Some hon. Members:: Now, now!


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue. These are the concluding words of the Prime Minister. You will perhaps be relieved, sir, that I have reached the concluding words of the Prime Minister in his short and relevant speech.

I can assure you I am not going to try to deal with the four pages of irrelevancy that the Prime Minister uttered on September 6, where he traversed practically every field of government, including external affairs. The Prime Minister said:
It is apparent that a program which will bring a greater stability to the income of prairie grain producers, and indeed of farmers across the nation, is in the interests of the Canadian economy as a whole.
Again, I do not object to that proposition at all; I think it is an admirable one but I do think it should not be confined to one group of Canadians. It should be applied generally across the board. No one, of course, I hope, will blame me for pointing out that there are other industries, the producers of pulp-wood and the fishermen come to mind at once, who are in even greater need at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Order; deliberately defying the Chair.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member mentioned fishermen and producers of pulpwood. He has strayed away somewhat from grain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am keeping very strictly to what was said by hon. gentlemen opposite in proposing these measures.
In proposing that we should support this item the Minister of Agriculture said on September 6 last, as reported at page 4738 of Hansard-I am going to make these quotations just as brief as possible-in objecting to a proposal different from deficiency payments-I am not going to stray into a discussion of deficiency payments, although the minister did talk about them at that time- all that I am going to say is that the minister did object to them on one ground among others when he said:
It would not make for a fair distribution, and it would not give the major portion of the money to the people who needed it most.
Again, that is all I ask. If we are going to distribute those great sums of money out of the treasury the first consideration should be given to those who need it most. Later on the minister said, as found in the same column:
The plan of acreage payments which we propose under this item is the best method, I think, which could possibly have been devised to meet the cash difficulty which it is admitted exists in western Canada due to two short crops, a short crop this year and a short crop last year.
I am not going to enter into any argument with the minister as to whether this or some other method is the best method to meet this particular need, but I do draw attention to the fact that what he was talking about

was a need, the shortage of cash, and that is by no means confined to this particular group of worthy Canadian producers. Again, sir, I would remind you that there are in other parts of the country other producers such as fishermen in even greater need. As found at page 4739 the minister went on to say:
But I think we must always keep in mind that the most important determining factor is the size of the crop. It is much better, for example, to have a 40-bushel crop and get $1 a bushel than to have a 10-bushel crop and to get $2 a bushel for it.
I think everyone would agree with that admirable proposition but when you have an industry, as we have in Newfoundland with the codfishery where there was virtually no crop at all and with regard to which we have appealed to the government, indeed, have begged them to provide some assistance-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. The hon. member is completely out of order by constantly referring to fish. I ask him to refrain from talking about other matters and to adhere strictly to the item under discussion or take his seat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not suppose that Your Honour will find me out of order if I read the concluding paragraph of the Minister of Agriculture's presentation of this item.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Your speech has consisted almost entirely of reading from speeches by the Prime Minister and myself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which you contend are out of order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must ask all hon. members to please refrain from interrupting the hon. member who has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the closing words of the Minister of Agriculture were these:
In closing I might just say that the money which will be paid out under this scheme will be dis-tnbuted by the Canadian wheat board on the basis of the cultivated acreage shown in the current permit books for 1958.
I think the minister has now told us that some variation of that system had to be introduced, and I have no particular quarrel with that. I will leave that to persons better informed than I.
The Canadian wheat board has the organization, the set-up and facilities and the information to be able to make these payments more efficiently and expeditiously than any other agency.
I have no doubt that is quite true too. I come back now to the real point which is that to the $40 million we have already voted, $200 for every farmer with 200 acres
Supply-Agriculture
of grain, we are being asked at this time to add another $1,300,000. I am in no position personally to estimate but I do not doubt that perhaps the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture were more right last August and September when they asked us to vote this money than the Prime Minister was in January when he told us that Saskatchewan was a land of milk and honey with greater prosperity than it had ever had in its history. I have no doubt that perhaps the Prime Minister was more accurate last August than on this later occasion. But I do say that to ask members of the house from every part of Canada to make an addition to this vote on the basis of need, which was the basis put forward by the Minister of Agriculture, in my view makes it incumbent upon the government to meet other and similar needs in other and similar industries and regions, as the Prime Minister indicated was the intention of the government, an intention about which we have heard no more since August 30 last. I do say, even though in this free parliament it apparently is wrong to say anything about fishermen, that I hope the Prime Minister will remember that principle with which he announced this policy.


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take part in this discussion and express the approval of some 8,000 prairie farmers to the Minister of Agriculture and the government for the $1 an acre supplementary benefit paid last year. I should like to say that when our friends on this side of the house who sit immediately in front of me treat this matter in the airy, fairy-like manner in which they have today they should know why they are sitting where they are, and they will sit there for a long time.
The hon. member for Assiniboia expressed the disappointment of all farmers. I spent four months talking to some 8,000 farmers who expressed complete approbation. I suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia that he should visit individual farmers in his constituency instead of discussing these matters with heads of organizations who perhaps are not quite as close to the grass as the hon. member should be.
In my constituency there are some 15,000 homes and over 8,000 of them or 60 per cent are occupied by farmers. The other 40 per cent depend entirely on the earnings of the farmers in the constituency, and last year the $1 an acre provided very substantial and real help at a time when ready money was most welcome to anybody and particularly to the farmers who had nothing but a lot of promises for many years. Sixty per cent of the farmers in my constituency farm 240 acres or less and market no grain

Supply-Agriculture
although they do have seeded acreage. Fifteen per cent farm 320 acres and market approximately 500 bushels annually. Ten per cent whose farms are a little larger market between 500 and 1,000 bushels. Ten per cent market between 1,000 and 2,000 bushels and five per cent market over 2,000 bushels annually. The bonus of $1 an acre paid last year gave the farmers in my constituency approximately $800,000 and in a constituency of small farms that is a very substantial help not only to the farmers themselves but also to the merchants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, machinery agents, car salesmen and thus to all Canada.
The reason that the farmers in my constituency do not market too much grain, although they are genuine farmers, lies in the fact that in 1958 approximately 100,000 head of beef cattle and 350,000 head of hogs were marketed from the constituency. We have a large dairy industry which supports-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. Shall we come back to grain?


James Stanley Speakman: I am trying to relate how my constituency was affected by the payment of this $1 an acre and I think I am doing fairly well. We have had quite a discussion today of the relative merit of deficiency payments vis-a-vis the payment of $1 an acre, as well as discussion of other extraneous matters. However, so far as my constituency is concerned, about 15 per cent of the farmers would benefit by deficiency payments and 100 per cent will benefit by the payment of the $1 per acre.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate the Department of Trade and Commerce upon a news item I read today which stated that they had marketed 5.5 million bushels of wheat and 3.7 million bushels of barley to the government of Poland.


Mr. Smallwood:: In rising to speak on this item, I should like to congratulate the government upon the help they have given to the western farmer. A few minutes ago I listened to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate giving a real Liberal speech in which he begrudged the western farmers the few dollars they have been given over the last period of months. The Liberals see the results of that attitude today.
We did not bring this dollar an acre payment in as a cure-all. We brought it in to fill the gap until we could get the long range agricultural policy into operation. This $200 that the farmers received last fall meant a great deal to all the farmers in my constituency. I spoke to one merchant who said it was one of the best things we had ever

done. It had brought business into the town to the extent of $1,200 in that particular day.
The only real kick one hears about this $200 payment to the farmers is from the C.C.F. party. They seem to be worried about it. They are very much afraid we are going to do something for the farmers, and they will be left out in the cold. According to the Edmonton Journal, the leader of the C.C.F. party made the remark that he had not found one farmer who was in favour of this $200. If the hon. member would come to my constituency, and I had the time I would drive him around and introduce him to a few. However, he spends too much time elsewhere.
Mention was made of the fact that the farmers were going to march on Ottawa because they had only received this $200, but that is not the case. We have always received delegations in Ottawa, and we always will. When you try to connect this mass delegation with this $200 payment you find there is just no connection. If the hon. member for Assini-boia was not so busy trying to form this mass delegation and would pay attention to his constituents I do not think he would have this idea. I can assure them that if they come to Ottawa we will receive them with courtesy.


Mr. Regier:: After the Newfoundland fishermen had a difficult time in swimming in our seas, perhaps the representative of an industrial riding ought to express his opinion of the vote that is now before us. I intend to support the request of the minister for an additional $1,300,000 to pay the farmers this $1 per acre. However, at the same time, we realize that this payment is not based on any principle at all. It is a handout, pure and simple.
The people of Canada are becoming increasingly worried about the demands upon governments for handouts. We have them for the shipbuilding industry; we have been asked to supply them for shipping on the great lakes; we have them for the mining enterprises of Canada, the manufacturers of Canada, and the coal industry has had them for some years. Mention has been made recently of the fact we will have to give some subsidies to Canadian railways as well. There are a great number of taxpayers who are beginning to wonder where this policy of paying subsidies is going to end. If it were not for our knowledge of the needs of western farmers for this money we would take a very close look at this whole proposition.
It is not based on any principle at all. No one has yet explained why the sum of $1 per acre is to be paid. Why not pay $5 per acre or why not pay 50 cents per acre? No one has explained why the farmer is limited

to a maximum of 200 acres on which he can collect payments. No one has yet explained what is going to be done in the year 1959. Are we going to be asked to vote a similar amount or a larger amount? Is this business of paying a subsidy, a handout, going to become an evil that is so rooted in our national way of life that we cannot get down to equity for all the working people of Canada?
The people of my riding have long realized that the farmers do not want handouts. The farmers want parity, and the people of my riding are highly organized workers, so they realize the value of organized workers bargaining across the table. They feel that agriculture ought to have some right to sit across the table and bargain, lay down the facts and figures, and obtain a fair deal. This is nothing of the sort. This is charity and not parity. This does not apply to the whole of Canadian agriculture. It applies to only a limited section of Canadian agriculture, and it is to be regretted on that point alone. We believe that the subsidy has to be paid this time. However, we would ask this government, if it does not want to find other sections of Canada beginning to complain to base their subsidies on a principle that can be defended to the fishermen in Newfoundland and to the old age pensioner in Burnaby as well.
We feel it is high time that the government attempted to estimate the basic needs of Canadian agriculture, and not resort to methods of this type. This will in no way resolve the basic problems of Canadian agriculture. It will only mean a little relief to one section of Canadian agriculture. I feel that the Canadian farmers, even the western farmers, have every right to organize a march on Ottawa because certainly they had no reason before March 31 last to believe that what they would be offered would be a handout. They had every reason to believe that the new government which they were electing was going to attend to the fundamental problems.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I believe the hon. member is quite far away from the question being debated at the moment. I must ask him to confine his remarks to this item No. 698.


Mr. Baldwin:: After listening to the remarks which I heard first from speakers on the opposition side, I am reminded of a story that has been attributed to the senior senator from Illinois, Senator Douglas. After hearing an argument, equally prolix and irrelevant, he said it reminded him of his grandmother's hoopskirt; it covered everything and touched nothing.
Mr. Chairman, from the intellectual gymnastics we have observed and the flow of
Supply-Agriculture
words we have heard it seems to me that the views of the opposition-and I include both the official opposition and the members of the C.C.F. group-are that they are opposed to this particular measure. I may be wrong in drawing that inference. If so, I hope that before this discussion concludes they will stand up and admit that is not the case or that they may have been converted by the arguments of the minister and the members of the Conservative party. However, as I say, that seems to me to be the impression to be taken from their remarks. I am sure it will make most interesting reading to the farmers in western Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member was not listening.


Gerald William Baldwin: I observe from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture on September 6, 1958 that the principle on which these payments were made is a simple one. It is set out at page 4739 of Hansard as follows:
The principle upon which these payments are based is to extend the greatest amount of assistance to those who need it most, that is, to the small farmers. That is the basic principle underlying this type of payment and, of course, there is a definite formula.
I come from a constituency in which there are a great number of small farmers. I have personally observed the effect these payments have had on their financial situation, their ability to pay their taxes, their fuel bills and their repair bills. It may well be that, to a party which coined the watchword "What's a million?", $200 may not be very much. But, Mr. Chairman, I assure you that by the people of my constituency it was gratefully received. I am sure that they would want me to say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Agriculture that they appreciate the principle on which these payments were made, that they know they were based on an interim basis only and that more is to come. They know there is a long range program which is yet to come before the house. They have received the payments on that basis, and I think the payments have served a very useful purpose.


Mr. Carter:: I do not think any member of this house can have any quarrel with the general purpose of this legislation which is to provide temporary assistance of a special kind to a special group of Canadians who are in need. After all, that is just a practical demonstration of the principle of bearing one another's burdens. But though we may be in agreement with the purpose and the principle embodied in this item, in my opinion there is room for some concern about the way in which these funds are to be disbursed.

Supply-Agriculture
Although the purpose of this item is to meet a need, nevertheless it is not going to be administered on the basis of need. As I understand it, this item will enable a payment of $200 to be made to every farmer, whether he needs it or not. In that connection there are two points which I should like to make and the first one is this. I suggest that $200 cannot be of much assistance to a farmer whose need is very great.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Chesley William Carter: May I say that personally-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Personally you come from Newfoundland.


Chesley William Carter: I come from Newfoundland where we have fishermen who need $200 a great deal more than do some of those who are going to get this payment but who do not need it at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would recommend to the hon. member that he take a trip out west and find out.


Chesley William Carter: The hon. member may rise and make his own speech when he is ready. I am making mine now.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


Chesley William Carter: I am not a farmer but I know a great deal about fishermen and I know a good deal about their problems. As I said before, one payment of $200 cannot be of great significance to a farmer who does not need it at all but who is going to get it. Even if the farmer is in great need, $200 may not meet his requirements. As a good many members in this house have pointed out, $200 does not come anywhere near meeting the needs of some farmers whom these funds apparently are supposed to benefit. If we are going to dispense public funds, surely it would be better to pay them to those who really need them, and not to those who do not need them at all. If my hon. friend is in favour of paying out public funds to people who do not need assistance, that is for him to say. For my part, I am against it.


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


Chesley William Carter: I will answer questions when I am finished. The other point in connection with this legislation is this. I think we have reached a point in our economy where we must take a second look at our give-away programs and come to some decision on the question whether it is in the public interest to give public funds to anyone who does not need them.


Mr. Chown:: Is that Liberal policy?


Chesley William Carter: I think we should also consider whether or not our economy can continue to support that kind of administration of public funds. In two elections we were led to expect that a national policy would be developed, one which would apply equally to all Canadians and to all groups of Canadians. What I should like to see would be a policy developed. This is true particularly in respect of those of us who represent other primary producers, and I am thinking particularly of the fishermen whom I represent.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. The hon. member is now getting into the realm of economic policy and is departing from the resolution being discussed. Will the hon. member please try to confine his remarks to the resolution under discussion.


Mr.   Carier@: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to keep entirely within the rules of the house. What I am trying to base my argument on is the method by which this money is going to be disbursed as it is plainly written down here in the supplementary estimates, namely that it is going to go to everyone, whether he needs it or not. Those of us who represent other primary producers would be failing in our duty if, at a time when the government is prepared to give money to some people who do not need it, we did not rise and object that they have refused to pay it to those of our constituents who are really in great need.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this item, may I say this. I have observed those hon. members who have spoken previously, particularly those in the official opposition. I have noted what they have said. May I say that I have felt sorry, to some degree, for the party that is trying to take issue without having a member on their side from western Canada.


An hon. Member:: We are doing all right.


Chesley William Carter: Let the hon. member worry about himself.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would make one recommendation to that party. If they ever intend or hope to get a member from western Canada I would suggest that they do not send the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate out to western Canada to campaign for them because if they did so I am certain that after the next election they would come back and still be in the same condition as that in which they are to-day.
To get back to the item under discussion, I should like to refer to the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture on January 23 and his statement that more people are dependent on the agriculture industry either

directly or indirectly than on any other industry in Canada. I think that statement should be kept in mind when this committee is talking about an increase in acreage payments. The hon. member for Assiniboia spoke on this subject and said he was greatly disappointed at the benefit this was bringing to western agriculture. He also said that when the government brought this in they assumed it would be a cure-all. Mr. Chairman, when this measure was brought in it was not intended to be a cure-all. I notice that the hon. member referred to this in his speech as a small payment; it was no longer "peanuts". It certainly was not, because this acreage payment means, to my constituency alone, approximately $1 million and I do not belong among those followers of Mr. C. D. Howe who agreed with him when he said "what's a million?" To me, a million is a whole lot of money, and to the farmers in my constituency a million is a whole lot of money.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In my constituency $200 is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When this government took office in the fall of 1957, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he hoped to export-and thought he could export-300 million bushels of wheat. I do not know what happened in Newfoundland, but in western Canada Liberals laughed and said: wait until he tries to sell some, he will find it a lot more difficult than he thinks.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. Shall we get back to item 698?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was dealing entirely with the wheat situation. To go along a little further, we did export 316 million bushels-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but we are not discussing the export of Canadian wheat. The matter under debate concerns this payment to western grain producers of $1 per acre to a maximum of $200, and the hon. member must limit his remarks to the item.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry if I have strayed from the item. I thought that in dealing with the wheat question I would get around to the fact that in exporting more wheat we improve substantially the position of farmers in western Canada. However, to get back to this acreage payment, let me say that there has been much discussion of the pros and cons. I have advocated a two-price system for wheat, and under this acreage plan up to a dollar a bushel more is allowed for wheat consumed in Canada-and I say that that is not "peanuts" either.
Perhaps I may quote what Mr. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, has to say about acreage payments:
Supply-Agriculture
Deficiency payments are not designed to aid failure or uneconomic farm units. Deficiency payments do not deal with relief; they are dealing with a marketing problem.
The report continues:
The acreage payment of $1 an acre by the government was a relief measure-a measure of temporary help, Mr. Wesson stated. It proved to him that many people had not yet recognized the real nature of the farm problem.
In a sense, Mr. Wesson never realized the real nature of the acreage payments, because it must be understood that the farmer benefited to the tune of a dollar a bushel more for wheat consumed in Canada. That is not a relief measure at all: it is direct aid to the farmers who, I might add, have produced wheat during the forties and sold it at about a dollar a bushel below the international wheat price, under the previous government.
Dealing with Mr. Wesson's statement that deficiency payments are not designed to aid failures or uneconomic units, I think this is the point at which an acreage payment does definitely bring some aid, namely to the uneconomic units, which are, after all, the units that we should try to help and pull up so that they can become economic units. There is no sense in taking honest dollars from the treasury to help a unit that is already a sound business. I want to help the small farmers who are caught in the cost-price squeeze as a result of which they are unable to make their places into economic units. Mr. Alf Gleave has scoffed and laughed at the acreage payment. I do not know whether he calls it "peanuts" or not. And yet in statements in the Saskatchewan papers in the Star-Phoenix he comes out with a plan. And what is it based on? An acreage system.
Mr. Charlie Gibbing, vice president of the Saskatchewan pool, is advocating a two-price system, which is, in essence what this acreage payment is.
We have heard a great deal from the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who said that farmers did not want it and do not need it. I could go on all night as to how badly they have needed it and how much they want it. But to add a little more about the two-price system, I hope this government will either bring in an additional measure with regard to acreage payments next year or introduce a two-price system. This is sound business, and I notice recently that the President of the United States has proposed a similar two-price system for that country. I think this suggestion should be given a great deal of consideration. It might be that the price of bread will increase, and in this connection I notice that recently in Alberta the price of bread went up by a cent

Supply-Agriculture
a loaf and I never picked up one Alberta paper which objected too strongly in its editorial columns. I think that if we do not wish to continue paying out of the federal treasury we should charge it to the people who buy the bread, because I think the farmer in western Canada is in need of one dollar a bushel more for wheat consumed in Canada; I think it is coming to him.


Chesley William Carter: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just taken his seat put words into my mouth that I did not use. I did not say that farmers did not need it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You certainly did.


Chesley William Carter: No, no, I did not.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, you did.


Chesley William Carter: Oh no, I said this money was being paid to farmers whether they needed it or not, which is quite a different thing.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member raised this as a question of privilege-


Chesley William Carter: I am not objecting to payments being made to farmers who need them, but I was objecting to paying this money out to people who do not need it, and people who do not need it can get it under the way this system is administered at present.


William Arnold Peters: I am amused to know that we have now obtained more or less what we wanted-a two price system-and that the dollar a bushel would apply on our domestic consumption of wheat. However, I think the hon. member was referring to bread wheat consumed in Canada rather than to Canadian consumption as a whole. I wish to state very emphatically that we are in favour of the payment of this subsidy to western farmers. I believe it is very similar to the 5 cents a bushel Bennett paid during the depression in terms of present day purchasing power. In my opinion any amount paid to the farmers is of benefit to them.
I was out in western Canada this fall and everywhere I went I heard farmers say that the situation in their area was very grim. When one considers the price of tractors, food and other things one realizes that $200 is peanuts to the farmers. I am surprised that 200 acres should have been selected as a maximum. I am told that the average acreage of farms in Manitoba is 300 acres.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is 235 in Manitoba.


William Arnold Peters: I understand it is approximately 300 in Manitoba and approximately 500 in Saskatchewan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suggest that the hon. member read Hansard for September 6, 1958.


William Arnold Peters: I would suggest that the hon. member make his own speech. In my opinion this payment is not a complete answer to the problem but we are in complete agreement that it should be paid. Any assistance given to the farmers is advantageous even if one must describe it as peanuts.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to bring you a note of good cheer from that great constituency of Moose Mountain which I have the honour to represent. I am pleased to state that the farmers in my area after examining the government's agricultural legislation over the past couple of years are very happy about it. In fact, in looking over the record I feel confident in saying that we have achieved more as a government in the last two years than the former government did in 22 years.
The farmers in my area are more than pleased with the acreage bonus now under discussion. I was interested in listening to the gloom and doom cast by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. In his opening remarks he states that he was not too conversant with farm problems and I agree with him.
I may say to the hon. member for Assini-boia who represents my neighbouring constituency that if he had stayed home a little more last fall in the interval between sessions instead of travelling across the country and making numerous appearances on television he would be more conversant with the opinion of farmers in his constituency. In fact I had the pleasure of discussing the acreage bonus legislation in his constituency with a great number of farmers in that area when I addressed a public meeting at Milestone. I did not hear a dissenting vote. Indeed I heard many favourable comments about this legislation.


Hazen Robert Argue: One Tory meeting.


Richard Russell Southam: There is a growing awareness on the part of farmers about the beneficial results of this legislation. The hon. member for Assiniboia has been busy spreading gloom, doom and pessimism. He says that everything the government does is too little and too late. The people in that area, however, are becoming increasingly aware that the hon. member for Assiniboia preaches the doctrine of plausible nonsense. Those who are informed about the government's legislative program in relation to agriculture

are aware that what the hon. member says is utter nonsense and to those who are not informed it is plausible.
In considering the sum of $40 million it is important to focus our attention on the value of this money to the economy in the past year. Three years ago the farmers of western Canada through their organized farm groups, unions and so on suggested that they would be satisfied with parity prices. None of us was able to hit on a formula as to what an adequate parity price was and so we then talked about a two-price system. Last year, of course, representations were made to the federal government concerning the desirability of instituting deficiency payments. In effect the sum of $40 million represents the establishment of a two-price system if it is viewed in its true sense. This does not represent a complete answer to the problems of agriculture but it does represent the fulfilment of the promise of this government to agriculture that it would examine the problems and bring in temporary or emergency measures designed to put the farmers in a better position in relation to other Canadians.
We in Canada consume approximately 38 million bushels of wheat each year. Our price for No. 2 wheat last year in the west was between $1.15 and $1.22. Taking into consideration that we received $40 million in the form of acreage payments the government was actually paying the farmers of Canada approximately $2.25 a bushel for the wheat used for human consumption this year and that is not to be sneezed at. Having examined the operation of the legislation the farmers of western Canada are quite happy with it.
If I were to demand the latitude demanded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate I could go on at great length discussing many other pieces of agricultural legislation to put the question of acreage bonus payments in its true perspective but I do not want to transgress the rules of the house. I believe the matter was extremely well covered by the Minister of Agriculture when he pointed out that last year our agricultural economy improved to the extent of 10 per cent whereas the cost of goods and services increased by only 1 per cent.
I thank the committee for its indulgence and I shall conclude by pointing out to hon. gentlemen that the present government is taking a positive and constructive approach towards the problems of agriculture. I am convinced that farmers by and large are quite happy with the legislative program of this government in relation to agriculture and are
Sup p ly-A griculture
equally happy about prospective agricultural legislation to be placed on the statute books in the future.


Mr. Slogan:: Mr. Chairman, for the last hour I have felt somewhat like a jack-in-the-box in my efforts to be recognized. I should like to add my voice to the others that have spoken out in general approval of the motion before us. I am certainly going to stick to the subject matter of this resolution in my brief remarks.
I have received letters, as I am sure all hon. members representing rural constituencies have, expressing approval of these payments. I have yet to hear of any farmer in Canada who sent these payments back to the government because he did not approve of them.
There has been much talk in this house about deficiency payments. Indeed there was much talk about them in Springfield. Some have said it would be much better to have deficiency payments than a payment of $1 an acre. In Springfield we went to the trouble of finding out exactly what deficiency payments would do for the farmers in the area. We took figures for our crop area which is crop district No. 5 in Manitoba. We found out that in 1957, the last year for which we had complete statistics, there were 2,232,000 bushels of wheat harvested. During the years 1940 to 1954 this area marketed 52.8 per cent of the grain produced. In other words the other 47.2 per cent was kept for seed, was fed to livestock, or disposed of by other means and was not sold at the elevator.
Under the principle of deficiency payments the money would be paid only on wheat marketed at the elevator. On the basis of marketings of 52.8 per cent in this crop district the farmers sold 1,178,000 bushels of wheat at the elevator or 290 bushels for each of the 4,065 farmers shown by the 1956 census to be residing in this area.
The marketing of barley and oats arrived at by a similar calculation totalled 120 bushels and 148 bushels per farmer. On the basis of 1957 production, and the marketing percentages that have been typical for the area over the period of 15 years this would provide a gross average of $133 per farm based on the proposed deficiency payment in the year for which the highest level was suggested which was 1956-57. This was 30 cents a bushel for wheat, 19 cents a bushel for barley and 15 cents a bushel for oats. So on the basis of deficiency payments the farmers of Springfield would have received an average of $133.
What about the farmer who was hailed out, the farmer who had a crop failure or

Supply-Agriculture
the farmer who, like the many mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture, fed his grain to livestock and did not market any? The fact is that those farmers who were most in need of help would not have received anything. I know at least one farmer in Saskatchewan who farms 26 sections of land. On this basis, had we adopted deficiency payments it would have brought thousands and thousands of dollars into the hands of those large farmers. There is nothing wrong with that, but on the basis of the money which was made available-$40 million-I submit it was most equitable to distribute the money in the manner in which it was distributed.
Some members of the official opposition suggested that they were opposed to this and this applies especially to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am most surprised at this, since he is a former Manitoban. We certainly would be depriving many farmers in Manitoba of money which they need very badly if we should cut out the additional amount which the minister has brought forward today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never said any such
thing.


Joseph Slogan: Another hon. member suggested it was a handout pure and simple. For years the farmers of western Canada have been subsidizing the bread-eaters of Canada. If we show the western farmers that we wish to give them a little benefit at a time when they are in dire need I certainly think it will be appreciated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a question of privilege to correct a statement made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I am sure he made it mistakenly and inadvertently but he suggested that I was opposing this item. I have never said a word in opposition to it. I said that this policy should be applied all across Canada to all groups, and that is my position.


Mr. Robichaud:: My remarks on this item
will be very brief. On other occasions I may speak a little longer. I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not opposing this measure to provide for payments of $1 per acre up to a maximum of $200 per farm to western grain producers; but before this item passes I would like the Minister of Agriculture to tell us why other groups of primary producers should be excluded from similar measures. If the principle is established for the western grain producers, and if it is considered to be a good principle for the country, why would it not be good for our eastern farmers and our eastern fishermen? Why should it not apply to a farmer who

cuts pulpwood on his wood lot and has to accept a price of $8 or $9 a cord at the roadside, as happened in New Brunswick in 1958? I know that the farmers of my constituency would be satisfied to accept 25 per cent of the amount which was-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, surely, Mr. Chairman, we can, after all the admonitions that have been heard from the Chair this afternoon and this evening on the subject of adhering to the point under discussion, ask the hon. member to stop wandering around and come to the point of the item, namely an addition to the amount already voted for the purpose of providing acreage payments for western wheat producers. This does not give licence to any member to start comparing this with other measures in other fields entirely. This is a matter, the principle of which has already been approved, Mr. Chairman, and $40 million has been disbursed. It is a matter now of deciding whether those who qualify and for whom there is not quite enough money are going to be treated as have those who have already received their acreage payments. This gives licence to no member to talk about everything under the sun except the acreage payments to western wheat producers.


Lionel Chevrier: He is following the example he had from over there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest there should be one ruling in this house for both sides of the house. We have just heard from the hon. member for Springfield and from two or three other hon. gentlemen up in this corner speeches of some length about deficiency payments and other alternative methods of doing this thing and not one word of protest was heard from the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture. The moment that anyone on this side of the house merely suggests that the national policy that the government boasts about should be a national policy a point of order is raised at once. Surely, in this free parliament fishermen can be mentioned.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sure the hon. member for Gloucester realizes what he should talk about.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Thank you; I had just about completed my remarks when I was interrupted by an example of the regular system of closure adopted by the Minister of Finance, and which he has been trying to bring in so often in this house. I was just saying, when the Minister of Finance interrupted-and he is quite fast in blaming other members although he does interrupt so often himself-that the farmers in my

constituency would have been pleased to accept 25 per cent of the $800,000 which was paid under this measure to the constituents of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


Mr. Kindi:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to offer a few words on item 690 and I promise, that I shall do my best to stick to this item.
The Depuly Chairman: Order. We are on item 698.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, we are debating the addition of $1.3 million to an already approved item of $40 million to assist the farmers of western Canada, and it is on this subject that I wish to speak briefly this evening.
Why was the money paid; why was the $40 million authorized by this house? It was authorized because the farmers of western Canada, or many of them, are in dire financial straits. In other words, the purchasing power of the farmers of western Canada is seriously injured. Let me say this. As a group, the farmers of western Canada, and any farming group, operate in an almost perfect economy; in other words, in perfect competition. No other group operates under a system under which they are unable to obtain for themselves the benefits of technological improvements. In other words the farmer of western Canada does not really realize that he is in competition with his neighbour in the production of grain. Therefore, we must subsidize the farmer in order that he may have the purchasing power needed to buy the things that he needs today and which he finds difficulty in buying because of the cost-price squeeze. On the one hand there is the cost of machinery and on the other low income from wheat. It is this cost-price squeeze that occasions the difficulties in which the farmers find themselves in this country today.
There has been a lot of talk here tonight about the cordwood people and fishermen and that they should be given a subsidy. Almost everybody who has anyone in his constituency who is unemployed or who has any small group in difficulty feels that those people should be given subsidies. We are talking tonight about a large group, a group of farmers in western Canada, who have need of purchasing power to-day, not to-morrow or next week. What has this government done about it? They have appropriated $40 million to assist the farmers of western Canada with their purchases. Let me say this. In a cross-section of farmers of western Canada you will find probably a small percentage whose operations have been profitable; you will find a middle-sized group and you will
Supply-Agriculture
find a still larger group of small farmers who need financial assistance, who need the help of this government. The sum of $40 million was appropriated. Judging by the thinking and utterances of my hon. friends opposite one would think that it was not appreciated by the farmers of western Canada.
I recall one instance, for example. One farmer in my constituency, and there are many more like him, was hailed out in six successive years. When he got his $200 cheque he looked at it, saw all the holes in it, put it on his player piano and it played for him, "Happy Days are Here Again". Most every western community has at least 500 farmers and if you multiply 500 by $200 you get $100,000 in purchasing power in each such community. It is that purchasing power which has helped the retailer, the physician, in fact, all groups of society, and has really kept our society going.
Finally, some have spoken of the $200 payment to the farmer as being peanuts. All I would say to them is: Come on out to my constituency and talk to the people. It is true that this is only a temporary measure to meet a certain situation and that with the passing of time it will be necessary to give careful examination to all phases of agriculture. It has already been indicated that two of them, farm credit and crop insurance, will be dealt with at this session.
I believe we are coming to a time when certain farmers in western Canada will need help. There are others who will not. A differential payment was necessary and I want to compliment the government for having paid out the money on an acreage basis thus making it possible for the small farmer to benefit rather than having a large portion of the money paid to the big operators. In other words, all the farmers received something and I can assure the house that the people of western Canada appreciate deeply what their government has done.


Mr. Granger:: I should like to speak very briefly on this item. First, I should like to say that the principle of deficiency payments to those in need is one which must receive the approval of every civilized and humane person. Probably nothing is more disappointing and demoralizing than a crop failure. Those people who had hoped to reap and found that there was nothing in their fields to reap must appreciate deeply the special assistance from the government which avoids for them the shame of relief. I have just one comment to make. I regret deeply that the standard which applies to those who till the soil seems not to apply to those who plow the fields of the Atlantic.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this free-wheeling debate it is hardly necessary for me to add anything to the very comprehensive statement on this subject made a short time ago by the Minister of Agriculture. However, I was very interested in what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said. He spoke on the gold subsidy and a variety of other subjects. I have always had a great admiration for the hon. gentleman's debating ability and I find that I am in agreement with the statement he made in opening his remarks that he did not know anything about agriculture. I did not hear all the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate but I believe that he too said that he knew little or nothing about the farm problem, and I am inclined to agree that as a farmer he is a poor fisherman. However, this can be expected from two gentlemen, who, as I have said, have admitted that they are not-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. In looking over item 698 I do not find the names of either the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River or the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate so I shall have to ask the hon. member for Lisgar to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


George Robson Muir: I regret that in my remarks I had forgotten that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had not discussed the subject at hand, but I will move on and say that I was even more disappointed with the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia on this subject because he has always acted and talked as if he is the champion of the western farmer. However, I find that he has now aligned himself behind that very small percentage of western farmers, less than 20 per cent, I would say, who farm on a very large scale and are largely responsible for our huge wheat surplus. I think that the hon. member for Assiniboia forgets that over two-thirds of the farmers in western Canada farm less than 300 acres.
I should like to refer to a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture on October 28, 1957, found at page 462 of Hansard, in which he gave a breakdown of the size of the farms. This is relevant to the acreage payments under discussion. He gave a breakdown of the permit holders and their acreages. He said that there were a total of 230,854 permit holders and that of this total 31,299 had less than 99 specified acres or acres under cultivation, 63,272 had between 100 and 199 acres and 51,762 had between 200 and 299 acres under cultivation.
Therefore, in trying to do something to help to relieve the farmers of the cost-price

squeeze the government had to take into consideration, and wisely so, the fact that the majority of the farmers were small farmers, and the acreage payments made by the government recognized the fact that every farmer and his family are of equal importance to our nation. The payments also take into consideration the fact that the costs of production on small farms are higher and provide that the man who is able to harvest no crop or only a small crop on account of the weather will also be paid. Therefore I think that the government followed a very wise course in setting up a system of acreage payments. Payments are made to small farmers on an equal basis and are particularly helpful to the farmer whose costs of production are high.
I do not know how the hon. member for Assiniboia is going to justify the fact that he is in favour of deficiency payments. I should like him to justify deficiency payments on grain in comparison with the principle of acreage payments because, as I say, I think the acreage payment has been justified and will help the largest number of farmers who really need it.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, between this session and the last session of this house I happened to do what so many of the government members have advised the hon. member for Assiniboia to do, I stayed home and tended to my knitting. As a result of the fact there is not very much wheat grown in the riding of Timmins I must confess I do not know too much about the situation in the west. However, I have listened very carefully to the debate so far, and the speeches made by the minister and the government members from the west who represent all but one riding from western Canada. I am referring, of course, to the three wheat provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there are two things that have been established very clearly by government spokesmen today, not only established but reiterated time and again. The first is that the farmers in the west are better off now than they have ever been since the war. Secondly, this $200 bonus that they got last year was the greatest thing that happened to them since the war. Before this debate is concluded, I should like to have some government member explain this to me. I find it difficult to understand how, if they are having the best times they have ever had, this $200 is so important.


Mr. Pascoe:: I think the views of government members have been very clearly explained here tonight, and I should like to voice my approval of this supplementary

acreage payment. I should like also to thank the Minister of Agriculture for his clear explanation of the need for this extra $1,300,000 to pay some of the farmers who did not have their permit books when the payment was first announced. I think this will clear up a situation that some of our western members have had to face, and about which the farmers have been writing to them.
In so far as this debate is concerned, we have had some amazing statements. I do not believe I am out of order in referring to the mass delegation that is coming down here. I should like to say that I am quite sure the government will receive them and give them a courteous hearing. I should like to refer to statements made about these acreage payments by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and to put them on the record. He said it was a great sum of money; he was against special handouts to any special group; the needs of the Newfoundland fishermen are much greater than those of the western farmers. I am not quite sure whether the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is speaking personally or for his party. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said that this supplementary payment applies only to a limited group; that the people in Canada are becoming alarmed at the increasing demands on government for handouts. The member for Burin-Burgeo said that he came from Newfoundland where there are fishermen who need the $200 a great deal more than the farmers do. He asked, how long can our economy support this kind of giveaway?
I just wanted to put these statements on the record, Mr. Chairman, because they will make good reading for the farmers who are coming down here in this mass delegation.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I feel I should say a few words on this item because a considerable amount of the money that is going to be required initially is going to be required in my constituency where we have the greatest number of small farmers in western Canada. They are all very small farmers, who are on the edge of the cultivated area. I am sure the people in my area would like me to tell the minister how much they appreciate the principle enunciated in making these acreage payments.
For the information of the hon. member for Assiniboia, I should like to say that the wheat board has now corrected its stand and all the people who are growing grain for feeding to cattle can receive acreage payments as soon as their acreage has been checked. I was interested, too, in the Liberal approach to this problem. I think that the most we can gather from it is that they are back to their old tactics of dividing this country in the
Supply-Agriculture
hope that they can conquer it. I feel that their speeches will tend towards disunity, and the speeches made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Burin - Burgeo were excellent examples. We in the west realize that Newfoundland has its problems, and we are willing to listen to those problems. We feel that when we are talking about a western problem, acreage payments, they should at least have the courtesy to discuss that item.


Hazen Robert Argue: I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments that have been made by hon. members this evening. As has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Timmins, it is a rather sad reflection on the economic position of western agriculture if the $200 payment is so important in relation to their income. I am not one of those who feels that this is the best method of assisting western agriculture. It is true that this payment goes to a great many small farmers.
On the one hand, the government says we are going to help the small farmers. This is the way to help the small farmers. If you proceed by way of deficiency payments, you will not help the small farmers. Then, they say we will put a $200 ceiling on these payments. The only people who do not get the $200 payment are the small farmers. Anyone who has a medium sized farm or a big farm gets the maximum payment, but the small farmer gets less than $200. However, these are the people who say this is the measure to help the small farmer.
For what are the people of western Canada asking? Are they asking for this? Is this the thing upon which the government campaigned? I never heard this particular measure mentioned anytime in the election campaign. I never heard any reference made by any Conservative speaker to a dollar an acre payment. However, the Prime Minister was giving sympathetic consideration to deficiency payments. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and I had this out the other day, but a report of a speech he made at Wolseley stated that action was going to be taken on deficiency payments. When we asked the government during the session last year whether they were considering deficiency payments, they said they were considering deficiency payments; sincere consideration; thorough consideration; adequate consideration; daily consideration. Did one member from that party last year stand up and say to the Prime Minister, we do not want deficiency payments; we do not think that is what should be done. No, they waited like mice until the Prime Minister made the announcement.

Supply-Agriculture


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I object to that statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: My friend is a very loud mouse, but I am always pleased to hear him. They waited as quiet as mice, shall we say, and they did not mention deficiency payments. They waited until the line was laid down. Then when the $200 acreage payment was announced they tallied about the wonderful Prime Minister and the great action he was taking for agriculture. This was the line.
Well, the line is being changed. Now we hear it being said in places that perhaps we should have a two-price system. I wonder if word has gone out via the grapevine that this thing is in the cards, that this is the thing the government is going to do. If the farmers of western Canada are so much in favour of this answer to their problem, I wonder how it happens that they are organizing a mass delegation which, I am informed, is very close to being 100 per cent signed up. More important than that is the fact that people are contributing their money in order to finance the cost of that delegation coming to Ottawa.


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


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


Hazen Robert Argue: The farm organizations of
western Canada have now said what they wish the government to do. There is not a farm organization that has gone on record as being in favour of the dollar an acre payment as an answer to western agriculture. As a matter of fact, when the Prime Minister announced this payment last year initially, I at that time quoted Mr. James Patterson, president of the Manitoba farmers' union and president of the interprovincial farm union council at the point at which he said just how inadequate this measure was. In order to have on the record the first clear indication of what organized agriculture thought of this payment I should like to refer again to that statement found at page 4350 of Hansard of August 30, 1958, as follows:
We certainly expected something reasonable . . . and the $25 million-
I might say that was the initial press report; it was since corrected to $40 million.
-falls far short ... It takes a long time to pay bills with nickels.
This responsible leader of the farm movement did not call it peanuts, he called it nickels. He went on to say this:
It will give the farmer a little "spending money" said Mr. Patterson, and the government apparently thinks that will settle matters for a while.

In asking for an alternative to this proposal, the farm organizations are asking on the last crop a deficiency payment of 36 cents a bushel from which a farmer who markets 600 bushels of wheat would obtain more than $200. A farmer who ordinarily produces 600 bushels of wheat cannot get $200 under the present legislation.


George Robson Muir: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


George Robson Muir: What would the farmer who did not raise any wheat or who did not sell any wheat get under your deficiency payment plan?


Hazen Robert Argue: The deficiency payment plan is based on the price of wheat. It is a good question, a fair question and one that should be dealt with.


George Robson Muir: The hon. member has not yet answered the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: If my hon. friend will relax for a minute, I shall be happy to answer it. The question is what will a person get who does not sell a bushel of wheat under the deficiency payment plan. The answer to that question is that under the deficiency payment plan advocated by farm organizations in western Canada today, farmers would be paid on the basis of the price of wheat. It is not an acreage payment. In order to obtain the benefit, it would be necessary for a farmer to sell wheat.


George Robson Muir: He would have to grow wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course. If you want to get payment for a bushel of wheat you must have a bushel of wheat. It is just as simple as that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And a man who is hailed out would get nothing.


Hazen Robert Argue: We know that farmers need payment when they have a crop failure. Certainly they need income when they have nothing to sell. That should be done through extension of the prairie farm assistance payments. It should be handled in the way of compensation to the farmers who have had a crop failure.
The whole point that western agriculture is making at this time is with respect to the efficient farmer, to say nothing of the inefficient farmer because he has a small unit through no fault of his own. The highly mechanized efficient farmer, with present costs and present prices, is unable to make an adequate living. They are saying that in order to give the grain producer a chance to make a standard of living in keeping with

Business of the House
Canadian conditions he should be paid a deficiency payment to compensate for the tremendous increase in the cost of production that has taken place in recent years. Hon. members may laugh if they wish at those organizations which are promoting this suggestion, but I would remind them that the whole program of deficiency payments today is supported by the three western wheat pools, by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, by the farmers' union and by every bona fide national farm organization in this country. In order to show their complete support for this proposition they are circulating in western Canada a petition that is getting an almost 100 per cent sign-up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is not true.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not only is this program getting support amongst the farmers but step by step, as it is taken to other farm organizations, it is receiving support. From the largest farm organization in Canada, namely the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which met the other day in Saskatoon, there came a motion which was passed supporting the farmers' program, with one delegate voting against it.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am going to have to ask the hon. gentleman to come back to this item that is under discussion.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I do not suggest that in any way your ruling is incorrect or wrong. I merely point out something known by all hon. members in this house, namely that we have had a wide-ranging discussion this evening on all questions of agriculture policy and some questions that are not agriculture policy. I was answering those who had said that the program of deficiency payments was wrong and that this program was a better one than that of deficiency payments. I am hopeful that the government will take action to face this serious problem that faces western agriculture at this time and to learn what I am certain they will be able to learn-and I express that hope-from the delegation that comes here, namely that western Canada so far is thoroughly dissatisfied with the action of this government in so far as it affects the economic position of western grain producers, more particularly-


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Hazen Robert Argue: -in the light of the complete promise of the Prime Minister to provide parity prices.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall item 698 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: In asking the leader of the house for the business tomorrow I take it that he will proceed in the same manner as he had announced last night in dealing with the business announced on Friday. In any event I take it that it will be possible to carry on with this discussion tomorrow.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, we intend to
change the diet for tomorrow from wheat and fish. We will start out with item No. 2 on today's order paper, namely a resolution preceding an amendment to the National Housing Act. Then we shall take item No. 3, a resolution preceding an amendment to the Trans-Canada Highway Act; then item No. 8, a resolution to amend the Northwest Territories Act; then item No. 4, a resolution concerning the National Defence Act; and item No. 7, a resolution preceding a measure to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.


Lionel Chevrier: May I point out to the leader of the house that it has been customary to give us some indication of what is likely to happen the next day, and we did not get that indication as to what would take place on Friday, and again on Monday. We are prepared to go on with the supplementary estimates, but I must say that there are some of these things we are not prepared to go on with.


Howard Charles Green: I think that when I gave the order of business on the last occasion I mentioned the National Housing Act and also the Trans-Canada Highway Act, and if hon. members are not prepared to go on with the other items I have mentioned we would try to meet their wishes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very different from the courtesy you used to get.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You do not know what it means.


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

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


Mr. Bourgel: What was the cost of the operations carried out by icebreakers for the purpose of freeing the ocean liners ice-bound in the harbour of Montreal, during the months of December, 1958 and January, 1959?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
It is not possible to differentiate between the cost of operating icebreakers for the purpose of freeing ships icebound in the harbour of Montreal from that of maintaining a channel for the prevention of flooding at Montreal. The department normally uses at least three icebreakers for work above Quebec for this latter purpose, in any event, throughout the winter and a substantial proportion of these costs would have to be incurred anyway. Thus the costs attributable to freeing the ships cannot be segregated.
Furthermore, accounts are not all kept on a monthly basis and such items as repairs do not occur evenly throughout the year. However, the 1957-58 average monthly costs of operating the four ships directly involved
this year were:
d'Iberville	 $75,924.23
N.B. McLean	 57,822.70
Montcalm	 35,811.52
Ernest Lapointe	 29,299.60
The ships directly involved in the combined task of preventing flooding and releasing the deep-sea ships were actively engaged in this work during the following periods:
d'Iberville. Dec.	12	to	Jan.	15N.B. McLean	..	Dec.	16	to	Jan.	15Montcalm	
Dec.	27	to	Jan.	15Ernest Lapointe	Dec.	11	to	Jan.	15



T.V. SATELLITE UNITS, PRIVATE STATIONS

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	For what locations have licences been granted to privately owned T.V. stations for satellite units?
2.	For what locations have applications been received from privately owned T.V. stations for satellite units but either (a) denied; (b) still pending?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Penticton, B.C., Vernon, B.C., Kapuskas-ing, Ont., Elk Lake, Ont., Elliot Lake, Ont., Estcourt, P.Q., Yarmouth, N.S., Shelburne, N.S., Liverpool, N.S., Argentia, Nfld.
2.	(a) Inverness, N.S.; (b) Princeton, B.C., Clermont, P.Q., Inverness, N.S.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many times and in what years before 1958 did inspection engineers of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys use the powers given under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act (R.S. 1952; C. 95) section 6, subsection (a) "to enter upon and examine the mine from which the gold in respect of which the payment is to be made is produced" insofar as the following mines are concerned: Cochenour Willans Gold Mines Ltd.; Dome Mines Ltd.; Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd. (Hollinger); Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd. (Ross); Aunor Gold Mines Ltd.; Delnite Mines Ltd.; Kirkland Minerals Corporation Ltd.; Lake Shore Mines Ltd.; MacLeod-Cockshutt Gold Mines Ltd.; McIntyre Porcupine Mines Ltd.; McKenzie Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd.; New Dickenson Mines Ltd.; Pamour Porcupine Mines Ltd.; Pickle Crow Gold Mines Ltd.; Preston East Dome Mines Ltd.; Renabie Mines Ltd.; Sylvanite Gold Mines Ltd.; Teck-Hughes Gold Mines Ltd.; Upper Canada Mines Ltd.?
2.	On any of such kind of inspections were drawings and plans of the workings checked with the actual workings?
3.	If so, on what occasions?
Answer by:	Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister
of Mines and Technical Surveys):
1.	An inspection engineer from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys carried out an annual inspection, under the provisions of section 6 of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, of the mines listed, for each of the years from 1948 to 1957 inclusive. In general, the inspections did not include an examination of the underground workings.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.



TREE FRUIT IMPORTS


Mr. Houck: 1.	What efforts have been made to raise the standard of inspection of tree fruits at entry points from the United States to Canada?
2.	Have any recent instructions been issued to the inspection service?
3.	If so, what did the instructions consist of?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister
of Agriculture):
1.	In 1958 the standards for tree fruits being imported into Canada were amended by raising the minimum colour requirements for apples. This was done so that imports of United States apples and Canadian apples would conform to the same colour requirements. Certain other amendments were made in 1958 to the regulations under the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act which raised the import standards for United States asparagus and tomatoes. Amendments of this

Questions
kind are made from time to time after consultation with the growers and industry generally, to ensure that fruits and vegetables imported into Canada meet the same standards that apply to Canadian produce.
2.	No recent changes have been made in the instructions to the inspection service. However, fruit and vegetable inspectors across Canada are constantly on the alert to see that imports meet the requirements laid down in the regulations under the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act. This is a continuing procedure.
3.	Answered in 2.



WINTER EMPLOYMENT CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES, ONTARIO

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	How many district winter employment campaign committees have been set up in Ontario?
2.	What amount has been allotted by the unemployment insurance commission for each district?
3.	What will be the total allotment for Ontario?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	Winter employment campaign committees functioning in the province of Ontario on January 15 are as follows:
Regularly established local employment committees	 24
Ad hoc winter employment committees	 35
Ad hoc committees in process of
being formed	 2
Local campaigns conducted by national employment offices, without the support of above committees	 9
2 and 3. The unemployment insurance commission allotment to the national employment service offices in the Ontario region for publicizing the winter employment campaign is $7,500. All publicity material such as pamphlets, posters, streamers, film clips, etc. as well as national advertising through the press, radio and T.V. are paid for out of the Department of Labour appropriation. It is not possible to break down precisely the total expenditure on a provincial or local basis. However, the distribution of materials to the several unemployment insurance regions in the past years has generally corresponded to the distribution of the population, and on this basis total spent on promotion in Ontario would amount to about $99,000. In addition the Ontario share of the advertising in daily and weekly newspapers and on radio and television is approximately $60,000.



PERCENTAGE OF UNPLACED APPLICANTS

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	What is the percentage of unplaced applicants in relation to paid workers as at December 31, 1958, in the following Canadian communities:
Atlantic Region: Bathurst, Inverness, Newcastle, St. Stephen, Amherst, Springhill, Bridgewater, Charlottetown, Summerside, Moncton, Sussex, New Glasgow, Corner Brook, Yarmouth, Minto, Campbellton, St. John's, Woodstock, Edmundston, Truro, Kent-ville, Grand Falls, Liverpool, Fredericton, Sydney, Saint John, Halifax;
Quebec Region: New Richmond, Chandler, Caus-apscal, La Malbaie, Matane, Sorel, Louiseville, Rimouski, Alma, Port Alfred, Gaspe, Forestville, Megantic, Riviere du Loup, Ville St. Georges, Ste. Agathe, Maniwaki, Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, La Tuque, St. Jerome, Levis, Montmagny, Joliette, Mont Laurier, Shawinigan, Dolbeau, Farnham, Valleyfield, Three Rivers, Asbestos, Granby, Sept lies, Buckingham, Beauharnois, Drummondville, Sherbrooke, Lachute, Roberval, Magog, Jonquiere, St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, Ste. Therese, Rouyn, Chicoutimi, St. Jean, Val D'Or, Hull, Montreal, Ste. Anne de Bellevue;
Ontario Region:	Sturgeon Falls, Hawkesbury,
Midland, Picton, Perth, Napanee, Prescott, Colling-wood, Renfrew, Port Colborne, Leamington, Owen Sound, Arnprior, Bracebridge, Cornwall, Wallace-burg, Gananoque, Parry Sound, Sudbury, Carleton Place, North Bay, Orillia, Windsor, Trenton, Pembroke, Goderich, Chatham, Lindsay, Niagara Falls, Welland, Simcoe, Barrie, St. Catharines, Fort Erie, Belleville, Peterborough, Cobourg, Sarnia, Smiths Falls, Sault Ste. Marie, Brantford, Galt, Walkerton, Woodstock, Kirkland Lake, Hamilton, Kapuskasing, Timmins, Brampton, St. Thomas, Ingersoll, Listowel, Brockville, Kingston, London, Kitchener, Stratford, Toronto, Oshawa, Guelph, Newmarket, Oakville, Weston, Long Branch, Ottawa;
Prairie Region; Dauphin, Yorkton, Portage La Prairie, Port Arthur, Blairmore, Dawson Creek, The Pas, North Battleford, Prince Albert, Fort Frances, Lethbridge, Fort William, Weyburn, Estevan, Brandon, Saskatoon, Red Deer, Regina, Swift Current, Moose Jaw, Medicine Hat, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Edson, Kenora, Calgary, Sioux Lookout, Drum-heller. Flin Flon;
Pacific Region: Kelowna, Penticton, Mission City, Courtenay, Vernon, Chilliwack, New Westminster, Nanaimo, Duncan, Nelson, Prince Rupert, Princeton, Vancouver, Prince George, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Whitehorse, Trail, Victoria, Port Alberni, Kitimat?
2.	What is the percentage of unplaced applicants in relation to paid workers as at December 31, 1958, for the country as a whole?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	There are no monthly statistics available on paid workers in local communities across Canada. The number of persons registered for jobs at local national employment service offices serving the communities specified on December 31, 1958 are:
Atlantic Region
Bathurst	 5,797
Newcastle	 3,308
Amherst	 1,418
Bridgewater	 2,298
Summerside	 1,754
Sussex	 782
Corner Brook	 5,263

Questions
Atlantic Region-Concluded
Minto	 663
St. John's	 15,239
Edmundston	 2,325
Kentville	 3,216
Liverpool	 811
Sydney	 5,776
Halifax	 5,879
Inverness	 1,192
St. Stephen	 2,272
Springhill	 1,593
Charlottetown	 3,212
Moncton	 9,121
New Glasgow	 4,530
Yarmouth	 2,955
Campbell ton	 2,276
Woodstock	 1,647
Truro	 2,188
Grand Falls	 2,399
Fredericton	 2,145
Saint John	 3,253
Quebec Region
New Richmond	 2,604
Causapscal	 2,433
Matane	 3,500
Louiseville	 1,816
Alma	 2,784
Gaspe	 1,873
Megantic	 1,320
Ville St. Georges	 3,287
Maniwaki	 1,018
Thetford Mines	 2,619
St. Jerome	 2,520
Montmagny	 2,354
Mont Laurier	 981
Dolbeau	 1,315
Valleyfield	 3,348
Asbestos	 1,147
Sept lies	 1,887
Beauharnois	 1,799
Sherbrooke	 6,540
Roberval	 1,286
Jonquiere	 2,774
Quebec	 17,269
Rouyn	 2,876
St. Jean	 2,508
Hull	 4,534
St. Anne de Bellevue	 1,473
Chandler	 2,388
La Malbaie	 2,385
Sorel	 5,350
Rimouski	 4,782
Port Alfred	 1,138
Forestville	 2,260
Riviere du Loup	 5,219
Ste. Agathe	 1,345
Victoriaville	 3,326
La Tuque	 1,313
Levis	 5,300
Joliette	 5,517
Shawinigan	   6,198
Quebec Region-Concluded
Farnham	 2,136
Three Rivers	 7,877
Granby	 3,198
Buckingham	 1,314
Drummondville	 3,185
Lachute	 1,335
Magog	 929
St. Hyacinthe	 3,222
Ste. Therese	 3,261
Chicoutimi	 2,264
Val D'Or	 1,870
Montreal	 77,597
Ontario Region
Sturgeon Falls	 1,612
Midland	 1,655
Perth	 889
Prescott	 1,515
Renfrew	 1,023
Leamington	 1,644
Hawkesbury	 1,379
Picton	 775
Napanee	 936
Collingwood	 1,286
Port Colborne	 2,051
Owen Sound	 2,825
Arnprior	 738
Cornwall	 4,472
Gananoque	 505
Sudbury	 11,185
North Bay	 3,099
Windsor	 14,789
Pembroke	 2,356
Chatham	 3,182
Niagara Falls	 3,541
Simcoe	 1,688
St. Catharines	 5,500
Belleville	 2,188
Cobourg	 1,131
Smiths Falls	 698
Brantford	 3,099
Walkerton	 1,017
Kirkland Lake	 1,687
Kapuskasing	 791
Brampton	 1,477
Ingersoll	 999
Brockville	 849
London	 6,540
Stratford	 1,297
Oshawa	 4,003
Newmarket	 1,286
Weston	 3,447
Ottawa	 7,196
Bracebridge	 1,547
Wallaceburg	 910
Parry Sound	 773
Carleton Place	 545
Orillia	 1,449
Trenton	 1,377
Goderich	 940
Lindsay	 939
Welland	 3,214

Ontario Region-Concluded
Barrie	 1,446
Fort Erie	 897
Peterborough	 3,726
Sarnia	 3,104
Sault Ste. Marie	 3,034
Galt	 2,161
Woodstock	 1,264
Hamilton	 16,961
Timmins	 2,299
St. Thomas	 1,600
Listowel	 535
Kingston	 2,539
Kitchener	 4,349
Toronto	 53,448
Guelph	 1,900
Oakville	 879
Long Branch	 4,383
Prairie Region
Dauphin	 1,978
Portage La Prairie	 1,339
Blairmore	 792
The Pas	 445
Prince Albert	 2,530
Lethbridge	 3,173
Weyburn	 582
Brandon	 2,632
Red Deer	 1,325
Swift Current	 1,134
Medicine Hat	 1,323
Winnipeg	 19,523
Kenora	 919
Sioux Lookout	 279
Flin Flon	 320
Yorkton	 3,202
Port Arthur	 5,403
Dawson Creek	 1,506
North Battleford	 1,923
Fort Frances	 696
Fort William	 3,342
Estevan	 499
Saskatoon	 4,607
Regina	 5,438
Moose Jaw	 1,812
Edmonton	 15,055
Edson	 638
Calgary	 8,790
Drumheller	 421
Pacific Region
Kelowna	 2,044
Mission City	 1,600
Vernon	 2,830
New Westminster	 11,565
Duncan	 1,400
Prince Rupert	 2,131
Vancouver	 33,361
Kamloops	 1,942
Whitehorse	 629
Victoria	 4,981
Kitimat	 425
Penticton	 2,110
Questions Pacific Region-Concluded
Courtenay	 1,874
Chilliwack	 2,893
Nanaimo	 2,183
Nelson	 1,451
Princeton	 568
Prince George	 2,911
Cranbrook	 1,164
Trail	 1,266
Port Alberni	 1,020
2.	The percentage of persons registered for jobs at all national employment service offices across Canada to the total number of paid workers, as reported by the dominion bureau of statistics monthly labour force survey during the week ending December 13, 1958, the latest date such national figures are available, was 11.4 per cent.
The figures of paid workers include those with jobs and those without jobs and seeking work but do not include employers, own account workers and unpaid family workers all of whom are included in the total labour force figure.



MANUFACTURING PRODUCTIVITY PER EMPLOYEE

Mr. Murphy: 1.	In the manufacturing industry, which 20 cities in Canada have the highest manufacturing value in dollars per employee?
2.	What is the manufacturing value or productivity in dollars per employee for each said city?
3.	What is the average manufacturing value or productivity in dollars per worker in Canada?
Ansioer by. Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1 and 2.
Cities	Value added
per employee

Sarnia, Ont	 21,999
Beauharnois, P.Q	 11,671
Moose Jaw, Sask	 11,011
Shawinigan Falls, P.Q		10,874
Regina, Sask	 10,487
Waterloo, Ont	 10,241
Port Arthur, Ont	 9,287
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont		9,206
Port Alberni,	B.C	
8,338Fort William,	Ont	
8,280Hamilton, Ont	
7,842London, Ont	
7,808Jacques Cartier, P.Q	
7,509Niagara Falls,	Ont	
7,507Three Rivers,	P.Q	
7,470New Westminster, B.C	7,423Windsor, Ont	
7,362North Vancouver, B.C	7,296Kingston, Ont	
7,177Lachine, P.Q	
7,1533.	$6,941.
Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. Robichaud: What percentage of the labour force is without jobs and seeking work in (a) Canada; (b) Atlantic provinces; (c) Nova Scotia; (d) New Brunswick; (e) Prince Edward Island; (f) Newfoundland?
Answer by:	Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
(a) 7.2 per cent; (b) 14 per cent; (c) not available; (d) not available; (e) not available; (c) plus (d) plus (e) 10 per cent; (f) 27 per cent.
Note: These statistics are based on a sample of the population and where they relate to small areas such as Newfoundland, are subject to a relatively wide range of sampling variability and therefore should be interpreted with caution.



MARITIME PROVINCES LOBSTER FISHERIES


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What was the total number of convictions against lobster fishery regulations in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, for the years ending March 31, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958?
2.	What was the total number of convictions for the period April 1, to December 31, 1958?
3.	What was the total number of fines collected from convictions against lobster fishery regulations in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, for the years ending March 31, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958?
4.	What was the total amount of fines for the period April 1, to December 31, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):
1. Year Ending	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	TotalMar. 31, 1954..	. 69	150	215	4341955..	. 47	171	255	4731956..	. 57	167	222	4461957..	. 96	255	248	5991958..	. 54	272	124	450323	1,015	1,064	2,4022.	New Brunswick	
81Nova Scotia	190Prince Edward Island	1513. Year Ending	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	TotalMar. 31, 1954..	. 65	140	214	4191955..	. 46	160	236	4421956..	. 56	157	222	4351957. .	. 93	248	218	5591958..	. 52	270	119	441312	975	1,009	2,2964.	New Brunswick	$2,380.00Nova Scotia	
3,710.00Prince Edward Island	
3,835.98



$9,925.98 COAL PRODUCTION, NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Was there a decrease in the production of coal in Nova Scotia in 1958 as compared with 1957?
2.	If so, by what amount?
3.	Was there a decrease in the production of coal in New Brunswick in 1958 as compared with 1957?
4.	If so, by what amount?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Yes.
2.	431,034 short tons*.
3.	Yes.
4.	207,692 short tons*.
*Based on preliminary figures for 1958.



TOURIST EXPENDITURES, ABROAD AND IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 72*-Mr. Murphy:
1.	For each of the calendar years 1938, 1952 to 1958 inclusive (a) how much money was spent abroad by Canadian tourists? (b) In what countries was such money spent and how much was spent by Canadian tourists in each of such countries?
2.	For each of the calendar years 1938, 1952 to 1958 inclusive (a) How much money was spent in Canada by tourists from other countries? (b) What are the countries whose nationals spent such money and what were the respective total amounts spent by tourists from each of the said countries?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1 (a) and (b) Year	Total	($ millions) U.S.A. U.K. Other sterling	Other	All other1938	86	66	15	areas 2	European (-3	countries -)1952	341	294	27	5	13	21953	365	307	31	6	18	31954	389	320	35	7	23	41955	449	363	40	8	32	61956	498	391	46	8	41	121957	525	403	47	11	48	16A complete breakdown	of expenditures	by	overseas countries	is not available.	2 (a) and (b) Year	Total	U.S.A.	($ U.K.	millions) Other sterling	Questions Other	All other1938	149	134	8	areas 2	European (-5	countries -)1952	275	257	10	3	4	11953	302	282	12	3	4	11954	305	283	13	3	4	21955	328	303	13	4	5	31956	337	309	14	4	6	41957	363	325	18	5	10	5A complete breakdown of receipts by overseas countries is not available.

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did any pulpwood cross into Canada from the United States of America, and specifically to the province of Ontario, during the calendar years of 1957 and 1958?
2.	If so, what was the total cordage and the total value of such pulpwood?
3.	Was such pulpwood moved by Canadian or American carriers?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon ChuTchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Yes.
2.	Statistics of imports of pulpwood from the United States of America during the calendar year 1957, and the period January-October 1958 (latest available) are as follows:
Calendar year	January-October
1957	1958
Cords
Into Canada	 159,657
Into Ontario	 22,009
3.	Information on the nationality of carriers is not available.
(The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Science service administration-[DOT]
695.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and	equipment-further amount
required, $375,000.
Value	Cords	Value2,858,726	125,733	2,334,100352,306	25,909	456,737
Production service-
Health of animals-
696.	Compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $400,000.
Terminable services-
697.	Freight assistance on western feed grains- further amount required, $2,500,000.
698.	To provide for payments to western grain producers of $1.00 per acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $1,300,000.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 4, 1959