1959-05-01

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Speaker:: May I have leave of the house to table in English and in French the report of the first joint meeting of the group of congressmen, senators and members of the House of Representatives of the United States and of Canadian parliamentarians which was held in Washington on January 9 and 10 last, which group adopted the name "Canada-United States interparliamentary group". Hon. members are familiar in general with what took place, but this report is submitted on behalf of the Canadian group.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I suggest that this report be printed as an appendix to Hansard. I feel it is not out of the way for me to say that you and the Speaker of the Senate and the other hon. members of this committee in co-operation with the representatives of the United States government laid the foundations for a most effective organization for the extension of mutual knowledge and understanding between our countries. Because of the importance of this report I trust that the house will agree with the suggestions I make.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very appropriate suggestion that this report be printed as an appendix to Hansard, dealing as it does with the first meeting of a committee which we hope through its work will make an effective contribution to better relations between our two countries.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that this report be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of document above referred to, see appendix, pages 3272-4.]



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make a statement on "buy American" regulations. As a result of our discussions with United States authorities regarding production sharing, the United States government has now made important changes in its armed services procurement regulations. These changes relate to the application of the buy American act to United States defence purchases in Canada. Their effect will be to give Canadian defence industry a much greater opportunity to share in the production of military equipment for the United States armed forces.
Under the new regulations the three United States services have adopted a common approach, and Canadian businessmen will no longer need to keep themselves informed on three different interpretations of the buy American act.
The key provision of this new approach is that Canadian supplies which relate to specific programs of mutual interest to the two governments will be exempt from all the limitations which are normally imposed under the buy American act. Canadian proposals to supply these goods to the United States services will be accepted on the same basis as American bids, giving Canadian sources an equal opportunity with American sources to compete for these orders.
The programs and equipment to which this total exemption will apply are being identified by the United States services in close consultation with my own officials. They will be designated in lists which will be issued by each of the services individually. It is our expectation that these lists will encompass such a wide range of items that Canadian defence industry will find ample scope to participate. These lists will be kept open, and it is the intention that they should be modified from time to time on the basis of continuing consultation.
Canadian manufacturers who are interested in supplying products which are not on the exempt lists will also find their opportunities improved under the new regulations. Canadian tenders or proposals to supply such goods have usually, in the past, been subject to the addition of several percentage differentials in the comparison of bids. Henceforth only the United States tariff will be added to a Canadian bid where non-exempt items are involved.
A third feature of the new regulations is that the total exemption from the buy American restrictions Will also apply to any component parts of the equipment included in

Defence Production
the exempt lists. This means that Canadian manufactures of such components, including a large number of our smaller industries, may find opportunities for taking part in these programs regardless of whether the prime contracts are awarded to Canadian or American firms. Canadian manufacturers of components may in fact find opportunities for sales to United States contractors even outside the range of exempt equipment. Under the regulations any United States defence contractor supplying non-exempt goods may buy up to 50 per cent of the material content of those goods from Canada and still enjoy the status of a domestic source.
I regard these new regulations as further evidence of the growing co-operation between Canada and the United States in defence production sharing, and welcome the promise they give of a greater share for Canadian defence industry in programs designed for our common defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the house will have listened with great interest to the statement made by the minister, and will hope that the changes which have been made in the regulations will work out in practice so that Canadian industry will be able to share in the production of military equipment for the United States armed forces, as I understand from the minister is intended. Perhaps this statement may serve to remove some of the anxiety created by certain statements from Washington by members of the administration there, that this sharing was to take place only in respect of the production of military equipment for use by United States armed forces in Canada.
Perhaps I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that this change underlines the desirability of following up these matters in Washington through appropriate agencies of the Canadian government there. The minister will no doubt recall that in former years there was a special office for the purpose attached to the Canadian embassy, I think, in Washington, and this change underlines the importance of facilities of that kind in Washington which can be of great assistance to Canadian industry.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, any move that will bring about an increased proportion of defence production orders for Canadian firms is, of course, welcome. The value of the changes that have been made will be known only in the course of time. Whether or not Canadian firms, being much smaller than United States firms, will in fact be able to compete on an equal basis is something that we shall have to determine in the light of events in the future. We

would prefer some general arrangement whereby Canadian industries would be assured a proportionate share of production orders, and we hope that the relaxation of these restrictions will lead to that end.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. The minister told us this morning that the exemptions from the buy American act would apply to specific requirements of mutual interest to the two governments. My question is this. Who will determine which projects are of mutual interest to the two governments?


Donat Raymond: As I said in the statement, Mr. Speaker, members of the defence department in the United States with officials of my department.



PENITENTIARY ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-42, to amend the Penitentiary Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the relevant section of the Penitentiary Act that the bill seeks to amend is subsection 4 of section 66, which says that every inmate "shall, except in case of sickness, be kept in a cell by himself at night." There is no provision in the act to vary this arrangement, but for quite a number of years now the arrangement has been varied and dormitories have been in use in our penitentiaries. The amendment merely seeks to give the minister and the commissioner of penitentiaries statutory authority to do what they have been doing for the past number of years.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INQUIRY AS TO LIMITATIONS ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat a question which I asked the Prime Minister yesterday and which no doubt he then took as notice. In the discussions leading up to the removal of restrictions on imports of Canadian oil into the United States have any undertakings, formal or informal, been

given by the Canadian government that would in any way limit Canada's freedom of action in regard to the importation of oil from Venezuela and the movement of oil from western Canada to eastern markets in the future?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is a simple negative; no.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and I certainly apologize for sending him notice late. That was occasioned by my attending two steering committees and the inspiration coming somewhat late in the morning. In view of the reported remarks of the Prime Minister in the Gazette of April 30 when replying to the brief on human rights presented by the association for civil liberties and 33 national and regional organizations, which report reads as follows:
He said those who are "loud in their protestations" for a constitutional amendment belong to "the group" who never brought before parliament the United Nations declaration of human rights between 1948, when it was adopted, and 1957.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I raise this point of order hoping for some assistance as to whether it is regular to ask a question of this kind on a matter which is on the order paper for debate in the near future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, you misunderstood my question. That is not it at all. In view of the Prime Minister's 1948 criticism of the former Liberal government and its failure to bring the United Nations declaration of human rights before parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -would the Prime Minister inform the house when he intends to remedy his long-standing grievance in this respect?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the bill of rights legislation is before the house the whole question can be discussed, and I think the answer will then be apparent.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Prime Minister, notice of which was sent to him earlier. Will the Prime Minister tell the house if any further meetings have been arranged between the government and representatives of the western farm delegation that came to Ottawa on March 10 last? If not, can the Prime Minister say why not and, if so, can the Prime Minister indicate when such a meeting will be held and what is the intended purpose of the meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the liaison committee of the various organizations which were joined together in the representations made here some time ago has been in touch with the government in order to have another meeting with representatives of that committee to consider further the views then expressed, and to discuss certain other matters of interest to western agriculture. It has now been agreed that the government will meet with these representatives on Tuesday, May 26.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether the proposals made in the original brief presented on March 11 are still under consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the liaison committee intends to discuss certain questions that were raised at that time when it meets with the government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that, after a long time, the innocuous white paper has now been filed, can he inform us when his estimates are coming before this house?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my estimates will be brought before the house at a time which is convenient to the leader of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the leader of the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question should originally have been addressed to the leader of the house. If he wants to repeat it I daresay he will get the same answer.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, that shows the ineptitude of the government. May I now address my question to the leader of the house. In view of the fact that the white

Inquiries of the Ministry paper on defence has now been filed, is the house leader in a position to inform us as to when he anticipates calling the estimates of that department?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, a good deal depends on how many speeches the hon. member makes in the next few days.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: With increased travel from Vancouver to United States points, can the Minister of National Revenue say whether arrangements have been made to provide additional customs service at Boundary Bay during the summer months? I understand that the office at this point is closed late in the evening at the present time.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member and others have spoken to me about this matter. We discussed it last week, and I can tell him that as a result of these discussions and discussions with officials of the department, arrangements have been made to have the office open on the highway at Boundary Bay from May 15 to September 15 on a 24-hour basis. The office at the Bay itself will be operated during the usual hours and will close at eleven o'clock.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: May I
ask the Minister of Labour if he can now tell the house what decision the government has reached with regard to the proposals made by the united automobile workers urging the government to enter into discussions with the Canadian automobile industry for the purpose of seeing whether or not it is disposed to manufacture small cars in Canada rather than in another country, thereby giving additional work to Canadian workmen?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No decision on this matter has as yet been reached.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope it will soon be reached.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: On April 23, over a week ago, I asked the Prime Minister how soon he hoped to be in a position to comply with an order of the house asking for certain communications which have been addressed to him with respect to the mounted police in Newfoundland. At that time the Prime Minister said:
I shall certainly have that looked into, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if the Prime Minister can now indicate when the return can be expected.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry I cannot answer definitely. Just as soon as the hon. member brought this to my attention I asked for immediate action. I must say I expected that by this time these communications would have been available. I will make another try.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Justice about a similar order to which he was asked to make a return?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman will appreciate that there was a great deal of correspondence about this matter, both unfavourable and favourable, and the reproduction of the correspondence with the limited staff available in the minister's office will take an appreciable time. We are doing our best to comply with the order of the house at the earliest possible moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, sir, the motion asks only for the protests-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and while no doubt the hon. gentleman would like to produce other correspondence, I suggest he comply with the order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point of order has not arisen as yet.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
10. Agricultural Stabilization Act administration, $103,710.
Hazen Robert Argue: Vote No. 10 is for the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I have had produced for me some statistics as to the quantity of agricultural products being held by the

board under this act. I am wondering if the minister could produce for the committee the quantities of various products that are presently being held by the board. There are some very substantial quantities, representing some $70 million or thereabouts as at the end of December. I wonder if the minister has some up to date figures, and whether he could tell the committee just what position the board is taking so far as the disposal of these various products is concerned.


Mr. Harkness:: The latest figures I have in my folder are those I had for the information of the committee some three weeks ago. This particular return was dated April 6, and as of that time the amounts of commodities held by the board were as follows: butter, 50,400,000 pounds; dry skim milk, 64,010,000; eggs, in shell, 154,000 cases; B.C. tomatoes, 86,000 cases; raspberries, B.C., frozen, 2,900,000 pounds; raspberries, B.C., in SOo, 291,000 pounds; hogs, pork cuts, 48,100,000 pounds.


Hazen Robert Argue: There seems to have been a huge increase in the quantity of shell eggs on hand as compared with December 31. The record I have for December 31, 1958, shows the board held 3,108 cases of shell eggs at that date. The minister now says the quantity has risen to 154,000 cases. I wonder if he could give us the quantity of shell eggs held by the board a year ago? In other words, could he give us some idea whether or not this is an abnormal quantity which is being held at this time?
The quantity of pork products on hand on December 31, 1958, was 8,405,251 pounds. If I understand the minister correctly the quantity on hand today is in excess of 48 million pounds, an increase of six times in a period of a very few months. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the reason for this tremendous accumulation of pork products, and say whether this is the reason the government is changing its buying supports. Does the government feel that the board has now on hand an unumanageable quantitiy of pork products; can he explain whether this quantity of 48 million pounds may be increased in the near future, and can he also tell the committee what method the government intends to adopt in order to dispose of it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as eggs are concerned, we have just in the last month or a little longer come into the heavy production season. This is the period of the year during which we are taking the surplus oil the market and when we are required to buy eggs. During the fall and winter months production is, of course, down, and we are not required to buy, in normal circumstances 66968-9-205
Supply-Agriculture
at least. As far as a comparison with last year is concerned, egg production has increased quite materially. We have not the figures showing by what percentage production has increased this year over last year, but it is up by a considerable amount. Thus we have been buying more eggs this year than we were buying last year.
As far as pork cuts are concerned, the hon. member is aware, of course, that during recent months we have had the heaviest run of hogs on the Canadian market that we have ever had in peacetime, almost as high as we had during the war, in 1944, when the raising of hogs was being encouraged by every means possible in order to produce food for Britain and help the war effort. The result of this extremely heavy run of hogs has been a great deal more pork coming on the market than the market could absorb, and thus we have been obliged during recent weeks to buy heavily in order to maintain the support price of $25 a hundred. The run will now, of course, begin to slow down, and during July and August we should be able to dispose of some of the pork we now hold.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister could comment on the quantity of eggs which the board now holds and say whether it poses great difficulties for the board. The floor prices on eggs, in my opinion are very low, particularly when the producer is a long distance from the central markets, and when farmers are unable to take their eggs directly to a candling station the prices paid to producers are very low. As a consumer, during the session in Ottawa I find that grade A large are usually between 55 cents and 60 cents a dozen. However, the farmers in my constituency are selling fresh ungraded eggs at between 18 cents and 20 cents a dozen. There certainly seems to be something wrong with our whole pricing and transportation policy when the producers in one area are getting only 18 cents a dozen and the consumers in another are paying three times that sum.
I hope that at the very least the government will maintain the floor price on eggs. We are seeing a very substantial erosion of the floor prices under this act as is clear from recent announcements. The trend now seems to be toward lower support prices, and I should appreciate any assurance the minister can give me that the surplus of eggs on hand is not unmanageable and that at least for the next 12 months, or for a given period, the present floor price will be the minimum.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the hon. member is well aware, I am not in a position to give any assurance of the kind he has just mentioned. When the support price on eggs is decided it will be announced in the house, and that

Supply-Agriculture
will be in a week or so. As I say, I am not in a position to announce it now. I may say that the advisory committee to the stabilization board met yesterday and is meeting again today, and eggs happen to be one of the things they are considering and with regard to which we will be getting their advice. That will be today, I imagine.
The price for the coming year will be announced in the house some time next week, I expect, or at least in the week following.
In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Assiniboia made a statement which I think can only mislead the poultry industry. I am not saying he intended to do that, but that could be the only possible result. I am referring to his statement that there must be something wrong with the system when producers are getting 18 cents a dozen and consumers are paying 50 cents a dozen.
The main thing to remember is that these are not the same eggs, not the same graded eggs. The producer in Saskatchewan is getting 30 cents a dozen for his grade A large eggs, and we are buying those eggs in Montreal and Toronto, packed in wooden cases and so forth at 44 cents a dozen, with appropriate differentials on account of freight to other points. In any event, the producer of these large eggs is getting 30 cents a dozen, and these eggs are selling, as the hon. member mentioned with regard to his experience in Ottawa, at prices from 50 cents to 55 cents a dozen.
Those are grade A large eggs. The eggs which are sold in Saskatchewan at 18 cents a dozen are ungraded, as the hon. member said, and in a very large number of cases they contain a considerable proportion of grade B eggs, cracked eggs and so on I might add that for grade B eggs there is, in effect, no real market in Canada; the producers have to take more or less what anybody will give them. Bakers buy them for use in bakery products, but there is really no market which will give any return for them.
In Saskatchewan, unfortunately, the proportion of eggs which meet grade A standards is very small in comparison with other provinces. I do not have the exact figures here but I know, speaking from memory, that in the eastern provinces grade A eggs constitute 90 per cent and upwards of the total production whereas in Saskatchewan they run at 50 per cent and in some cases at only 25 per cent. Therefore the people who deliver eggs of poor quality really have no right to complain when they do not receive grade A large prices, because they are producing a different grade of egg altogether.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could say what regulations are in effect to assure the producer that he is being

paid a price based on an accurate grade. I have seen in the newspapers instances where people in western Canada have purchased eggs out of the packing company warehouse, and for example cases of grade A eggs have been resold to the very same company and the majority of eggs have been graded as B, C or rots.
I have often said this and I repeat it now; that no matter what criticism one makes from time to time of our method of handling grain there is at least a good grading system and the producer has some protection. What protection is there for the egg producer when he ships a case of eggs? Where is the assurance that he is not being deprived of a price for his eggs based on the minister's floor price because his eggs have been undergraded? Is there any policing arrangement? Are there inspectors to make certain not just that the board buys eggs of the proper grade but that the producer is given an accurate grade and is paid whatever price there may be, low as it is?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we have inspectors who inspect regularly all of the egg grading stations in Canada. Very seldom do they find that eggs are being improperly graded. Of course there are bound to be some cases where eggs have been improperly graded just as there are cases where people complain that their wheat has been improperly graded, and so on. The number of cases that our inspectors find in which eggs are being improperly graded is very small.
We have had complaints along the line the hon. member mentioned. I have had several people write and tell me that this is what happened. However, I have yet to receive what you might call conclusive proof adduced in connection with this matter though, as I said, there is no question but that mistakes are bound to be made sometimes. At a particular egg grading station eggs might be consistently undergraded for a time, but our inspectors inspect regularly and find very few cases of this type.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, when an egg buying firm undergrades eggs, does it break any Canadian law? Could the minister reply to my question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Hazen Robert Argue: What law?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The provincial grading
legislation and our federal Agricultural Products Standards Act.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has there ever been a prosecution under the federal standards act for the improper grading of eggs and, if so, when?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am informed that action would be taken under the provincial statute.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is the trouble, you see. The taxpayers of this country put up the money to keep a floor price under eggs and this government is doing what the former government did in this field and about which the Conservative members criticized them most strongly namely providing a floor price to the packers rather than to the producers of eggs. Under the policy of this government the packing companies in some instances, I would suggest on the face of the minister's statement, are undergrading eggs. These companies are underwritten by the taxpayers, and the producer has no recourse under any federal statute. He cannot claim against the packer who is beating and gypping him as far as egg grades are concerned.


Mr. Lambert:: That is a serious accusation.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not a serious accusation but a statement of fact. I have had many businessmen in our communities bring to me local receipts which showed that a very insignificant percentage of eggs are being graded A, a ridiculously low percentage. While there may be producers of eggs who are not as careful as they should be and who do not produce anywhere near the 90 per cent of grade A eggs which the minister says are produced in the province of Ontario, nevertheless I do not believe that when a local dealer is handling hundreds upon hundreds of cases of eggs there could possibly be an almost absence of grade A eggs. As the minister has stated, there is no recourse under the law by which the producer can make a claim for proper egg grading and proper prices.
I brought to the minister's attention on a previous occasion the alleged combine by the western egg producers' association. I was pleased that steps were taken at least with respect to grade A extra large eggs to provide that the packers should pay on any eggs that are graded A extra large the support price that was intended. I hope the minister, instead of taking offence at what I have been saying, will look into the question and see whether or not penalties could be provided under the stabilization act or some other legislation that would assure that the floors that are paid from the national treasury result in fair prices being paid to the producers.
This kind of situation does not apply to grain. A farmer may believe that the grade he receives is wrong. He has the right to send a sample to the board of grain commissioners which will give him the correct grade, and it is the obligation of the elevator 66968-9-2051
Supply-Agriculture
companies to buy the grain at the official grade set by the board. There should be some kind of tribunal or board to which farmers could send their eggs in cases of dispute for a proper and official grading. I am convinced that if this were available to the producer of eggs the companies that I suspect are undergrading eggs in many instances would give the producer an accurate grade.
Not only do we have an interest as members of parliament in seeing that people are paid on the basis of accurate grades, but we have a second interest in seeing that the floor price legislation under which certain federal moneys are paid results in the greatest possible benefit to the producer and not to any organization that is buying and selling eggs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think there is any real difficulty as far as I have been able to determine with respect to the grading of eggs. What the hon. member has just been asking should be available and in effect is available. If a producer is not satisfied with the grade he is getting on his eggs he may call on our inspector. Our inspector will check those eggs and how they are graded on a regular basis at the request of the producer. While there may have been a few cases of this sort I believe they are few. Those who offend are prosecuted under the standards act and under the provincial legislation. Our inspectors also act as inspectors under the provincial legislation. If they find contraventions they report to the attorney general of the province concerned.
The things the hon. member has requested already exist in large part in effect. In addition the farmers of western Canada who make these complaints have it within their own hands to a very large extent to ensure that they get reasonable treatment by changing the management of their own farm cooperatives, because the great bulk of the eggs in western Canada are handled by the co-operatives, and if the farmers who deal with them and who belong to them are not satisfied with the way in which their eggs are being graded by these co-operatives what they should do is change the management.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now that the minister has his officials in front of him I would like to get from him the percentage of eggs purchased from co-operatives in the prairie provinces as compared with the percentage of eggs purchased from non-co-operatives.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have not the exact figures here, but my officials tell me that it would be at least 60 per cent.

Sup p ly

A griculture


Paul Joseph James Martin: About 60 per cent comes from commercial units; is that not the situation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Sixty per cent is handled by those co-operatives.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. I have here a statement by Mr. Pearsall in a speech which he delivered before the dairy council on September 30 in which he said, speaking of the difficulties of establishing floor prices, "admitting of course that the cost of production is an important factor in establishing such prices". Then he goes to say that this is not the only criteria and he observes at least 60 per cent of Canadian eggs come from commercial units.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, but that is for Canada as a whole. We are talking about the prairie provinces, where the bulk of the eggs is handled by farmers' co-operatives.


Hazen Robert Argue: I hope the officials, either through the minister or privately, can give me the exact proportion of eggs which are handled by the various co-operatives.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall be glad to have the officials assemble the information and send it to the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister. I do not think it is an answer, though, to say that the farmers have it in their own hands to support their co-operatives or to change their management if they are not satisfied with what is being done. Co-operatives serve a very useful purpose, but a co-operative organization is not a substitute for a general system of fair grades outlined in a federal statute and enforced by federal law. We would not be happy at all as producers on the prairies if we had to depend entirely for our grades on the fact that we have one of the best co-operative marketing organizations in the world. Because those organizations are composed of human beings, they have their difficulties, and there are many disputes between agents of co-operatives and the producers who own the co-operatives.
What we need is a system of grades that is properly enforced. The minister can give all the excuses he likes about there not being any system of grades and that these eggs are sold on an ungraded basis, and he can say that the producers on the prairies and the producers in Saskatchewan have not the facilities and the trained personnel and perhaps do not take the same care as producers of eggs in some other provinces do. But I think it is something of a disgrace to our system of handling eggs in this country that producers are in fact paid 18 cents a dozen for what are very good eggs and the consumer

has to pay 55 cents or 60 cents a dozen in other parts of Canada. There are many people living in the cities on the prairies who will travel 50 or 100 miles to buy the ungraded eggs to which the minister and I have referred in order to make the great saving that exists between the price paid to the producer and the price paid by the consumer.
The minister has said that the quantity of hogs coming on the market in Canada is larger now than at any time during the war.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I did not say that. I said it was larger than at any time in peace time, and was getting up toward being as high as in the very high delivery period in 1944, during the war.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think that is what I said.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, you said that I said it was higher than during the war.


Hazen Robert Argue: No. I withdraw that; it is not what I meant to say.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is what you did say.


Hazen Robert Argue: I meant to say it was higher than at any time since the peak during the war. The minister now says it is the highest of any marketing during peacetime. The legislation under which hog prices are supported is an act to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities. Section 2, subparagraph (i) outlines the various commodities as follows:
2. (1) In this act,
(a) "agricultural commodity" means
(i) any of the following commodities produced in Canada, namely, cattle, hogs and sheep; butter, cheese and eggs; and wheat, oats and barley not produced in the designated area as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act; hereinafter called "named commodity";
Section 8 of the act outlines how the base price will be established. It reads as follows:
(1)	In each year the board shall establish the base price for each agricultural commodity, or the grade, quality, variety, class, type or form thereof, the price of which is to be stabilized under this act.
(2)	The base price of an agricultural commodity shall be the average price at representative markets as determined by the board for the 10 years immediately preceding the year in which the base price is established.
My point is this. The minister has decided that the guaranteed price for hogs shall come down to the minimum provided in this act beginning October 1. The government has further decided that this price shall be guaranteed to the producers by using the technique of deficiency payments. The matter I wish to draw to the minister's attention is that part of his statement wherein he said



I. 1959

[Stage Direction]
that very large commercial producers of hogs would not be guaranteed this floor price under the act. The minister is going to define as very large corporations, I take it, something we ordinarily call vertical integration.
I am not disagreeing with the policy-I want to make that clear-as far as removing any guarantee to huge corporations that may be producing hogs is concerned; but from a reading of the act it would seem to me that this would require a change or an amendment to the act before it could be done. As I read the act-and I am asking the minister for his comments; I am not a legal expert and I may be in error in my reading of the act-it says that there are certain named commodities for which floor prices shall always be guaranteed. There are nine of them. One of the main commodities is hogs.
Further on the act sets out how these floor prices shall be established. They are established by a particular formula, and the minister has said that by applying that formula the guaranteed price will be $23.65 per hundredweight, basis Toronto and Montreal. My point is this. If under the act a particular commodity has to be guaranteed, and if under the act it is to be guaranteed at a certain price, is it not beyond the power of the minister and the government under the act as it now stands to withhold that guaranteed price from certain producers for certain reasons?
I would like some comment from the minister. I would think a better way to do it than by regulation, if that is a legal way, would be to have a proper amendment to the act. As I said, I do not object to the general principle the minister outlined in his statement on future policy, but I am wondering whether or not this act will require an amendment in order for it to be done legally under it.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I had the same doubts in my mind as to whether or not this could be done under the act, so I referred the matter to the Department of Justice. I have received opinions that it is possible to do this under the act as it stands. However, I have referred the matter to justice again to make absolutely sure that this is the case. If there is any question from the legal point of view with regard to the power to do this under the act as it stands I will, of course, bring in an amendment to the act, but the advice I have had so far is that this can be done under the act as it stands.


Hazen Robert Argue: What worries me about this particular point is that if it is considered to be legal by the Department of Justice then it will be left in the hands of the minister, the department and the board to decide on
Supply-Agriculture
what quantities the guaranteed prices set forth in the act will be paid. There may not be any argument raised in the house when the minister decides the formula on which the floor prices will be paid and the people who are to be excluded, but if the principle is established that the department can remove any particular quantity of agricultural products from the mandatory provisions of the act does that not leave a gaping hole in the act, and may it not lead to the removal of the very guarantees that we expected the act to provide?
I do not know what the minister intends to do, and I am certain he will not do what I am about to suggest because I have more faith in him than to think he would. But let us suppose that at some time a minister of agriculture and the department should say, "We will not pay the floor price to any producer who sells more than 50 hogs." For all practical purposes, except to the extent of a tiny relief payment, the basic guarantees of the act would then have been removed. In my opinion the language of the act is clear that nine commodities shall be guaranteed, and that the floors under these commodities shall be guaranteed by means of a certain formula.
I do not know whether the provisions of the act allow the department to remove certain quantities of these products from the application of the act, but I would think the Department of Justice would be taking a cautious and correct view if it said that the named commodities in the act must stand, that the floor prices set forth in the act must stand, and that any changes for the purpose of restricting payments to certain organizations or people should be made by amendment of the act which would bring before the House of Commons the exact policy the government has in mind.
I will be the first to support any amendment which will remove from the provisions of the act the big packing companies that may be going into the production of hogs and the corporations that are going into farming, but I will oppose any amendment to the act that does not allow a bona fide farmer operating a family farm unit to engage exclusively in the production of hogs and have his full production as an individual producer guaranteed under the act. The vertical integration that is taking place in this country is bringing about a collectivization of Canadian agriculture that could be just as bad as the collective farms in the Soviet union as far as the restriction of the freedom of individual producers is concerned.


Mr. Bigg:: We are glad to hear that.


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend says he is glad to hear that. I am not glad to have to say it because-

Supply-Agriculture


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: What about your remarks about Soviet Russia?


Hazen Robert Argue: Whenever my hon. friend agrees with me I appreciate his support, but I do not think that having our agricultural production in huge units and making hired employees out of people who would ordinarily be farmers will help the person who is a hired employee or help the consumers of this country. The people who complain about paying support prices to the agricultural producers, the people who say they are handouts, that they are give-aways and that we should stop subsidizing inefficient farms and producers, should bear in mind that under existing conditions consumers are getting food at relatively low prices so far as the return to the producer is concerned. The time when consumers will be forced to pay fantastic prices will be, if it is allowed, when vertical integration takes place and the great monopolies and big chain food stores have corralled the production facilities and extended their growing monopoly of the retail business to agricultural production. At that time the prices of food will go through the roof.
I have seen agricultural producers operating their businesses. I have seen big units trying to operate in the production of food. I have seen the huge retail chain stores with their tremendous parking lots and other facilities, and I am convinced that if the individual proprietor is efficient and is given a chance, if he is not elbowed out of existence, he will compete successfully with these giant corporations at every turn. I think the individual unit is the most efficient. I appreciate that the minister has referred this matter to the Department of Justice, and I hope the government and the Department of Justice will have a very careful look at the act and will not make any decision that will provide an escape hatch whereby the basic floor prices under the act can be taken away from those producers who, when the act was originally introduced, we were told deserved protection.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I
do not intend to take much time on this item. We have just listened to a great blast on agriculture in general and the stabilization act in particular. I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia and have tried to follow his line of reasoning, but the only conclusion I can come to is that he was throwing a bunch of figures and facts in the air and trying to create the biggest muddle, the biggest jumble, he could for those who are trying to administer the act and provide some concrete benefits under it for the small farmers in particular.

On the one hand he stated that he does not want to see any support given to those producers who are taking any part in vertical integration. I gather that under no circumstances does he want to see them supported. Yet he has stated that he does not want to see any limit placed on the number of hogs.


Hazen Robert Argue: From an individual producer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He has not suggested what the number of hogs should be or given the minister any advice as to what the limit should be on the number of hogs with respect to which the support price should be paid. He has not said that because he does not want to help anybody in bringing about beneficial legislation. He has stated, and this came as a surprise to me, that he has a deadly fear of the farms in western Canada turning into nothing more than collective farms. This has surprised me, coming from a C.C.F. member, because such a statement is a far cry from the Regina manifesto, as I understand it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, go soak your head.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As I said, the hon.
member has offered no solutions to the problem. He has just thrown out a bunch of figures and tried to muddle the issue. I sincerely hope that too much weight will not be given to his remarks because, as I have said, he reached no conclusions; he tried to benefit no one, and just left himself in a position from which he could attack anybody or anything.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to be as brief as possible, but I do want to say a few words in connection with the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) at the close of last Friday's debate.
Speaking of agriculture in the province of Quebec in particular-since he was answering my questions-the Minister of Agriculture said:
If I may say a word with regard to this question of putting price supports under poultry, particularly broiler chicks in which, I think, the hon. member is particularly interested, I would point out that this is just not a practical possibility. I do not look upon the production of these broilers as a real farm operation, because it is really a factory operation. It does not require a farm. It does not require even a rural atmosphere. It can be carried on in the middle of a city. A man puts up a building, buys several thousand chicks and then feeds them up to three and a half pounds or so. Along those lines he can turn out birds by the thousand every week. It is not a farm operation at all; it is a production line operation, and because practically no ground is required it is the type of operation which can lead to almost unlimited production.

This statement by the Minister of Agriculture about the Canadian poultry industry, especially in eastern Canada since the broiler industry is centered chiefly in Ontario and Quebec, which accounts for more than 50 per cent of the whole Canadian production, -is illogical.
It was a bit of a shock to me to hear the Minister of Agriculture make such a statement, in the wake of what has been said by economists and people interested in Quebec farming. I was shocked, and that is why, in stating the case for Quebec farmers, I want to say that the poultry industry of that province, as indeed in Ontario, is a sector of family farm activity. If the Quebec poultry industry is destroyed, part of the farmers engaged in that industry will be wiped out.
On family farms, there are various types of production and poultry raising is a very valuable branch of it, because it can be left in the care of the farm youngsters or even the farmer's wife. However, under present conditions, it can be said that poultry raising has practically disappeared from family farms, because the trend is to integration. Protection is being afforded not to the farmers, but to integrators, as I said last week, and as the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has just said again today. However, Quebec farmers do not take the same view of the problem as the Minister of Agriculture. So on September 11, 1958, a farm delegation called on the minister to tell him of the plight of the poultry industry, and in its brief, it was stated that Canada had imported three million pounds of poultry from the United States, with a consequent drop in the price of poultry.
The brief further stated that the price of poultry, which was 24 cents a pound in June 1958, was down to 20 cents a pound in early September, because of larger imports of U.S. poultry. That was why farmers submitted a brief to the department, asking for greater protection for Canadian poultry producers and for a review of the customs tariff. In any case, the delegation recognized that it was difficult to change our customs tariff without inviting reprisals on the part of the United States. In the same brief, the farmers made the following suggestions to the hon. minister:
In the meantime, as an emergency measure, we would suggest that you place temporary restrictions on U.S. import of chicken, with a floor price
Supply-Agriculture
of about 16 cents a pound (live weight). A price of 16 cents would not be such as to encourage production, nor would it force the Canadian government to buy considerable quantities of chickens to take care of the possible surplus production.
On the other hand, we are convinced that control on imports of chicken, similar to that which exists at present with regard to turkey meat, would result in no scarcity of chicken which might be detrimental to consumers, since for the forthcoming months, at least, production will surely be sufficient to meet market requirements.
Mr. Chairman, I think this request by farmers was quite logical. They were asking for a control on chicken imports, similar to that on turkey imports.
Fairly recently, on February 11, 1959, the farmers of my constituency-and I know that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has received many requests from farmers making representations similar to those made by the delegation which came to Ottawa on September 11, 1958-have asked for a tariff revision, as well as for the establishment of a control on imports of poultry meat.
It seems to me that the latter request is quite justified because last year we imported 6.2 million pounds of chicken, large and small, compared to 1.4 million pounds in 1957, that is five times more than the previous year. Those massive imports have caused an alarming drop in prices of Canadian chicken. They contributed to a 100 per cent increase of stocks on January 1 as compared to the previous year. This, to my mind, is bound to ruin Canadian chicken farmers, and particularly broiler producers.
Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) when he says that our regulations or statutes should contain a section preventing packers and the large feed manufacturers to engage in the production of either poultry, eggs or hogs. I am pleased, on this occasion, to commend the Minister of Agriculture for having amended his policy regarding the stabilization of pork prices by preventing integrators to benefit from its advantages in the future.
If we do not change our laws in respect of poultry price regulations I am convinced that a good many of our farmers, whose family life depends on that industry, will be obliged to leave their homes within a few years from now. On the other hand, if we pass legislation to protect that industry, I am certain that the hon. minister's efforts in this direction will be appreciated and we, on this side of the house, shall be happy to commend him.

Supply-Agriculture
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is misinformed when he says that poultry raising is primarily a family farm business in Quebec. We had some survey made in connection with this business of raising poultry, particularly raising broilers, which is the big business as far as raising chickens is concerned at the present time. We discovered that something over 90 per cent of all these chickens produced are produced under controlled or integrated farming arrangements. That is the reason I have no intention whatever of putting a support under broiler chickens. Just about 90 per cent of the production is on a contract basis or a vertical integration basis. This is one industry in Canada in which vertical integration and contract farming combined have almost completely taken over the industry. There is therefore no justification, in my opinion, for a support price for these broiler chickens.
As far as the imports are concerned, they are so small in comparison to our total production that they could not possibly have any material effect on the price. The reason the price of broiler chickens, fowl and poultry generally is away down from what it was is that in spite of repeated warnings, the producers have produced far more than the market will absorb. The importation is down actually. The importation is not up on poultry of all kinds; it is down. In 1956 the importation of poultry from the United States amounted to 22 million pounds; in 1957 it was 12,270,000 pounds; in 1958 it was 12,045,000 pounds. It is true that the importation of broiler chickens last year was 6,102,000 pounds as compared with 1,313,000 pounds in 1957. However for other types of poultry the figures were down materially from those of the year before.
Therefore as to poultry imports on the whole-and you must take the whole picture; you just cannot take broiler chickens; you must take all the types of poultry which are dealt in or traded in-if you take them all together, as I say, imports from the United States are down in 1958 in comparison with those in 1957, and they are away down in comparison with those of 1956.
However, production in Canada has gone up terrifically, as I pointed out previously. The production of fowl of all kinds in 1957 was 279 million pounds. That was about twice as much as it had been about three years earlier. About three years earlier it was about half that figure. In 1958 it went up again from 279 million pounds to 346,861,000 pounds, an increase of 67 million pounds in the one year.

The worst of it is that this situation is continuing in 1959. I have the figures here to March 7 for 1958 and for 1959. In 1958 to March 7 production was 39,585,000 pounds, but to March 7 in 1959 it is 50,171,000 pounds. In other words production is just shooting up and up. If there were such a thing as a support price we would not have one tenth of the cold storage capacity required to hold the chickens that would be produced.
As I said last Friday, these things can be produced almost without limit. We have a terrific quantity of feed in this country. There is no limit, except the amount of available feed, on the amount of chickens that can be produced. If there were a guaranteed price which made the raising of them profitable, as I say, we would not have anything like the necessary cold storage facilities in which to hold what would be produced. It is the type of thing for which it is absolutely impossible to put in a support price. It is the very last thing in the world for which you can even contemplate putting one in.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I know that in Quebec, and also, I think, in Ontario the production of broilers and other poultry is 90 per cent integrated. And that is just the point. If we keep integrating it, what will happen to our farmers? What will happen to our small farmers in Eastern Canada? That is why we are asking the Minister of Agriculture to draft the legislation so as to protect the small farmer rather than the integrator.
If we start integrating the poultry industry, then we shall integrate the pork industry, and later the same process will be applied to other branches of the industry. What, then, will happen to our agricultural parishes, from a social and economic point of view? It will be a disaster for Canada.
That is why I ask the minister to draft the act so as to give back poultry raising to the farmer. Farmers and poultry producers have considerably increased their production, I admit. And it is easy for any industrialist to do so. If the poultry industry was left in the hands of our farmers, there would not be such an increase in production as has been noted for the past year or two.
As for poultry imports, they have declined from 22 million pounds in 1956 to 12 million in 1958. I am all for this decrease, but we are still importing 12 million pounds too much from the United States. If that quantity of poultry had been sold by our people, the

price would not have come down as it did last September, and as it is still coming down now. In early March, broilers sold at 16 to 17 cents a pound, while it is recognized that the cost is about 21 cents, and even the Poultry Producers' Association maintains it to be 22.8 cents.
That is why I am strongly opposed to the policy of the Department of Agriculture with regard to the poultry industry.
(Text):


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, my constituency of Athabasca is largely composed of family farms. These family farmers are not unreasonable in the requests they make of the government. They would prefer that there be no government control whatsoever on agriculture. However, the government is in control of some of the aspects of agriculture.
I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, what I think the family farmers in northern Alberta would like to see. A good many of them raise hogs and they know, as well as the hon. member for Assiniboia and everybody else in this house knows, that hogs reproduce very rapidly. If you put a high support price on hogs we shall have, and in fact we do have, overproduction. These family farmers know that if there is overproduction the price of hogs falls rapidly, and it has fallen. It has fallen to the support price and it is going below the support price, and if the present production of hogs continues it will go considerably lower. Everybody in this country knows that, particularly the small farmer.
They know also that one of the causes of overproduction is vertical integration. They are not only worried about it; they are alarmed about it, and if this situation continues the pig producers on the small family farms will be out of business. I am not here just to criticize the present policy; I am here to advance what I think is a constructive idea for the settling of this problem. If we intend to support the price of hogs we have to support it at a price at which a farmer can make a decent profit out of his operation, and he cannot make it in competition with big business.
It is wrong to say that the small farmer does not know how many pigs he should be producing on the family farm. He is a man of experience. It is to the farmers and to the farm unions that we should turn for advice. We know how many hogs we need, within reasonable limits. I am asking for a quota to be set and placed on family farms in the light of our foreseeable market. If we look at the United States where they have support prices regardless of markets, and follow that practice, we are in for trouble, deep and expensive trouble. These 66968-9-206
Supply-Agriculture
farmers have common sense and they know that if we are overproducing hogs they are going to suffer in the end. They may get 25 cents a pound this year, but next year they are going to get 14 cents.
We are trying to stabilize the price of hogs by means of our stabilization measure, and that measure has not produced the results we had hoped it would produce. Instead, it has resulted in overproduction and lower prices. We must reach the point where the farmers themselves are consulted about the number of pigs they are to produce. I suggest that if the farm unions of Canada got together they could set this quota and they could also suggest a price, and if this price were right it would make hog production a successful business arrangement on a small farm. We have got to do this sooner or later, so we might as well do it now.
I know this government intend to take some action with regard to this matter. They have already announced that they intend to lower the support price. This alarms me. I do not like it, and I think the answer is a reasonable quota and a reasonable price. I go on record as saying this, and I know I am backed by the farm unions of Alberta. I am backed also by dozens and dozens of small farmers who are willing to accept a quota providing it gives them a decent return for their labour.
As far as markets are concerned, we will regain some of the markets of the world when we produce more grade A hogs, and I suggest to the government that we should raise the bonus on grade A hogs. The small farmer can raise grade A hogs just as well as the large producer, and he will do so if the price is right.


Mr. Regier:: I know it is the minister's intention to introduce a measure of discrimination within this act against producers who can be classed as carrying on a vertically integrated operation. As the member for Assiniboia has indicated, he endorses the proposed action of the minister. However, I should like, in adding my plea to that of the hon. member for Assiniboia, to suggest that any discrimination in the operation of this act should be brought before parliament, and that it be done with the consent of the House of Commons. I note that section 11 of the act reads in part:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purpose and provisions of this act-
If we look at the purpose as outlined in the act itself we do not see any room for the practice of any discrimination whatsoever with regard to the nine commodities named, and if the minister is able to practise

Supply-Agriculture
the discrimination which he is proposing by means of regulation, I believe the hon. gentleman himself will agree that this could in the years ahead lead to misuse. For example, the day may come when a minister of agriculture might, by regulation, decide that the floor price shall not be paid in the northern half of Alberta. Or the minister might decide that the floor price shall not be paid to such producers as are of a certain racial extraction, and so on.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are stretching your imagination.


Erhart Regier: The preservation of the rights of Canadians is, to me, a very important matter, and while the hon. member for Acadia was interrupting I recalled that his own province of Alberta has legislation which discriminates against people of certain religious convictions. Let us not believe that it is beyond us to practise discrimination here in Canada, because it could happen here exactly as it has happened in other areas of the world. I do appeal to the minister that if he intends to practise any discrimination- and I agree that he ought to-against those who are engaged in vertical production, it should be done after full discussion and debate in parliament and should form part of the legislation, and should not be carried out by means of regulations made by the governor in council.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister could tell us what use is made of the advisory committee set up under the agricultural prices stabilization act? A few days ago we were discussing in this house the government's new floor prices for certain dairy products. I have read into the record the public statement issued by Mr. Gordon Hill, president of the Ontario farm union, and I got the impression from the minister that this whole question had been discussed with the advisory committee even if the approval of the committee had not been obtained.
However, I have been informed that when the advisory committee last met its members expected to be reconvened in order to discuss the government's proposals as far as the dairy industry is concerned, but that this meeting did not in fact take place. The minister now says there is a meeting under way, but I do believe these meetings should take place before important changes in legislation are announced, and I think that in every possible case the minister should have the approval of the organizations which are represented by members of that advisory committee.
I do not think the comments of the hon. member for Acadia are really worth mentioning at this time. This young man seems

inclined to go along with everything the government is doing. He seems to think that any proposal put forward by a member of the opposition is automatically suspect and wrong.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There was no proposal forthcoming from you.


Hazen Robert Argue: There was a definite proposal.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I failed to hear it.


Hazen Robert Argue: There was a definite proposal. I cannot help it if my hon. friend cannot hear or if when he hears he cannot understand and because he cannot understand he is unable to express himself. That is, of course, a very understandable and regrettable position my young friend happens to be in.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Pass the hat to him.


Hazen Robert Argue: As the minister puts on record the various statistics of agricultural production in this country and the huge quantities of agricultural products now held by the stabilization board, it becomes increasingly apparent that the agricultural industry is in great peril. Unless the government changes its policy, which has led to lower and lower floor prices, there will be a very serious crisis in the agricultural industry resulting in still lower prices in the near future.
The quantities of poultry products that have been produced are growing. The minister's statement indicated that we are producing more hogs now than at any time since the period during the war when great encouragement was given to the industry to produce hogs as part of a patriotic war effort. This demonstrates to me, though perhaps not to other hon. members of this committee, the absolute necessity of doing something to increase the price for grain to agricultural producers on the prairies. This lack of adequate prices for wheat oats and barley has given an impetus to the tremendous increase in meat production in our country. If no action is taken on the plea made by the delegation that came to Ottawa two months ago the worries, troubles and tribulations of the minister will be greatly multiplied.
Since we are all advising each other I would offer some advice to the minister. I advise him to take another look at the stand he has taken so adamantly in opposition to deficiency payments on western grain. If the western grain producer does not receive some degree of encouragement and assurance by way of a price increase then, being the person in possession of the cheapest grains of any agricultural producer in Canada, he will turn more and more to the production of beef, cattle, hogs and other agricultural commodities and turn a significant percentage of

the production of grain on the prairies into the production of increased quantities of livestock and livestock products. We will then have the agricultural producers outside of the prairies facing a crisis the like of which they have not seen at least since the early thirties.
It is not sufficient to have certain proposals and legislation to cover products other than grain outside the prairie provinces. It is essential now for the minister whose estimates we are considering and for other members of the cabinet to take a new and sympathetic look at the request of the farm delegation to improve prices for wheat, oats and barley on the prairies. The western grain producer, not because he wants to as a first choice but because he is being driven to it through low prices for grain, will turn to the production of meat and will place the agricultural industry in the rest of Canada in the direst peril.
If hon. members of this committee representing constituencies in Quebec and Ontario are prepared to see prairie producers go into the production of commodities other than grain at a much accelerated rate they are merely saying they are prepared to sacrifice the agricultural industry in their provinces. That is the great peril facing this nation, increasing agricultural production that is forcing down the prices of various farm commodities, with the grain producer going more and more into the production of livestock and livestock products, if no action is taken by the government at this time, thus putting the agricultural industry outside the prairies in even greater peril than it is in today.
I therefore make a plea to the Minister of Agriculture and the other members of the cabinet to reconsider their adamant position taken on previous occasions in respect of the request for deficiency payments on prairie wheat, oats and barley.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should answer the question concerning the advisory committee. The advisory committee met yesterday and are meeting today. I do not know if they will complete their deliberations today, but they hope to do so. I may also say they met back in March and have been meeting on the average every two or three months since the present stabilization act came into operation. There is provision in the estimates for funds to cover at least four meetings a year of this committee.
With respect to the statement made by Mr. Hill, to which the hon. member referred, Mr. Hill was in error in that connection. If the hon. member happens to meet him today and speaks to him he will learn that Mr. Hill's 66968-9-206J
Supply-Agriculture
impression was not shared by other members of the advisory committee with respect to having another meeting before the support prices for dairy products for the coming year were announced. A meeting was held for two or three days in March, and practically all that time was spent considering the level of supports for dairy products. The meeting was almost entirely given over to a discussion of that subject. There was no statement made that there would be another meeting before the announcement was made; in fact just the reverse was the case. Members of the advisory committee were told that this announcement would have to be made within a few weeks' time and that as soon as dairy groups of all kinds had been consulted in connection with the matter the announcement would be forthcoming.
The understanding of the hon. member for Assiniboia concerning the reason for a great increase in the production of certain agricultural products is at fault. The fact that there is a great deal of grain in western Canada is not the reason; the increase stems from improvements in technological processes of all kinds, improvements in genetics and breeding and so forth. Because of the great improvements that have been made in breeds of animals of all sorts and breeds of seeds- hybrid com is a classic example-it has been possible to produce a great deal more than was the case 10, 15 or 25 years ago. This terrific increase in agricultural production is not characteristic only of Canada, but may be found in all highly developed countries of the world and is due essentially to improvement in methods, breeding and so on. As a result we are getting much bigger yields, as far as some products are concerned, than was the case before. We are getting fowl and livestock of all kinds which make more efficient use of their feed than was the case before; thus we can produce more cheaply as a result, and so on.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not want the statement just made by the minister to pass unchallenged. I agree immediately that there have been certain very definite improvements in techniques and that operators are able to handle larger units of production, all of which have resulted in increases in the rate of production.
I have not the statistics on my desk, but perhaps the minister's officials have, to show the very rapid increase in the production of cattle and hogs in the last couple of years. I do not think this is the result of any improvement in techniques at all. That has very little to do with it. The fact of the matter is that because of marketing conditions and because of prices, farmers said

Supply-Agriculture
that it they were going to stay in the business of farming at all they would have to produce cattle and hogs. There was no recent development in production techniques that encouraged this very rapid increase in the production of cattle and hogs. There have been improvements in the techniques of poultry production, but I do not think the minister himself would claim that the doubling and almost tripling, I think, in about four years in the production of poultry has to do, in the main, with any techniques that have developed within the last four years that were not available at any time immediately prior to four years ago.
1 know improved techniques have resulted in increased production, but the basic reason our producers are producing more cattle and hogs today is the fact that there are people on the prairies who are not able to make an adequate living in the production and marketing of grain, notwithstanding the statistics the minister has placed on the record, and they are now going into the production of hogs and cattle in a very large way.
I am sure the minister can get from his officials the increase in the population of cattle and hogs in the last two years, but I do not think he will say this tremendous increase is the result of any great improvement in techniques. The cow still gives birth to one calf a year on the average. If the rancher is able to do it there may be a few supplements he can feed to his calves to put on a few extra pounds of beef but certainly, as far as numbers are concerned, there is no great improvement in techniques which would lead me to believe that this is the reason for such tremendous increases. It is an economic reason, it is a price reason, and it is because the government has failed to do anything in response to the very strong requests which have been made by western grain producers.


Samuel Boulanger: I should like to ask the minister a question regarding poultry. Owing to the increase in production in 1958, and owing to the removal of import restrictions last June 13, will the minister consider putting this import restriction in effect in 1959?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Rapp:: Can the minister inform the committee whether soybeans, cotton seed or corn come under the stabilization legislation? Are they covered under the stabilization act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are 23 commodities which have been under the stabilization act during the past year. One of these was soybeans. Corn was not covered last year. 1

will just read the commodities which were covered: butter, cheese, dry skim milk, hogs, steers, lambs, wool, eggs, soybeans, sugar beets, tomatoes, asparagus, wheat, oats and barley outside of the wheat board area, raspberries, apricots, apples, honey, peaches, potatoes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
11.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, In the amounts detailed in the estimates, $235,500.
Frank Howard: I want to make a few remarks on this item. First I should like to bring a few statistics to the committee with respect to the dollar value of fish and fish products, to give some indication of the importance of fish and fisheries in our economy and also in our diet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; these are agricultural estimates. I do not think the hon. member should take the time under these estimates to go into the prices of fish, the quantities of fish produced and so forth. I think he should reserve that for the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.


Frank Howard: If I may speak on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the objection the minister has raised probably is correct, but it really points up how ridiculous and foolish it is to have grants, subsidies and payments for cold storage plants to store fish and fish products contained in an estimate under the Department of Agriculture. I want to introduce my remarks in this way to get to the application of subsidies under the Department of Agriculture and under the minister's jurisdicton as they apply to cold storage facilities for fish and fish products. I hope the minister's objection is an indication that he wants to abandon this jurisdiction which he now has and transfer it to the Department of Fisheries, where it could be more properly and more adequately dealt with.
If I could preface my comments about the application of subsidies on fish cold storage plants I would like to point out that up until I believe some time near the middle of 1958-it may have been in the spring months of 1958-the amount of subsidy was limited to one-third of the capital cost of the total cold storage plant.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock the minister and I were discussing a fishing

problem. I am sure the minister will recall that during last session he and I entered into a discussion of this same subject matter. I hope our discussion today will not result in the same sort of anger and difference of opinion that occurred last time. Up to approximately the middle of 1958 the subsidy paid by the Department of Agriculture toward the capital cost of cold storage facilities was limited to one-third of such cost. Some time around the middle of 1958 a further limitation was placed on the subsidy making it either one-third of the capital cost or $50,000, whichever was the lesser.
As I understood the reasons given by the minister he said that there was an abundance of cold storage facilities in Canada and that all we would be doing by retaining the one-third principle would be putting public money into the building of cold storage facilities when there was already an abundance and the facilities already in existence were not being used to anywhere near capacity. I believe the minister gave some figures indicating that use ranged as low as 50 per cent in a number of cases.
The objection I take to the application of the subsidy and to the change made last year is this. First, I do not think that the granting of subsidies to cold storage warehouses used for the storage of fish or fisheries products should come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. If I may interpret the minister's remarks on the point of order he raised earlier, or perhaps misinterpret them as he may say later, I think that subconsciously he may feel that I have a valid point in this regard.
I attempted to get some information about the percentage of occupancy of existing cold storage facilities to determine whether, as the minister said, the percentage of occupancy was low and whether the low percentage of occupancy applied equally in the case of cold storage facilities for fisheries products and agricultural products. To that end I entered into correspondence with the minister and subsequently placed a question on the order paper which was answered on January 27. The answer appears on page 422 of Hansard and I should like to refer to the information contained therein. I inquired as to the number of cold storage warehouses used for fish products, the number used for agricultural products and so on. The answer given was that of the total number there were 249 warehouses that stored in the main fish and fisheries products; 1,969 storing in the main agricultural products; and another 850 classified as general and used for storing a variety of products.
Supp ly-A griculture
We see from these figures that the ratio of cold storage warehouses in existence in Canada is almost eight to one in favour of those storing agricultural products over those storing fisheries products, not taking into account the warehouses classified as general and storing a variety of products. I attempted to determine the percentage of occupancy of these various types of cold storage facilities and the answer I received, as found on page 422, was as follows:
The dominion bureau of statistics do not require cold storage warehouses to report what percentage of the space is occupied. They do require, however, a statement of the quantities of certain goods in storage and this information is published in various forms, many of which are on a monthly basis. The Department of Agriculture receives voluntary confidential reports showing the percentage occupancy of warehouses which represent about one-third of the total available refrigerated space in Canada.
The answer then proceeds to deal with the percentages I submit there is no indication that a differentiation is made between cold storage facilities for agricultural products and cold storage facilities for fisheries products. I certainly hope it is not the case but I am almost sure that where the number of such plants used for fisheries products is relatively minor numerically compared with the number used for agricultural products-the ratio is one to eight-the consideration given to the minor phase of the problem is not the type of consideration that probably should be given to it. I do not say that is the case in this instance but I rather suspect that fisheries products cold storage facilities were lumped together in the whole consideration of cold storage facilities when the decision was made to reduce the amount of the subsidy. The reason given was that there was too much space and it was not being used to the degree that it should be, and I suspect that the decision was based primarily on the total picture of cold storage warehouses and not on a break-down of the percentage of use for fisheries products and the percentage of use for agricultural products.
I also raised this matter in the standing committee on marine and fisheries when the committee was considering the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. I took up this point with the Minister of Fisheries and while his answer may not be a definite commitment I think it indicates that the argument I am making has a great deal of justification and that there should be a transfer of jurisdiction from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Fisheries with respect to cold storage facilities for fisheries products. I should like to read the answer of the Minister of Fisheries in its entirety so that I cannot be accused of extracting something from it

Supp ly-A griculture
to support my particular point of view. As found on page 68 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 4, of the standing committee on marine fisheries, Tuesday, April 14, following the same general remarks made by me then as I am making now, the Minister of Fisheries said:
Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Howard that when a relatively small Item Is bulked with a large one, the total picture may not reflect statistically the situation with regard to the smaller segment. Of course, I am not in a position to give an answer at the present time to the suggestion. However, I can say that it certainly will he considered. I appreciate the members of the committee raising this question because it appears to have merit which at least makes it worthy of consideration.
I wish to wind up with a question. Has the Minister of Agriculture been in consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, in connection with this problem of transferring the jurisdiction on this matter of cold storage facilities for fisheries products to the Department of Fisheries? If he has not been in such consultation, will he undertake to confer with the hon. gentleman who sits just a few seats from him? In this way fisheries products may receive the degree of consideration in connection with cold storage facilities in the future to which I think they are entitled, that is that they be considered purely and simply in the light of the requirements of fisheries products and not be lumped into consideration of facilities for agricultural products and other things?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would just say that I have not discussed this matter with the Minister of Fisheries, but I will be glad to do so.


Frank Howard: I may say that was substantially the answer I got at the last session when I raised the question of transfer. The Minister of Agriculture then indicated he would be quite glad to talk to the Minister of Fisheries. I know both of these gentlemen are busy, but surely it should not take almost a year to get around to talking about this matter.
(Translation):


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong unduly the debate on this item, but as I represent a constituency where there are many poultry producers, I wish to associate myself with the hon. members for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) who this morning called the minister's attention to the restrictions which the government should impose on the importation of chicken and poultry in general from the United States.
I myself received several complaints-

(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We have completed the discussion of that matter and we are now on subsidies for cold storage facilities. I do not believe we can revive the discussion on the Agricultural Stabilization Act on this item for cold storage facilities.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that, this morning, I rose to speak on item 10. Therefore, I rise on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think, Mr. Chairman, that we are not yet through discussing the item concerning farm products, and I believe there is some misunderstanding. (Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: I just have item No. 11 in front of me. I understood item No. 10 was passed, and the hon. member for Skeena discussed item No. 11 before lunch.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was there not an argument on that? Did not the hon. member for Skeena argue that he had a right to discuss this subject, even though it concerned cold storage, because he was dealing with one of the products that could be covered by the stabilization act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no question about it, item No. 10 was carried. Item No. 11 was called, and the hon. member for Skeena got up and spoke on item No. 11. I think there is no question about it.


Yvon Dupuis: This morning when we were on item 10 I was going to stand up. The hon. member for Skeena started to talk while we were still on item No. 10.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, item No. 10 was called and carried by the Chair. Then, the Chair called item No. 11, whereupon the hon. member for Skeena stood up and began to speak on item No. 11.


Mr. Caron:: The hon. member asked for permission to revert to item No. 10. Permission has been asked before and granted.


Charles Edward Rea: If the committee wishes to revert to item No. 10 it can do so, but it must be by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If we follow this procedure, Mr. Chairman, we will never have any orderly discussion of these items. As the hon. member for Essex East well knows, this practice has not been followed at any time in this committee. I would be quite willing, if there is time at the end of the estimates and unanimous consent is given, to allow the hon. member to make some remarks. However,

I feel we should carry through with the discussion of these estimates in an orderly way.


Charles Edward Rea: As the hon. gentleman did not get unanimous consent to revert to item 10, we are now on item No. 11.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I have the indulgence of this committee, in this generous mood, for one minute? There is an obvious misunderstanding. If Your Honour says the item has been carried, we accept Your Honour's direction, but the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, who is the spokesman for this group on matters of agriculture-


Mr.   Hicard@: We thought you were.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and who is
recognized throughout the house as a very fair-minded member, was under the impression that the item had not been carried. The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville was in the house, and he had the same understanding as the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville is one of the newer members of this house. He represents a constituency in which there are a lot of farmers, and he has a point which he thinks should be emphasized in one of his first pronouncements in this chamber on agriculture.
I think under the circumstances the committee, in this mood of generosity, would want to accede to the request made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough and others on the opposite side, to allow this rather important and initial speech to be made.


Charles Edward Rea: I am not sure the hon. member for Essex East knows that I do not make the rules. I asked the committee if they would give unanimous consent to revert to item No. 10, and unanimous consent was not given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think they would this time.


Charles Edward Rea: I have no other recourse but to say we are now on item No. 11.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could you construe your earlier impression as being wrong and ask the committee if they would give unanimous consent? I think they would.


Charles Edward Rea: There is no indication to the Chair that the committee would change its mind.


Frank Howard: I would have liked to have an opportunity to discuss the point of order which was raised earlier because my name was brought into it. I can quite understand the confusion which existed. Unfortunately,
Supply-Agriculture
the Minister of Agriculture has indicated we cannot go back to that subject. I wonder if he could, on item No. 11, indicate when he might sit down with the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister of Finance I imagine because money would be involved, to discuss the transfer of jurisdiction over these cold storage facilities to the Department of Fisheries? Would he indicate also what technical matters stand in the way, in so far as additional legislation being required or some other arrangement by which this objective could be attained? Could it be done by order in council, and so on?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the Cold
Storage Act provides for subsidies for cold storage facilities for any purpose. It happens that the act is being administered at the moment by the Department of Agriculture because most of the products stored are agricultural products. Of course, any change in the present set-up would require a change in the act. I might say that at one time there was a subsidy system under the Department of Fisheries and one under the Department of Agriculture. In the interests of economy and more efficient administration they were merged into one act. This was done long before any period that I was in the house, but I understand that is what happened. They have been administered under the one act since that time; and it happens that at the moment the Department of Agriculture is responsible for administering this act.


Frank Howard: Dealing with the last point first, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. In the light of developments now I think probably we should look upon that merging which took place of those two jurisdictions as being an erroneous one. The statistics show and the answers given by the minister indicate that he is not in a position to give the adequate consideration that should be given to fisheries products cold storage facilities. A year ago we discussed this question when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were before the house last session. The minister then said, "It is a good idea; we will take it into consideration; I will chat with the Minister of Fisheries about it". Now, a year later, we find that he still says the same thing. Is this not an indication that he is just going to go on and on giving consideration to this matter and saying that he will chat with somebody else about it, and not getting around to doing it?
Legislation is required if such a transfer is desirable. It can only come about by cabinet decision. Initially there must be consultation between the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Agriculture. Surely

Supp ly-A griculture
they are still on speaking terms and are able to discuss these questions. It might come about in that way. It requires legislation. But I suggest that this promise which was given to the house a year ago is one which the Minister of National Revenue would say should be kept. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should sit down with the Minister of Fisheries and discuss the question immediately and, if possible, introduce legislation at this session in order to cope with the problem instead of allowing us to wait another year and go around again on the old merry-go-round, when we will ask the Minister of Agriculture the same question and get the same sort of answer, "We will take it into consideration". As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that seems to be sloughing off a responsibility, when we get from the minister the same type of answer which in effect means that no action is going to be taken and also that the type of consideration that should be given to fisheries products cold storage facilities is not being given. Because the Minister of Agriculture has that small item relating to fish in the vast operations of his department it is quite easy for him to overlook it, and certainly he has overlooked it because he has not even the statistical information on which to base his decision.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dairy products division-
12.	Operation and maintenance, $901,306.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks about ROP tests in the province of Ouebec, and put on the record a resolution addressed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) on January 29, 1959. It is a very short one, and reads as follows:
Whereas breeders of registered livestock consider ROP tests a necessity and,
Considering the work done by animal husbandry specialists, agronomists, breeders associations and breeders themselves, and
Because of the results achieved through general co-operation to increase the yield of our dairy cattle as a result of proper selection based on official records of performance,
Be it resolved that the Quebec Ayrshire Breeders Association make strong representations to the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, following the decision not to increase the number of herds under ROP control.
Such a restriction has a paralysing effect first on the stock breeder who is a beginner and it curtails the results of the selective registry policy followed by our organization.
As a matter of fact, local farmers, more especially purebred livestock breeders, have been complaining over the past year that they cannot have control services for their dairy herds.
Today in the Bois Franc area there are at least 875 farmers organized into three livestock breeders clubs and two Holstein, Ayrshire livestock breeders clubs, including many purebred livestock breeders the importance of which is well established. Under the regulation governing registry, no bull can be certified or recognized by the association if the dam has not the ROP qualifications and is not classified according to its breed type. Such measure regarding restrictions to the registration stops automatically the whole plan designed to promote the production of purebred cattle.
This will eventually hurt the breeding stock markets.
There are in the constituencies of Drum-mond-Arthabaska and Megantic, and in most of the constituency of Lotbiniere, breeders' associations which are recognized as the best breeders of registered livestock in the province of Quebec.
Each year our breeders sell more than $400,000,000 worth of cross-bred and purebred stock for production and breeding purposes, such as dairy cows, stock heifers and bulls.
Furthermore, I would draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that the department of agriculture of the province of Quebec makes grants available for the exclusive purchase of certified bulls and heifers, out of certified dams. It is therefore essential to let the breeders freely control their production without any restrictions. In fact, for a few years now, Quebec experimental farms and agronomists have been doing a good deal of educational work aimed at improving cattle raising in my area. And now an attempt is being made to hinder the work already done to improve the production.
Many farmers have asked that inspection services be extended to their dairy herds, but unfortunately they were turned down by the department.
I think there is no sense in restricting those services after all the educational work designed to promote our livestock industry.
It is for this reason that I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he intends to make inspectors available for those thriving farmers who want to improve their pure-bred stock.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: This statement which the hon. member has just made that applications for record of performance inspection are being refused because the department does not wish to extend the work is completely incorrect.

The actual fact of the matter is that there has been, on the part of farmers, a constantly increasing awareness of the value of these record of performance inspections and of getting their herds on record of performance. As a result there has been quite a rapid increase in the number of applications on the part of farmers to have their herds included. We just have not had sufficient staff to meet all these demands. We have asked for 20 new positions in order that we shall be able to extend the work and to take in the people who have now applied for it. Those new positions will be provided for, we expect, in the supplementary estimates which will be brought down before the end of the session. The only reason why all these applications for service have not been accepted is that if we had done so we would not have been able to make a sufficient number of inspections and, probably, the whole of the work would have been disrupted. The only way in which we can keep up with these applications is by increasing the number of the staff, and this we are in the process of doing.


Samuel Boulanger: I do not see why it should take so long to give satisfaction to our farmers. One case was brought to my attention of a farmer making an application last November. This was refused. He wrote again in February and received a similar answer. We have many young people in Quebec who are anxious to improve their cattle, and if they cannot buy good heifers and bulls, they cannot improve their stock. I might point out, also, that our department of agriculture in Quebec offers a premium for high standards, and these delays prevent this premium being earned. I think the minister should work out some solution as quickly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
13.	Grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act, $985,676.
Mr. Roberge:: I think this is a suitable place for me to make some remarks with regard to maple products.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Gabriel Roberge: I am waiting to see whether I am in order.


Charles Edward Rea: I think that is item 14, fruit and vegetable division including maple products and honey.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No, it is the second part of item 13.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think there has been a misprint in the book and the number "13" is higher than it should be. This reference to maple products and so forth is under item 13.
Supply-Agriculture


Charles Edward Rea: In the resolution here it comes under 14. I think the number "14" should be opposite the word "fruit".


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is this not the edition which has been given to all members of this committee? I do not think we can take a chance, because the minister might say the item had been passed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Go ahead and have the discussion.


Charles Edward Rea: If it is agreeable to the committee we can discuss this question of maple products and honey which I have here under item 14, under item 13.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gabriel Roberge: Last year in this house-it was probably in this committee-I urged the Minister of Agriculture to look into the possibility of devising, in co-operation with the provinces which are most affected, a campaign of publicity in favour of maple products.
Not very long ago-in the last two weeks, in fact-producers of maple products did organize a festival called the maple products festival, and this was the first time to my knowledge in the history of Quebec or, indeed, in the history of Canada, that a festival of maple products has been held in our province. I had the good fortune to be invited to attend that festival and although, as I say, this was the first time that such an occasion has been arranged in Canada it has been the practice for a long while in the United States. Festivals have been held in Vermont and in Ohio but never in Quebec. I attended last Sunday. Plessisville is only a very small town, but many people from surrounding areas took the opportunity to visit the festival.
(Translation):
Last Sunday, Mr. Chairman, the maple products festival was attended by nearly 10,000 persons.
I now want to come back to what I said earlier. Last year and again this year I advocated a publicity campaign to promote sales and exports of maple syrup and maple sugar. However the Plessisville maple industry producers had to organize their own festival. I therefore pay tribute to them for having succeeded in attracting to Plessisville, in my constituency, six to seven thousand people from outside of my riding, who did not know about maple products. It is the first time such a festival takes place in the province of Quebec and in Canada for that matter.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order!

Supply-Agriculture (Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to point out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) that since maple products are an important part of our agriculture, it is essential to see that those products are sold, not only in Canada, but also in other countries, namely in the United States.
Therefore, in my riding, we have organized a festival to promote the sale of maple products.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, in co operation with the Quebec department of agriculture, particularly with the department responsible for the sale of maple products, will see that maple products are sold in other countries and in western Canada, thereby adding substantially each spring to the income of maple producers of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to ask a few questions relating to grants to cheese factories the amounts of which are listed as a lump sum in the details. Would the minister give us a breakdown of this figure and an explanation of the method used in the payment of premiums on high quality cheese?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the subsidy
under the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act is 50 per cent of the cost of amalgamating two or more cheese factories in order to make a more efficient factory or $60,000 as a maximum, whichever of those is the lesser. As far as premium payments on cheese are concerned there is a payment of two cents if it scores 94 or better, and a payment of one cent if it scores 93.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I shall have
to look back to an earlier vote this time merely for the purpose of illustrating what is shown here. On page 101 there is listed a number of cold storage warehouses and the names of companies to which subsidies are to be paid as well as the amount. On page 101 there appears a list of cold storage companies by provinces indicating the amount of subsidy that would be given under the Cold Storage Act. In the preparation of future estimates would it be possible to have the same sort of breakdown with respect to other subsidies and especially those for cheese factories? Is the appropriation for the subsidies listed here for cheese factories those that are already approved?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is right. Both cold
storage warehouses and potato warehouses
[The Deputy Chairman.]
that are given subsidies are listed by name. I do not know why that is not done in relation to cheese factories. Apparently it is a practice that has been followed for some time. If the hon. member wants a list of the cheese factories I have it here and could give it to him.


Frank Howard: I just wondered why the
difference.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know nor do my
officials.


Frank Howard: As the minister indicated
the subsidy to the cheese factories is 50 per cent of the cost or $60,000 whichever is the lesser. How long has that arrangement been in effect?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The 50 per cent subsidy
goes back to the beginning of the act. I do not know when it came into effect but I think it was back in the thirties. The limitation of $60,000 was put on shortly after the $50,000 limitation was put on cold storage warehouses.


Frank Howard: Is there any possibility of
a group wanting to build facilities for fisheries products getting any assistance under the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Frank Howard: They get more money that
way.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, with my usual economy of language I want to make a few remarks on this item. I do not wish to be repetitious because I have spoken on the first item and dealt with a number of things that concern my constituents. I wish to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the last convention of the British Columbia fruit growers' association resolved that two things were absolutely essential to the economic stability of the fruit industry of British Columbia; first, the establishment of a Canadian fruit board to handle the entire national and international selling of fruit-and I presume the minister will be discussing this question with the Canadian Horticultural Council in days to come-and, second, the need for a minimum price for fruit commensurate with the cost of production. In that connection the minister knows there has been some difference of opinion between the association and himself or officials of his department as to the true cost of the production of certain fruit for which assistance was being applied.
In my opinion and in the opinion of a number of growers to whom I have spoken there should be some system of obtaining costs that are arrived at by agreement between

the industry and the government. Although there were some cost studies made some years ago with respect to the cost of production of apples and other orchard products in British Columbia there are no exact figures with respect to fruit at this time. Could the minister inform the committee what is being done in the way of research to establish the cost of production of these fruits on a basis that would be acceptable to the producers and the government? That is something requiring a great deal of attention if the stabilization act is to be effective and satisfactory in days to come.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, under the economics branch of the department we have been carrying on cost of production studies with respect to a number of commodities. Those on which we have been concentrating are commodities that are mandatory under the stabilization act and in respect of which, I think the hon. member will agree, it is most essential that something definite should be arrived at as soon as possible. Our cost of production studies have been pretty well confined so far to those mandatory commodities and as a result we have not been carrying on up to date cost of production studies in regard to fruit, as far as I am aware. That is something that will come later.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Does the minister not think it possible to have some of the staff at the Summerland experimental station do this work? They are in close touch with the circumstances, the conditions and the industry. In the opinion of the growers it is important that the cost of production be established on a basis satisfactory to all concerned and that a satisfactory formula be established.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Summerland experimental station is manned by scientists whose field is botany and so forth, not economics. Economic studies of this kind are carried on by the economics branch within their field, just the same as botanical studies are carried on by the botanists. You cannot expect a scientist who is a botanist to go into the economics branch, or vice versa. The cost of production studies in regard to things along this line would be carried on by the economics branch in British Columbia rather than by the botanists and so on that we have in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15. Assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions approved by governor in council, $25,000.
Frank Howard: I understood the minister to say a while ago that the appropriation toward the construction of potato warehouses was
Supply-Agriculture
also listed by the name of the company or group receiving the subsidy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I can be charged with an error in regard to that. I thought they were listed as well as the cold storages. I have not checked for the moment. If the hon. member has checked and they are not there, apparently they are not listed. The number of those has been very small. As a matter of fact, in the 14 years that I believe the act has been in existence up to last year, there were, if my memory is not inaccurate, only something in the neighbourhood of 15 or 16 of these particular warehouses built. Last year there was quite an increase in interest in this and we got applications for quite a number, and that is why the amount provided is so much increased over the previous year. The previous year is not in there. The sum of $70,000 was spent last year. I have forgotten what it was the year before that but it was much less than that. I am informed that it was only $7,000 the year before, and $70,000 last year. The estimate was made up for $25,000 on the assumption that the interest would fall back again. Instead of that it has come on so that we shall have to have a supplementary estimate to cover the remainder of this item.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: I notice that this item reads:
Assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council.
Does this mean that there are no written rules or regulations by which it can be determined who is qualified and who is not to apply for such a grant? Can application be made by individuals or do those grants apply only to public bodies or farm organizations?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are written regulations; there is a regular order in council. It is order in council P.C. 2017 of April 20, 1950, and it authorizes assistance to producer groups; in other words, groups of farmers who wish to construct the necessary facilities on the following basis: one, that producer groups pay at least 25 per cent of the cost; and, two, the federal government and provincial governments concerned share equally in the remainder of the cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals division-
16. Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $6,957,334.
Samuel Boulanger: How many counties in Quebec and in each of the provinces have been certified?

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member wants the number which have now been certified: Prince Edward Island, 3; Nova Scotia, 6; New Brunswick, 8; Quebec, 1; Ontario, 6; Saskatchewan, 2; British Columbia, 4. In addition to that there have been accepted for testing the following numbers. These are the ones that have been tested and are being tested: Prince Edward Island, 3; Nova Scotia, 8; New Brunswick, 15; Quebec, 8; Ontario, 35; Manitoba, 21; Saskatchewan, 173; Alberta, 4; British Columbia, 7. These latter figures, of course, include the first group of figures which I gave; in other words, that is the number of areas that have been accepted for testing. Work is being carried on and the last list includes the numbers which have been completed and which I gave first.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: As I said a few moments ago, we are in a Quebec area of large scale breeding of certified livestock, and farmers are asking for supervision and control of this disease more particularly so in the riding of Arthabaska where there is a good export market for purebred stock and dairy cows.
Under present conditions producers are handicapped when they want to export cattle to the United States. I realize that the U.S. can accept animals from accredited herds; just the same farmers have to wait 90 days for results of the tests, which impedes the marketing of cattle, particularly that of dairy cows, in that district. Farmers are therefore anxious for the department to step up its campaign for the early control of that disease.
I see that in the province of Quebec, there is a riding where animals are certified, and that control work is being done in seven others. That would be eight in all. We are trailing the other provinces in the matter of inspection and control of that disease and I ask the minister to step up departmental activity aimed at controlling this disease.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps I should say that we go ahead in order to inspect the herds and thereupon to certify the county after the reactors have been destroyed and so forth, only upon the application of the minister of agriculture of the province concerned. We cannot move into the province and do this work except on the request of the province.


Samuel Boulanger: Has the minister had
requests from the province of Quebec to increase the inspection?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to assure the hon. member that we take on all of those as and when requested. As the requests come in we start on the inspection.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Then, if 35 ridings asked for inspection, the minister would be ready to accept and to ask his men to go ahead with the required tuberculin testing.
How many applications did he get since last year, during 1958? I see that 8 ridings in Quebec are mentioned, 35 in Ontario, 15 in New Brunswick, 8 in Nova Scotia and so on. There are quite a number of cattle out our way and applications have been made only for 7 ridings. Did the minister receive applications for more districts than those where inspection is now proceeding?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. If, as the hon. member says, we received requests from 30 or 35 counties we would start the inspection work and carry it on as rapidly as we could. We would, of course, be handicapped as we always are by the shortage of veterinarians, but what we do under those circumstances is employ local veterinarians on a fee basis to carry on this work for the department. As long as there are local veterinarians in any county we can get the work started and carry it on.


Augustin Brassard: I should like to ask a supplementary question. If a member of the House of Commons asked the Department of Agriculture to make an inspection in his own riding would the minister consider such a request even though the provincial department of agriculture had not made such a request to the minister or to the department?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, we could not consider such a request at all. Under the dominion-provincial agreement governing this matter the request has to come from the province.


Richard Russell Southam: The problem of brucellosis eradication has been quite pronounced in Saskatchewan for years and it is particularly important now with the increased economic value of cattle. Agricultural statistics for that province indicate that for the year 1956-57 the value of livestock lost through this disease was approximately $2J million. Of course, the problem has been aggravated, as the Minister of Agriculture has just stated, due to the dearth of veterinarians. Because of the fact that quite a large number of our farm boys attend university in Saskatoon during the winter, I wonder whether some encouragement could be given to them to obtain instruction in order to assist the veterinarians by doing the lay

work in connection with the eradication program. I know of one particular area last year where the extent of brucellosis rose to 39 per cent, which is quite a discouraging factor. Could some encouragement be given to these men in order that they may assist the veterinarians?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We permit veterinarians to hire helpers or assistants to draw the blood, thus enabling this work to be carried on much more rapidly than would otherwise be the case. However, this does not apply in the province of Quebec because the veterinary act there does not make such provision. In other words, the drawing of the blood has to be done by a veterinary under the Quebec provincial act but in the other provinces it can be done by a man who is really a technician. He is trained in drawing the blood and he sends it to the veterinarian who makes the test. That, of course, greatly increases the speed with which tests can be done.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have one question with regard to the Bang's disease vaccination program in Alberta. Does the federal government contribute anything to the program there?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We supply the vaccine free to the province.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If there are only seven counties in the province of Quebec-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Eight.


Augustin Brassard: You said seven including the first one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is eight.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Well, we will say eight. It is the same thing for the purpose of my question. As the minister said, the request has to come from the department of agriculture in the province of Quebec or in any other province. Therefore, if there are only eight counties being covered in the province of Quebec the federal Department of Agriculture cannot be blamed because you are waiting for requests from the government of Quebec. That is the exact reason.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
21. Supervision of race track betting, $591,315.
Frank Howard: I see that under this item the Minister of Agriculture is involved in sin to a certain degree, if you classify horse racing or race track betting under that heading. Can the minister give us an indication as to what way officials of his department are involved in the supervising of race track betting? I imagine they do not deal with the corner cigar stores because they do not come
Supply

Agriculture
under your jurisdiction, but what is the situation with respect to race track betting?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this connection the hon. member for Kootenay West will realize-*


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Don't blame me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -that I am in exactly the same position as one of the old racing parsons in England. I do not consider that I am involved in sin at all, through the fact that the department supervises race track betting. In fact, I consider the position to be just the reverse. The situation is that under the Criminal Code the Department of Agriculture is responsible for supervising parimutuel betting at race tracks, which is permitted by the Criminal Code. For that purpose we use the R.C.M.P. to supervise each race track when it is in operation. In Ottawa we have a small staff of three men who have general charge and supervision of race track betting operations and who give directions to the R.C.M.P. who attend at each track to collect the records and make sure we get our percentage of the gate, which is used in turn to pay for the supervision. The purpose is to ensure that the customer at the parimutuel plant gets a fair return on his bet; in other words, that there is no hanky-panky in connection with the parimutuel operation.
In addition, we carry out urinary and salivary tests on the horses to ensure that they have not been doped, thus, of course, changing what would otherwise be the odds in any race and the probability of a particular horse winning. We also operate the photo-finish equipment and what is called the eye in the sky in order to have a photographic record so that there can be no question as to which horse won a particular race. The percentage of the gate that we get is one-half of one per cent and the money so collected is used for these supervisory activities.


Frank Howard: The minister did not indicate whether he gets any hot tips in this process and if he follows them up, but I take it from his remarks that there is a certain amount of income received. In effect the federal government gets a rake-off, somewhat like the house in a poker game. I am using these terms which are totally unfamiliar to me although I have heard them used before. What is the percentage of the take, how is it computed and what happens to the money? Does it go to the Department of Finance or the Department of National Revenue and is it then credited against the expenditures made by the Department of Agriculture? What is the relationship?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I said a minute ago, we get one half of one per cent of the money

Supply-Agriculture
wagered. This money goes into the consolidated revenue fund and then the amount of money we expend has to be voted. That is the purpose of this vote. The amount we collect is approximately the same as the amount we expend. The point is that there is no reason why the taxpayers in general should pay the cost of this supervision at race tracks. That is why we take a half of one per cent, so that the operation itself will pay for the supervision rather than the general taxpayers having to pay for it.


Frank Howard: I am sure that the same general principle could be applied to quite a number of activities in which various government agencies are involved and whose purpose is to protect the general public. We get involved in protecting the public from the unscrupulous acts of certain individuals or corporations with respect to their pricing policies and so on and I wonder why the same principle could not be applied.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say that I appreciate the position of the minister and I have heard a good many patrons of the sport of kings compliment the work done by the Department of Agriculture in preventing sin at the race tracks in this respect.


Augustin Brassard: I should like to ask just one brief question. The minister has told us that there is a staff of three Royal Canadian Mounted policemen in Ottawa supervising this work throughout the country. I wonder if these gentlemen, or any member of their staff, make an inspection from time to time of these places throughout the country in which the races take place?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member has misunderstood. We have three people on the permanent staff here in Ottawa who have responsibility for the supervision of this race track betting. They keep the records and make sure that the general supervisory work is carried out. The actual work at each particular track is carried out by a mounted policeman. There are three people in the central office, and then they employ mounted policemen at each of the tracks during the time the race is being run. The mounted policeman who is doing this work in Calgary, for instance, is not the same one who does the work in Toronto.


Frank Howard: I should like to pursue this a little further. Did I understand correctly that the income resulting to the crown from supervising this sort of activity is one-half of one per cent of the amount of money bet?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Frank Howard: This would indicate that there is probably $100 million per year wagered at the race tracks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
22. Grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1959, with exhibitions covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $923,600.
Gabriel Roberge: This item has to do with agricultural fairs, exhibitions and museums. At page 111 in the details of the estimates we find that there are grants for class A and class B fairs, as well as grants to winter and spring fairs. I should like to ask the minister if he would consider a grant to the maple syrup spring fair?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, these grants are made to fairs which have been in operation for at least three years and which have had a prize list which we can demonstrate has been paid for that period. In so far as the class A fair is concerned, it must have had a prize list of $5,000 which was paid for each of the last three years. In so far as a class B fair is concerned, the prize list must be $3,000. Any fairs which are smaller than that do not qualify for the grant.


Mr. Fisher:: I just wanted to ask the minister one question which has a relationship to this item. As the minister is aware, the hon. member for Fort William and I come from a region which is isolated and, in a sense, has its own market. One of the things which we have been asked a number of times was whether or not we could get a picture of the total aid in various forms which comes to our particular region from the Department of Agriculture.
We have fairs at the lakehead, and I am not asking for information about the aid which comes to those fairs. I am asking a general question of the minister, would it be possible for him or his officials to give us a picture of all the funds that may be going annually in support of the various agricultural activities in our particular region?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In so far as the fair is concerned, Fort William is a class B fair and so would get a capital grant of $10,000. They are eligible also for an annual grant of about $2,000 toward operations. In so far as being able to say what assistance we have given to Fort William and that immediate area, say under the stabilization act,

I think it is almost impossible to pinpoint that with any degree of accuracy. When it comes to any specific grants, such as those to fairs, we can easily give the figures. In so far as what you might call general benefits are concerned which come from the various acts which apply to agriculture all over the country, it is almost impossible to say how much of each of these grants goes to a particular area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does the minister think we could get any kind of appraisal of specific things like the fair vote, and then a general amount for the various legislative items connected with agriculture which may apply, in order to give us some sort of idea of the assistance we are getting from the Department of Agriculture in our farm field?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The officials before me say they will attempt to make an appraisal of that kind and send it to the hon. member. We do not guarantee that it is accurate; it would be a guess.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
24. Grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $224,250.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do want to say a word or two on this item because I have noticed, for the first time, that there is an amount for the federated women's institutes of Canada of $10,000. I must say that I am delighted to see this grant included in the estimates this year. I think I must say such a grant is long overdue for such a worthy organization. These women's institutes were commenced, I understand, at Stoney Creek in 1897. Provision was made for an organization of rural women to work for the welfare of rural women and the communities in which they live. I understand it followed the example set by the farmers' institute. It is very nice to know that on this occasion the ladies followed the example of the men.
I know that so far as my own district is concerned the women's institutes were established in 1909. My own mother was a very active person in the women's institutes in the interior of British Columbia. Since that time I have always taken a great interest in the work they have done and have admired the organization for making a tremendous contribution to the communities in which their activities take place.
Then in 1919 the federated women's institutes of Canada was established, which showed the continuing growth of the organization. I understand that today there are approximately 3,000 branches of the institute in Canada with approximately 100,000 members. The germ of the idea came from British
Supply-Agriculture
Columbia, and in 1937 the associated countrywomen of the world was organized, and of that international body the federated women's institutes of Canada are a constituent society. This great organization, which has not received too much publicity throughout the years in my opinion, has done more work with less money than any other organization in the country for the welfare of Canada as a whole. It has carried on, giving effect to its motto, "For Home and Country".
I know that in the early days this organization dealt with the questions of domestic science, home management and was active in local projects. In the communities in my area they look after cemeteries, local needs welfare of school children and things of that sort. They took the lead in working for equal rights for women. I am sure there are some members here from British Columbia who will remember the late Mrs. Ralph Smith who was very active in those days and who, with the support of the institute, obtained some improvement in the legislation in British Columbia which was of benefit to the women of that province. Since that time, their activities have widened. They are interested in national women's problems, problems that affect women in general.
Now they are greatly interested in international problems. I understand they are supporting the Food and Agricultural Organization, UNESCO and many other worthwhile organizations like that. I may tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I was never so pleased to support a vote as I am to support this one for $10,000 which is little enough for this magnificent organization of women in Canada.
I have witnessed how versatile they are. I remember very well what happened when one of the small communities in our district was threatened by forest fire and would possibly have been destroyed had it not been for the organization of women's institute in seeing that the tools were provided and taken to the fire guards and that refreshments were provided over a day or so that the men could continue to fight the fire. It was a very close squeak but finally this community in question was saved as a result of the organization and co-operation of the women's institute.
I can tell you something else, and I must not take long in doing so. However, this vote arouses my interest and my support. As you may know, the women's institute in my district was the first organization in Canada, as far as I know, to establish midwifery by telephone. I remember an isolated rancher whose wife was going to have a child miles away from anywhere. His wife told him to phone the women's institute. They got in touch with an elderly member of the

Supply-A griculture
women's institute at the other end of the telephone miles away and she instructed the husband what to do. That new Canadian was born and is now a resident of my district and possibly he votes for me. In any event, I just give these as two illustrations of the value of the work of the women's institutes in the local field. I could go on at great length, with these early stories of the women's institutes but I do not wish to detain the committee. However, in conclusion I want to say that I am sure all members of this committee will give whole hearted support to this small grant of $10,000 to this organization which has done so much for Canada since 1897.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise on item 23 but you passed over it very quickly. I want to ask a question in connection with item No. 23. I should like to ask the reason for the reduction in the grant to the royal winter fair in Toronto. Was it for some special event last year? What is the usual grant to the royal winter fair?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The only reason for the reduction is that the royal winter fair have not yet completed their plans. They informed us that they did not think they would be able to do more than spend upwards of $15,000 on the preparation of plans and so forth as far as this year was concerned. Therefore, in order to avoid having in the estimates an item of a quarter of a million dollars, which was in last year but was not used-and which was just unnecessarily padding the estimates and gave to the committee actually an improper picture-this amount was put in. I asked the royal winter fair people how much they were actually going to spend. They said this would probably be the amount, and that is the amount I put in rather than a quarter of a million dollars.


William Hector McMillan: Is there any other grant made to the royal winter fair?


Douglas Scott Harkness: An annual grant of $50,000 is made but this is part of a special grant which was given to the royal winter fair some considerable time ago and which they have not yet taken up.


William Hector McMillan: Would it get more if it needed it later on?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This grant is in order to improve their livestock facilities at Toronto. They were given a total grant of $1 million. They have not yet expended this money. They expected last year to spend about a quarter of a million dollars. That is why $250,000 was put into the estimates last year. But then they ran into difficulty, I think because of the new extension of the Queen Elizabeth way or the four-lane highway which

is to go into Toronto in that area. This four-lane highway took up some of the land, as I understand it, on which they were going to construct these new buildings. Therefore they were obliged to cancel those plans and are in the process of making new ones now. That is the reason for the hold-up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister would perhaps wish to deal with the question put by the hon. member for Welland. The royal winter fair is one of the great institutions of its kind, not only in Ontario but, I suppose, in the world. If the directors of the royal winter fair felt that the moneys now appropriated were insufficient for their purposes I take it from the question-although I am not clear from the answer- that more moneys would be appropriated by way of a special supplementary estimate later on.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I say, the agreement was made to provide them with $1 million to extend their facilities. As the hon. member says, this is the big winter fair in Canada. It is the showplace of Canadian agriculture in Canada. On that account it was made this special grant. I do not think the directors of the royal winter fair are going to need more than the amount that is in the estimates this year. That is why this amount is in rather than the greater amount.


Mr. Charlton:: I could not possibly let this opportunity pass without saying just a word agreeing in part at least with the hon. member for Kootenay West. It is not often that I can agree with what he says, but on this occasion I certainly can do so with regard to the federated women's institutes of Canada and this grant to them of $10,000. I am sure it is not the first time, however, that this grant has been given. On a previous occasion I am sure this same grant was made to the women's institutes of Canada. I believe that was on the occasion of the meeting here some few years ago of the federated women's institutes of the world. In addition, I want to point out that while the first women's institute was formed at Stoney Creek, I have the honour to have in my constituency the birthplace of the lady who started this institution, namely Adelaide Hunter Hoodless. It is situated within a mile and one-half of my own home at St. George, Ontario. I should like to add that the site of her birthplace is being marked this year by the archaeological and historical sites board of the province of Ontario. It will be quite an occasion. I think it is to be held on June 12.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think perhaps I had better just say that I was glad to put in this grant

for the women's institutes and get it accepted as a regular grant amongst these other grants in this department. This is the first time that this has been the case. The women's institutes received a special grant on the occasion mentioned by the hon. member some years ago. But this is the first time that they have ever been put in for a regular grant, although they have been asking for this grant for many years. I was extremely glad finally to succeed in getting this institution accepted as one which should have an annual grant.


Augustin Brassard: I should like to know whether there are in the country other organizations which have applied for grants and if so, whether their requests were refused? Are these grants which are listed on page 112 fixed annual grants or are they determined by the minister or by his officials or on the recommendation of the officials to the minister?


Douglas Scott Harkness: They are not fixed. They can be changed annually. In most cases they have been arrived at as a result of discussions with the organization concerned and a determination made of what appeared to be a reasonable sort of grant for the dominion government to make to the particular institution concerned. As I said, the women's institutes have now been asking for many years for an annual grant and it was always refused. Eventually I managed to get the treasury board to agree that this was the type of institution which should have a grant under this particular item. That is why the $10,000 is in for that particular institution. As to what other institutions may have asked for grants and been refused, I do not know. I cannot recall any that have been refused since I have been Minister of Agriculture but I have no doubt that over the years there have been organizations which asked for grants and did not get them.


William Hector McMillan: I should like to ask the minister, in connection with this grant of $50,000 to the Canadian national livestock records, where these records are kept. Are they kept here in Ottawa?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, they are kept here in Ottawa in the Canadian national livestock record office. It is on Queen street.


William Hector McMillan: Is that for the whole of Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, that is for all Canada, and we make a grant toward the carrying on of this work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supp ly-A griculture
25. Quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $6,500,000.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the minister's attention to certain commercial practices encountered in some Quebec ridings, particularly in Bagot, Shef-ford and Richelieu counties where, for a couple of years, sharpers have been taking in local farmers. Those crooked businessmen come down to our parishes as alleged cattle buyers. At first they put on an act of big operators: they buy up poultry, butcher cattle and hogs. For their first order they make out a cheque which is generally honoured. However, on the second order the cheque bounces. The farmer then goes up to the operator and asks why the cheque came back. He is told some fancy yarn and given a second cheque with the promise that this one will be accepted by the bank. Unfortunately, the cheque is not accepted. Thus, we have seen farmers particularly in the district of Bagot lose $500, $1,500 and even $3,000.
An investigation by the Catholic Farmers' Union revealed that its members in the district of Bagot and neighbourhood had lost $50,000, while those from Drummond and Arthabaska lost nearly half a million dollars to those sharpers.
I therefore ask the minister to investigate, or have an investigation made, into those shameful practices.
May I make a suggestion? He might for instance require a cattle dealer to deposit a 15 day guarantee equal to the amount of the transaction, as is done in the case of butter factories. Nowadays a butter maker who wants to go into business has to supply a guarantee equal to the value of his merchandise for a period of two or three weeks or even a month. Therefore, I consider that for the protection of farmers, a guarantee bond should be required of those dealers.
I realize it might be difficult to require such guarantees from existing firms, especially the larger ones, but I am confident that departmental officials can develop a formula that would answer farmers' requirements, especially in areas where there are small industries in more or less solid financial position.
This is the plea I am making to the Minister of Agriculture. Could he set up an inquiry into those shameful practices and

Sup p ly-A griculture
would it be possible to demand a guarantee taken part in this debate or, I should say, in from those who want to engage in the the examination of the estimates of the slaughtering of hogs, the poultry or live- Department of Agriculture which is now stock trade in general?	going on for the seventh or the eighth day.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: I hope the hon. member realizes-and if not, the hon. member for Essex East, who is in the legal business, will enlighten him-that these are matters of provincial responsibility. The dominion government does not issue licences to people to deal in livestock, and it would be beyond our jurisdiction to do so. These matters of property and civil rights are, in general, in the hands of the provinces. Fraudulent practices and similar actions, when they exist, should be prosecuted by the provincial attorneys general concerned. They are not matters with which the dominion Department of Agriculture can deal.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I thank the minister for this information. However, I know he has influence with the Quebec department of agriculture, and I know too that he has many sympathizers here in this house. I therefore ask him to urge upon the provincial government to apply the policy I have just recommended to him.
I am a bit surprised to note that, during the consideration of the various items on agriculture, not one Quebec Conservative member stood up for Quebec farmers. We have to do it all ourselves. I am not complaining about it. I don't mind doing it at all, but just the same I would have liked to hear the version of Quebec Conservative members. In any case, I would ask them to get in touch with the premier, Mr. Duplessis or Mr. Barre, minister of agriculture for the province of Quebec, and suggest that some legislation may be introduced to protect Quebec farmers and especially the small farmers. (Text):


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must ask him to refrain from dealing with provincial matters when discussing this item.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I might also point out that the hon. member is being very unfair, in the remarks he has just made, in connection with members on the government side of the house from the province of Quebec. A large number of members from that province on the government side have

(Translation):


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) has just put on the record certain remarks that I certainly cannot let go unnoticed. Moreover, since he suggested that I take part in the discussion, I should like to inform the house that the unscrupulous dealers he referred to do not operate in my constituency. And, for the information of my hon. friend, 1 would say it would be preferable-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I asked the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska to refrain from discussing provincial matters, and I hope the hon. member who now has the floor will do the same thing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like you to give me the same chance as you gave the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, because my riding is certainly affected by the words he used. We are harmless merchants, and the people to whom the hon. member was referring are now, as he ought to know, in jail. Moreover, they were not from my riding.


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, since it has been suggested to me throughout my constituency I should like to ask the minister whether any consideration is being given to cutting out the premium on grade B hogs and increasing the premium on grade A a like amount in an effort to raise the quality of the bacon which the hog areas are producing?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That proposal has been made by various people and organizations along with other proposals and the department has all these proposals under consideration at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
27. Freight assistance on western feed grains,
[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief remarks on this item with regard to the distribution of animal feeds in the province of Quebec, and particularly in the Sorel district. In fact, farmers in this district are complaining that they can no longer purchase grain from elevators located in Sorel. I think the owners of these elevators

are more interested in handling grain for transshipment purposes than for delivery to farmers.
Some ten constituencies north and south of the St. Lawrence river are entirely dependent on grain elevators in Sorel for their supplies. Last year, farmers had a hard time getting even small quantities of grain from these elevators. This has caused hardship to livestock breeders in the district, because that is where the farmers can get the cheapest grain, taking transportation costs into account.
I therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) whether the North American Elevator Company Limited, which owns these elevators, is authorized to deliver grain to farmers in the Sorel area, and if not, I should like to know why.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am not clear as to what the situation is about which the hon. member complains. This item, however, covers the subsidy we pay on the movement of grain from the western provinces down east or to British Columbia. The question of whether a particular elevator will or will not deliver grain at a farmer's farm does not come under this item at all nor indeed is it a matter within the purview of the Department of Agriculture. We have nothing to do with whether a particular concern delivers grain to a farmer's farm. I should think that would be entirely governed by the law of the province or perhaps it would be a business decision of the company concerned.


Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions in respect of this item under which we are asked to vote $20 million for freight assistance on feed grain. At this time I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a few matters of importance to my area. I have in my hand a fairly recent communication from the Department of Agriculture a portion of which I should like to place on the record:
As you know, when we agreed to pay freight assistance on movement out of the British Colum-bia-Peace River block into other areas of British Columbia, this was the first time we had paid assistance on movement in a province. We did have some reservations about opening up this precedent, but felt that it was completely illogical to pay freight assistance on British Columbia-Peace River grain if it moved via Alberta but not if it moved directly. The British Columbia-Peace River block has always been a part of the western grain-producing area for the purpose of our freight assistance regulations, and therefore we undertook to pay on direct movement over the Pacific Great Eastern.
Supply-Agriculture
The Creston-Wynndel area has never been a part of the western grain-producing area for the purpose of our freight assistance regulations, although I realize that it is a designated area under the wheat board.
At the present time the area in which t I live is producing one-half a million bushels of wheat annually. In the over-all picture of Canadian wheat production that is not very large but it is considerable in relation to the output of this area. We are having considerable difficulty in getting our wheat to market due to our geographic location and because of various toll bridges and, incidentally, the fact that we do not have the trans-Canada highway. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention that had the trans-Canada highway been put through the southern section of the province I believe many of our problems would have been removed. Last autumn a news story appeared in local newspapers which caused considerable interest. The press release read:
British Columbia grain growers will get a federal freight subsidy on feeds shipped to other British Columbia farmers from Peace River and Creston areas.
At present freight rates, the assistance will be $7.90 a ton from Peace River points, $5.90 from Creston.
This compares with $6.50 from Calgary and $7.90 from Edmonton, the maximum.
This news item was later refuted by the department. I would request that some consideration be given to the agricultural problems of our area. Not very long ago we had to have a permit before feed grains could be shipped out of our area to coastal markets which involved delay, but thanks to the minister and his department this problem has now been resolved satisfactorily and through their co-operation we are now able to get permits practically on a moment's notice.
A major cause of concern in the constituency of Kootenay East is that we experience difficulty in getting our wheat into the Vancouver market. At the present time a certain degree of discrimination exists against this area of British Columbia. If the assistance referred to in this estimate is to apply to feed grains anywhere in Canada then my area should receive some consideration.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this subsidy for the movement of feed grains is for interprovincial movements and not for movements within a province. That is the reason why the subsidy is not paid on the movement of grain from Creston or Wynndel to other points in British Columbia. Any grain moved from Creston to Ontario would be eligible for assistance. We do not, however, pay the subsidy on wheat moving between Creston and the Okanagan valley or from

Supply-Agriculture
Kootenay East to Kootenay West which is not very far away. If we did so, the entire subsidy system in respect to the movement of feed grains would have to be completely changed.
At the present time we have received complaints from the corn growers in Ontario over the fact that this subsidy is paid. Some people in Ontario want this subsidy abolished because it puts them at a disadvantage so far as the sale of their corn, wheat or other grains is concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister agree with the submission made by the corn growers?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I do not. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and all agricultural organizations except those representing solely wheat and corn growers have pressed us to keep this subsidy in operation. If you started to pay a subsidy within a province it would mean you would be saying, in effect, "We will pay the charges on all movements of grain for feeding purposes."


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, would the minister be good enough to answer one question. Can an eastern farmer purchase grain direct from the wheat board or does he have to purchase from a wheat concern?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As long as he takes a carload he can get it direct from the wheat board; but, of course, the wheat board does not sell except in carload lots.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is that quite correct? The wheat board always has an agent through which they sell.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, technically.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think there is an intermediary; it cannot be made out to the wheat board as such.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
28. Agricultural lime assistance, $700,000.
William Hector McMillan: Where is this lime used? Is it used in western Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as I know, it applies to all the eastern provinces and British Columbia. In other words, the only place to which it does not apply in Canada is the three prairie provinces.


William Hector McMillan: Why is that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Of course, in those provinces they do not use lime; there is no need for lime.


William Hector McMillan: Why is it that the details show only $500,000 in the fiscal year 195758; $900,000 in 1958-59; and $700,000 for this year? Does it mean that they overspent the amount by $400,000?


Mr. Lennard:: They are using more lime.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer first of all is that we authorized an increase in the rate of assistance, and in addition to that there was an increase in the amount of lime used last year and thus assisted under the program.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
30.	Poultry division, $1,130,289.
William Hector McMillan: In connection with this item, I notice underneath it the following, "Appropriations not required for 1959-60, $40,511,300." What is meant by that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the acreage payment which we made last year in the three prairie provinces and which has not been provided for in the estimates this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
31.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $5,153,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the minister knows, he has had repeated requests for years for an amendment to this act to make it apply on a statutory basis to all provinces in Canada. A great deal of interest is taken in this question in British Columbia because the good work which is being done under the act in the prairie provinces and, to a limited extent, I understand, by estimates in other provinces but not by statute, is generally recognized. Can the minister inform the committee whether the government is giving consideration to widening the application of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to all provinces in Canada so that they will enjoy the same opportunities?


Mr. Broome:: Before the minister answers I would like to add my voice to what has been said by the hon. member. I know we do have several projects going on which are carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. As the hon. member says, these are being carried on under special provisions of the act. If the act were amended to include all of the provinces a great deal of good could be done in British Columbia. You could also change the name of the act from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to "Western Farm Assistance Act", or something along that line.


Mr. Korchinski:: I should like to say a few words to the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that he can extend the jurisdiction of the act. Because of the way the act is constituted at the present time some of the areas

in my constituency are not covered. This, of course, presents quite a problem to some of the people because there is a considerable amount of diversification going on and many of these people depend on dugouts for their water supply. If they are to diversify they must have water. In some areas certain portions of the municipalities are not covered. This creates a difficulty for the people within the boundaries of a particular municipality.
In addition, I might suggest to the minister that the present rate of compensation paid should be increased. The original intent was to compensate for part of the construction of dugouts and dams. Since then the cost of construction has gone up considerably. Perhaps the time has come when we should take another look at this, and a higher rate of compensation be paid.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as far as the last point is concerned, we increased the rate of help given for dugouts, small irrigation projects and so forth, effective April 1 of this year. At the present time the amount of assistance available for a dugout is $250 rather than $125 which had existed; $300 for one of the small dams in place of $150; and $600 for an irrigation project in place of the $350 which had prevailed before. In other words, the scale of assistance has been practically doubled. As far as dugouts and dams are concerned it was doubled. For the other it was almost doubled. For larger excavations we pay up to seven cents a yard for excavation work in place of the four and one-half cents which had prevailed before.
Now, as far as extending the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to all parts of Canada is concerned, to begin with I think perhaps I had better point out that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was brought into existence to do exactly as the act says, namely to rehabilitate certain areas in western Canada, the dry areas of the southern prairies. The provisions of the act were limited^ to those drier areas. That is why there is the line of demarcation in the western provinces. The areas south of that line are eligible for P.F.R.A. work and benefits, and the areas north of it are not. There has been, of course, constant pressure on to extend that line northwards, and there has been some justification, I think, in certain areas particularly for extending it northwards because drier conditions began to prevail in some areas where they had not prevailed previously. Therefore, there has been some extension of the line northwards.
The work which has been carried on in British Columbia was not carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; it was carried on under special votes appearing in
Supply-Agriculture
the estimates from time to time. However, it was done by the P.F.R.A. personnel, but it was not part of the prairie farm rehabilitation activities actually or strictly speaking.
Now, as hon. members know, we have a study going on, on a project to put into effect a national soil and water conservation program. We had a conference on this with representatives from all the provinces a few months ago, and it was decided at that conference that this was a thing which would take a considerable amount of preparation in order to get down to anything which would be practical and workable. As a result, it was decided to hold a full-scale conference in 1960. In the meantime, the provincial and dominion officials concerned -it carries over into several departments in both the dominion government on the one hand and the provincial governments on the other-would make the necessary research and preparatory work. As a result of that conference I hope we shall be able to bring into being something in the nature of what you might call a national soil and water authority or organization, which probably would then absorb the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program as part of its activities. I think that is the way in which the things will move rather than to expand the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into other provinces.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was very interested in hearing the minister's explanation when replying to the requests of various members for the extension of the application of the act to all provinces. The minister knows that in my constituency there is a district known as the Slocan valley which has been somewhat depopulated because of certain tendencies on the part of some of the citizens of the district that are not very well appreciated by the other section of the community. Consequently the valley is not producing what it was even 40 years ago.
At the request of the Slocan valley agricultural development association I wrote the minister asking if the federal government would undertake surveys of the acreage, soil, suitability of the soil for certain crops and so on in the valley and the minister replied that favourable consideration would be given to such a request if an application or representations were made by the government of British Columbia. Should that occur, could that sort of thing be undertaken even prior to the development of the legislation the minister has just mentioned?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It could only be undertaken if it were covered by a special vote in the estimates. If the hon. member will look at the estimates he will see one or two special

Supply-Agriculture
votes. There is a special vote of $150,000 for diking and cutoffs in respect of the Assini-boine and Qu'Appelle rivers. Under the vote for major irrigation and reclamation projects certain projects are named which can be covered in this way but they do not come under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. In the same way supervision of the building of the South Saskatchewan dam is being carried on by personnel of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act administration but as far as the cost and legislative authority are concerned they are covered by the vote for major irrigation projects.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a very brief comment having to do with the statement the minister has just made that the amount for which a farmer may be eligible with respect to the construction of a dugout has been increased from $125 to $250. I want to thank the minister because in my opinion this is a very timely move. I think such action should have taken place long ago. I am not holding the minister responsible for the fact that it was not taken long ago because the amount of $125 is the sum that has been paid for many years under a former administration.
With conditions on the prairies extremely dry at the present time and with the development of a very substantial livestock industry, the provision of water becomes a greater and greater problem. Beyond question the agricultural producers on the prairies will welcome the statement of the minister with regard to the increase in the amount that a farmer may receive when a dugout or small dam is constructed. In my opinion what the government has now done is to take into account the very great increase in excavation costs over the years. In view of the increased costs and in view of the great necessity of adequate water supplies, unquestionably this is an essential increase.


Mr. Ormiston:: I should like to ask the minister a question regarding the construction of dugouts adjacent to populated localities. As he probably knows, in my area extensive use has been made of P.F.R.A. facilities and I think quite a bit of flexibility has been apparent. I am wondering whether there has been any change of policy during the last couple of years regarding the construction of dugouts in areas such as I have mentioned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as I have been concerned in administering the act I have had regard to the provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which lays down very definitely that money expended for dugouts or other purposes under the act must be for the benefit and advantage of agriculture. Wherever it was established that a dugout

or a small dam was going to be for the advantage of agriculture in a particular area and was justified on agricultural grounds I have been quite ready to go ahead and authorize its construction in so far as we have had personnel and money available for the purpose. However, I have had a very large number of requests from towns and villages throughout western Canada to construct town water supply systems, in some cases even sewage systems, and in every case I have refused because projects of that sort are not covered by the act and I have no authority under the legislation to expend the taxpayers' money for these purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
32.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the western provinces, including payments in respect of the South Saskatchewan river project to be made in accordance with the agreement that was entered into between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Saskatchewan on the 25th day of July, 1958, $14,649,128.
Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on item 32 which pertains to irrigation and reclamation I should like to be permitted to relate to the house some of the observations I made and impressions I gained last summer when I visited the Taber district of Alberta. Much irrigation has been done in this district. On the day in question a rare opportunity presented itself to me when, on the kind invitation of the district engineer, Mr. Ellaf Olofson, I joined a group of P.F.R.A. engineers and technicians in a tour of inspection of irrigation projects and testing plots. This, I understand, is done about once a month in order to provide P.F.R.A. personnel with an opportunity to familiarize themselves with some of the new methods and latest discoveries in the field of irrigation and reclamation.
I found the tour most interesting and very informative. Although I am a dry land farmer myself, the short inspection tour convinced me of the merits of irrigation and the benefits a farmer can derive from the use of water. One outstanding example was the farm of a young American who had only come to Alberta in 1957. He came originally from a place in the United States where much irrigation is practised, and that is one reason why he wanted to settle in a district in Alberta where irrigation is carried on at the present time. The other reason was the price he would have had to pay for irrigated land in the United States. Here he could buy the same amount of land for about one-tenth of the price he would have had to pay in the United States.
From what I could see this farmer knew irrigation inside out and his first crop last

year justifies my statement. He pointed out to us that he had not had enough time to put irrigation to work by growing row crops such as sugar beets and so he had had to be content to grow flax in his first year. The day we were there he was harvesting his flax and according to his estimate it was running about 35 bushels to the acre. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that at present the price of flax is about $3 a bushel. I must say I have never seen a better crop or better sample of flax anywhere.
He told us that he only irrigated his land twice during the year, but the outstanding feature was the method he had applied. It is the so-called corrugated irrigation method which is supposed to be the least expensive and one that requires little labour. If I may be permitted, I should like to try to describe to you this corrugated irrigation process.
The land to be sown to crop is prepared in the usual manner up to the point where it is ready for the drill. Then, the whole field is corrugated with an implement that looks very much like a rod weeder except that there is no rod. There is one row of stiff cultivator shanks spaced about 30 inches apart, instead of rods. There are 8-inch shovels attached to these shanks, and these shovels look very much like miniature irrigation ditchers. This is the implement that is used to ditch the field. This process leaves the whole surface of the field marked with little ditches about eight inches wide, three to four inches deep and, of course, 30 inches apart. The farmer then sows his crop in the ordinary way, running in the same direction as the ditches. One would think that while irrigating a corrugated field some seeds in these ditches would be washed out or drowned. However, from what I could observe there appeared to be just as many stalks in the ditches as in other parts of the fields.
The other place to which we were taken during this tour was a livestock farm or what we would call a cattle feed lot. It, too, was an irrigated farm but instead of having cattle grazing in a pasture the procedure is reversed and the grass is brought to the feed lot for the cattle. The pasture is divided into a number of parcels of equal size. These parcels are used in a revolving order. When the grass is high enough in the first parcel, it is cut and loaded into trucks, all in one operation, and taken to these feed lots. After the grass has been taken off a parcel, the field is irrigated and fertilized if this is required. Then, the operation is moved to the second parcel. This method of pasturing cattle, which is called mechanical grazing, is very economical. Much less land is required and the land can
Supply-Agriculture
be irrigated and fertilized whenever that is needed. If ordinary pasturing practices were followed this would not be possible because the cattle would be allowed to roam around in the fields. The feeder cattle make much more rapid weight gains and in much less time. All this means a great saving to the farmer in time and money.
In conclusion, I should like to say that in my opinion the P.F.R.A. with its competent staff of engineers and technicians, has done a commendable job in the field of irrigation and reclamation, as well as in other fields. As a result of all this, farmers who can apply themselves to irrigation farming can do this more economically now as a result of the research experience which is passed on to them. It is my firm belief that irrigation should be extended wherever this is possible in Canada. It is an investment in the future of Canada's agriculture.


Mr. Dumas:: I wonder if the minister would give the committee a summary of the work done to date in respect of the South Saskatchewan river project?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, by the end of last year we had let six contracts. One of them was for an access road; one was for the substructure for a construction bridge; one was for an abutment on one side of the river, a big earth-moving job; one was for the construction of administrative headquarters for the P.F.R.A. personnel who will be supervising this job. The construction area was provided with sewers, water and so forth so that it could be used by the construction companies in establishing their camps, and so on.
Since that time, we have given out two other contracts. One contract is for the processing of the aggregate, and this was a contract for $812,000. This is to get the aggregate mixture, the crushed stone, gravel and so forth, ready for the concrete work. Another contract was for the construction of a north access road, that is coming in from the north. The first access road was to come in from the east. Those are the contracts that have been let to date. There will be a number of other contracts let during the next month or two months.


Armand Dumas: What is the estimated amount of the contracts for the access roads?


Douglas Scott Harkness: For the access roads; the first one was $172,469; that was the east access road.


Armand Dumas: Was that included in the first six contracts?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Armand Dumas: There are now eight contracts?

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, with an aggregate of $5.5 million.


Armand Dumas: I noticed in the estimates, page 122, there is provision for $8.61 million, which is the estimated expenditure for the South Saskatchewan river development project. Is that the total amount for the fiscal year or is there another amount included in this item on page 123?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, that is the estimated amount which we will expend during this fiscal year.


Hazen Robert Argue: The progress that is being made toward the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam, and the general project, is most welcome. I think the people of Saskatchewan are pleased that this project will, in due course, be completed. I am certain history will show that it was one of the far-sighted policies that has been proceeded with on a joint, co-operative basis between the Saskatchewan government and the federal government. While it was necessary for the federal government to agree before construction could take place, the position of the Saskatchewan government for many years has been that this is a worth-while project and should have been proceeded with long ago. Therefore, because of the co-operative attitude of both governments this project is now under way.
I have a question I should like to raise, Mr. Chairman, in connection with this project. I believe the Minister of Agriculture is very familiar with this general question. I refer to the wage rates that will be paid to workers performing services on that project. Most of the workers involved, no doubt, will be working for the contractors, but there is concern amongst the labouring groups that the wages paid on the South Saskatchewan project will not conform to the general wage rates paid similar labour in Saskatchewan.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to say that the matter of wage rates is handled by the Department of Labour, therefore, I think the time for him to ask these questions is on the estimates of the Department of Labour which follow immediately after the Department of Agriculture. I have had nothing to do with the matter of wage rates. It has been handled by the Department of Labour.


Hazen Robert Argue: So far as I am concerned, I do not wish to delay the passage of these estimates beyond today. I do know a great deal of the correspondence in regard to this question has come to the Minister of Agriculture. I am quite prepared to discuss it at a later stage with the Minister of Labour.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I referred all the letters to the Minister of Labour.


Hazen Robert Argue: I hope the Minister of Labour has taken action in this regard, and that the wages that are paid by contractors will not be low wages, nor will they be the lower wages that are general in the area where the dam is to be constructed.
As hon. members can well realize, the wages that are usually paid in outlying communities are lower than the wages that are paid in the larger urban communities. There will be a great many workers attached to this project. I shall accept the minister's advice. I shall take the matter up with the Minister of Labour when his estimates are before the house. I hope that I can get a satisfactory answer from him. I should be quite happy to have him give us the information now. Certainly this is a situation that requires action by the government.


Frank Howard: In the details on page 122 I notice that there are two listings which are rather hard to follow. For instance, about half way down the page there is listed "Lil-looet river reclamation (Pemberton)". I imagine that is the Pemberton valley in British Columbia. It is under item (13) or one of the items under (13) and it is listed at $150,000. Then right following that, under the heading "Further details for major irrigation and reclamation projects in the western provinces" we again find listed "Lillooet river reclamation (Pemberton), $150,000". By looking quickly at these details, it would appear to me that all of the items listed in one section are just re-listed again farther down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is just a different type of breakdown for the convenience of hon. members.


Frank Howard: So that they will be able to see the actual projects?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Frank Howard: There are two in British Columbia. One is the Lillooet river reclamation (Pemberton) and the other one is the British Columbia fruit lands irrigation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
36. Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $630,069.
Hazen Robert Argue: On item 36 dealing with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act I should like to bring to the attention of the committee a request that was sent to the Minister of Agriculture some time ago by Mr. Harry Riviere, who is secretary of the rural municipality of Brokenshell, at Trossachs. His suggestion to the minister was an excellent one, I thought. It had to do with the practice of the office

of the prairie farm assistance officials. He made the point to the minister that when an area has been surveyed as to whether or not it will be eligible for prairie farm assistance, the result of that survey should be made available to each farmer who has signed a crop report but is subsequently declared ineligible for payment. He points out-and I think from my own experience I can agree with him wholeheartedly-that in a given area that has been inspected, a farmer who has signed a crop report and hopes he will be eligible for prairie farm assistance but who is subsequently found under the act to be ineligible, does not find this out by any direct communication from the office but merely hears it very often from some of his neighbours who are eligible and who receive cheques. Then the farmers who have been shut out under the provisions of the act immediately begin writing to the office criticizing the department and asked for reinspection and so on. His suggestion was that there should be a short note sent out. It could be a mimeographed note, probably, that could be used as a standard thing. There might have to be a number of various forms but it certainly would not have to be a new letter in each case. His suggestion was that producers who have had their crops inspected or their yields inspected should be notified when they are ineligible for payment.
I know the minister has had that letter among the many letters he receives. I do not know whether he has given it any further consideration since he has received it. However, to my mind it was a constructive suggestion. There may be some obvious objection to that kind of practice; I would not know. However, I certainly feel that it is something that should be given sympathetic consideration.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I gave consideration to it. I made some inquiries as to how many letters this procedure would involve. I think it ran to somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 letters. Of course, the administrative cost of this procedure would be considerable. It is a thing which I think we might handle by sending letters out only to the people in a particular municipality who are not paid.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, yes; that is right. There is no need to send a letter to a man who is going to be paid. He gets his cheque and a little note with it, which was the practice initiated by the previous administration so that the provincial government would not get any credit for it and that is perfectly understandable. He gets a little note saying, "This payment comes to you from the federal government". I have no objection to that procedure. We might as well keep our people as well informed as we 66968-9-207
Supply-Agriculture
can. Certainly there would be no need to send a letter to people who are getting a cheque. The cheque itself is information enough for people who are eligible. But for those who are ineligible-


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a result of your speech, the minister would like to send cheques to everybody.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should be happy to see that but I am not nearly as optimistic as is my friend the hon. member for Essex East. But in fairness to the Minister of Agriculture, may I say this, and it is nice to end a discussion of the estimates of the department on a kindly note. I can say without fear of successful contradiction that the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in recent months has shown a great improvement over its administration in former years. If the Leader of the Opposition says that that is not a friendly note, if he would check with the farmers who have been receiving cheques he would find that they consider it a friendly thing and a correct thing because certain amendments that were brought into the act on a previous occasion have made it possible for more producers who have crop failures and are entitled to benefit under the act to receive payment.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Would the hon. member not agree that the administration under Mr. Gardiner perhaps has never been excelled?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not agree with that statement. I would say it has never been excelled as a political machine.


Peter Francis Martin: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: In other respects, it has been excelled. After this government has been in office for a few years-and we hope it is not too long- they may have learned some of the tricks that the former minister of agriculture used to use.
I want to say to the minister that if he would accept my suggestion he would get less criticism of his department. The farmers today are pleased that more of them- although not as many as they would wish because the matter is still not on an individual basis-who have a crop failure are in fact able to get payment.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have just one point to make.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Five o'clock.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: There is one small point I should like to make, Mr. Chairman. There are farmers who have permit books and who are paying in under P.F.A.A. but they will never

Private Bills
be eligible for payment under P.F.A.A. because they could never be included in a six-section group. They have made representations to me that they think it would be only fair that, if they were not eligible for payment, their payment books should be marked specially so that they will not be obliged to make payment or so that they can get reimbursement. It is impossible for them to benefit under this act and they should like to be removed from the paying end.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: That concludes the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the
house will now proceed to consideration of public bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-18, to incorporate Lutheran Church-Canada.
He said: As sponsor of this measure it is my privilege to provide information to this house and reasons why, in my submission, favourable consideration should be given to its passage. This bill seeks to give corporate status to the members of this Lutheran church in Canada who are adherents to the Missouri synod. In the early years, and up to the present time, members of this church have been organized into three districts, namely, Ontario, Manitoba-Saskatche-wan, and Alberta-British Columbia. These three bodies have done the preliminary work with a view to becoming one body, and are now seeking incorporation. In addition to those belonging to the three groups I have mentioned, there are others who have, because of proximity to other Lutheran churches in the United States, been affiliated in the United States districts. These will also be included in the body now being incorporated.
At the present time this church is affiliated with the Missouri synod of the church in the United States, but preparations are now being made for the establishment of an independent Canadian body in the future. The church has congregations in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Television and radio coverage is provided in all the provinces. At present there are about 333 congregations and 76,000 baptized members.
Mr. Speaker, the object of the corporation shall be:

(a)	to promote, maintain, superintend and carry on in accordance with the faith, doctrines, constitution, acts and rulings of the corporation any or all of the work of that body;
(b)	to advance and increase the diffusion of the faith of the corporation in all lawful ways;
(c)	to organize, establish, maintain and carry on residences, missions, churches, places of worship, parsonages, orphanages, homes for the aged, rest homes and institutions and agencies for promoting, teaching, propagating and disseminating the Lutheran faith and doctrine and for training persons for the said purposes;
(d)	to promote, organize, establish, maintain and carry on social service, welfare and guidance institutions and agencies;
(e)	to promote education, instruction and culture, and to organize, establish, maintain and carry on schools, colleges, academies, seminaries, institutions of learning, recreational halls, centers and agencies, and industrial, technical and agricultural institutes and farms;
(f)	to promote charity and to care for the poor, and to organize, establish, maintain and carry on charitable institutions, hospitals, clinics, dispensaries and cemeteries;
(g)	to organize, establish, maintain and carry on libraries and houses and agencies for printing, publishing and disseminating literature, news papers, periodicals and works of education, religion, art and science;
(h)	to promote the spiritual welfare of all the congregations and mission fields of the corporation.
As a member of this church, and on behalf of all its members I would appreciate the approval of this bill by the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. G. R. Muir (Lisgar) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-17, to incorporate Export Finance Corporation of Canada Limited.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate a company under the name of the Export Finance Corporation of Canada Limited. The objects of the corporation would be to finance the exchange of commodities between Canada and other nations of the world, and to facilitate the overseas trade of Canada by extending credit for the export of various agricultural and manufactured products.
The general lending policy of the corporation would be two-fold: first, assistance to Canadian companies and exporters in financing exports of these products which I have mentioned and, second, the provision of loans to foreign governments, corporations and importers for financing the purchase of Canadian materials, equipment and services as they are required in the development of industry and natural resources abroad.

Applicants for loans would be required to show a good credit standing, and in addition the assured ability to obtain the dollar exchange necessary to service the loan. Loans would be made only for specific purposes, that is, loan commitments would be entered into only upon the borrower providing ample evidence that the proceeds would be used for the purchase of Canadian products, goods or services.
Most of the important exporting countries of the world are assisted in their export trade by similar lending agencies either governmental or private. Since Canada has in recent years become increasingly dependent on her export trade, it is most important that our export business be given every encouragement in the increasingly competitive world markets. The corporation will provide financing facilities such as have been available in England through various merchant guilds that have operated in that country for many decades and which contributed so much toward making England one of the world's great trading nations.
This particular field of export financing is normally beyond the scope of the Canadian chartered banks because it presumes the granting of credits on a much more extended basis than that exercised by the banks. The corporation's services are intended to complement but not compete with those presently offered by the chartered banks. While it is intended that the corporation will enter all aspects of export-import financing, including the granting of long term credit, it will not entertain any type of financing obtainable from a chartered bank in Canada.
The chartered banks have not wanted to make long term loans of this nature because there is no agency presently operating in Canada where the banks could discount these loans. Perhaps it is not generally recognized that while the federal government will insure credit extended to foreign buyers it does not provide the credit. The establishment of a financing agency such as is proposed in this bill which will trade in these credits as well as providing them should meet a definite need in Canada for the continued development of her export market in agricultural and manufactured products.
It is contemplated that the corporation would entertain proper loans for sums as low as $500. It is not proposed that a maximum figure should be established and should any single transaction or series of transactions call for a higher amount of financing than the corporation is willing to entertain it might form a financing syndicate with other lenders in order that the total financial assistance required could be furnished.
66968-9-2074
Export Finance Corporation
It is not anticipated that instalment financing would mature in a period any greater than five years. However, the corporation would be willing to participate with others ready to accept maturities for longer periods. With regard to the financing of projects or developments, maturities might extend up as far as 20 years. The interest rates to be charged by the corporation would vary from transaction to transaction and from country to country depending on the financial terms, the credit of the borrower and the guarantees furnished.
It is proposed that the corporation would have a capitalization of $50 million represented by 10 million shares of the par value of $5 each and it appears at the present time that some of the chartered banks of Canada, if not all of such banks, will be subscribers to the capital of the corporation. I have also been advised that when the capital stock of the corporation is offered for sale the public will be given the opportunity to subscribe and take up the remainder of any such offering.
The bill, of course, will be referred to the appropriate committee where hon. members will have ample opportunity to discuss it fully with its sponsors who will sit in with committee members to give a full explanation with respect to each clause and answer any and all questions in regard to the general policy of the corporation. The chairman of the standing committee on banking and commerce of the other place, had the following remarks to make with regard to the testimony of the witnesses that appeared before the committee:
We had before us in the committee representatives of several banks. I particularly recall Mr. E. Ernst, assistant general manager of the Bank of Montreal, who said that in his view this bill was sound in principle and would fill a gap in our financing of exports. He thought it would be of great value to Canadian industry. Mr. Arthur Mayne, associate general manager of the Royal Bank of Canada, supported that view. Mr. K. W. Taylor, deputy minister of finance, indicated to the committee that there was a definite field for the kind of thing contemplated in this bill and which does not now exist in financing in Canada. Mr. Hugh Aitken, president of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, was very strong in his statement as to the purpose which a company of this kind could serve. He indicated there would be no conflict between the operations of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation and this new corporation, if and when it is incorporated.
The chairman of the committee then went on to say:
In the course of our consideration of the bill in committee, we had before us not only these bankers and other men I have already mentioned, but also a Mr. Stanger, who was one of the promoters of the bill. We also had Mr. Hurter, the head of a very large engineering firm with engineering operations in various parts of the world,

Export Finance Corporation who was able to cite chapter and verse from contracts and tenders that had been invited from various parts of the world, this year, last year and the year before. The nature of the capital goods required was such that Canada could have been in the competitive market, but the terms presented difficulties. For instance, Egypt wanted five years' credit in relation to certain capital goods, and although some manufacturers in Canada considered the invitation tender, not one was in a position to take on the job, because not one could get the financing. X say this corporation is intended to fill that need. Whether it will do so completely, or at all, will depend upon how skillfully it is operated once it is incorporated and gets going.
After having read the report of the committee, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate that body on the excellent job they did in scrutinizing this bill and for the suggestions they made that formed the basis of the amendments that brought this bill up to the excellent standard and form in which it is now presented to this house.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief comments in seconding this motion. The company which seeks incorporation will fulfil a very great need that exists at the present time in respect to the field of foreign exports. Many of our Canadian companies have been under a great handicap in competing for foreign trade because many of the foreign purchasers, like our local consumers, are purchasing on credit and although the Export Credits Insurance Corporation has been of great assistance in guaranteeing the credit to other companies it has not assisted our companies by being able to turn their sales into cash and thus enabling them to continue the financing of further business. Therefore, this company will fulfil a need which, as the sponsor said, the commercial banks are not able to do.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this company will be able to purchase or discount foreign trade papers which are received by Canadian companies in their selling of goods, and it will also be able to give credit assistance to foreign buyers of goods and services. I think we see here a very definite note running through the whole bill of emphasis on assisting those who wish to buy Canadian goods or set up companies in other countries using Canadian materials. I understand that at the present time there are such countries as Ceylon, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Pakistan, South Africa, Indonesia, Malaya, Egypt, Uruguay requesting certain capital and consumer goods, and they wish to buy those on credit. They cannot do so in Canada. Our companies cannot sell to those countries under the present international arrangement,

as far as credit is concerned, with our own banking facilities. This company will provide such facilities.
I think this company is to be commended on its leadership and private initiative in providing a need in our private enterprise, permitting our companies to sell their goods abroad without waiting upon government action in this connection. The interested parties are banding together to fulfil this great need in our export trade.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the bill before the house this afternoon marks a very significant development in Canada's trading relationships with the rest of the world. As I listened to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) who sponsored the bill, outlining the discussion that took place in the other place it seemed remarkable to me that we have been so long delayed in having private participation in this important activity. During recent years the whole trading position of Canada with respect to the rest of the world has changed dramatically, and there has been a golden opportunity for private initiative and enterprise to take a constructive role. Yet it has remained until this occasion for the first halting steps to take place in this worthwhile field of endeavour.
During the past decade or so the government of Canada has taken on many activities to facilitate Canada's trading position with respect to the rest of the world, but there has been a vacuum in this area. It seems to me this is going to be merely the beginning of a further step forward in Canada's trading position.
As a western member I am especially interested in this development, of course, because many of the economic problems that are ours on the prairies can only be resolved as we move as a nation, as a government and as private citizens, to develop and expand our trading activities in other parts of the world.
We in the west have surplus agricultural products to contend with from time to time. Of course, this applies to other agricultural areas in Canada. It seems to me, that the activities of this new Export Finance Corporation can be very usefully directed toward helping in a small way to correct the economic imbalance of the prairies.
As I understand the remarks of the hon. member who sponsors this bill, it relates itself to agricultural products as well as to manufactured articles and industrial articles generally. It also seems to me that this is about the best kind of credit for export and import purposes that could be

made available. We have in Canada as a crown activity the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. I presume that any loans taken up by both exporters and importers under the operations of this company will be insurable by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. This suggests that there is absolutely no risk involved at all for those who want the facilities of this corporation. When that fact is generally known I am sure it will be a further incentive to those who wish to make use of the financial operations of the corporation.
I notice that in the reference to the interest rates the observation is made that these will be flexible; that there is no fixed interest charge for the operations of loans under this corporation. I would only suggest, that I trust the interest rates will be reasonable and in line with prevailing rates. It seems to me that any financial activity is discouraged or encouraged largely by the interest rates established. In view of the flexibility that is available to those who will be carrying on the operations of this corporation I would presume that they will take an entirely reasonable approach. I hope, too, that the inauguration of this company will be just the beginning of similar activities along these lines.
If Canada is to correct the imbalance of her trading relations that have developed in a move toward the position of a world trader, it is going to require all the ingenuity and all the energy of private citizens everywhere, as well as the operations already supported by the government of Canada.
Again, I would say that as a member from western Canada it would seem to me that this is a large contribution to make in encouraging our agricultural industry, in assisting toward diversification and thus resolving one of our basic problems, and also -and perhaps this is even more important because it is a new aspect of industrial activity on the prairies-encouraging the growing activities of our manufacturing industries in the west by providing further outlets for their products in the foreign markets of the world.


Mr. G. C. Fairfield (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join other hon. members in congratulating the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir). I was particularly interested in his statement concerning one of the witnesses who appeared before the investigating committee of the other place, a highly trained and qualified engineer who said that the advertising of Canadian engineering skill abroad had opened up tremendous export
Export Finance Corporation opportunities to Canadian manufacturing concerns but unfortunately because of the credit restrictions which are naturally imposed by Canadian banking firms the manufacturers have been unable to take advantage of these opportunities in foreign countries. The establishment of such a company is provided for by the bill, a company which will advance to manufacturing concerns possibly very large amounts of money, will give the Canadian people a greater degree of employment than they have had in the past. A lot of these projects referred to by the hon. member involve large orders for machinery and equipment and naturally under present regulations the manufacturer cannot afford to extend long term credit to the country ordering the goods.
Under the bill the Export Finance Corporation of Canada will be permitted to advance to manufacturers the capital expenditures required. Testimony was given by the same person before the committee of the other place that in the past two years somewhere between $6 million and $28 million in orders for heavy equipment had been lost to Canadian industry simply because we had no such credit corporation.
In	France and Germany bankers,
machinery suppliers, general contractors and engineering firms have pooled their resources to establish a revolving fund and in this way have overcome the problem. In his evidence this man stated that they had investigated an order for machinery in Brazil, machinery which could have been made in Canada involving approximately $12 million. That is a tremendous amount of money for a single order. He also stated that he had discovered that there was strong good will toward Canada and Canadians especially in the so-called underdeveloped nations. He also went on to refer to a tremendous order in Chile involving some $17 million which could have been manufactured in Canada but because of the lack of credit facilities to the companies concerned was lost. There was a recent engineering project in Mexico City and the authorities there were quite willing to place the order with Canadian manufacturers even at a higher figure than would have been the case elsewhere but although approximately $15 million was involved the order was lost by Canadian manufacturers and employees.
The capitalization is only $50 million and I feel sure that within the next two years we will find that with respect to heavy industry alone this sum will be oversubscribed. I admit, as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) says, that perhaps the company is not running too much of a risk

Private Bills-Divorce
because of our Export Credits Insurance Act. However, any venture involving such large sums carries with it a certain amount of risk and I am not prepared to quarrel with this company at all with respect to any reasonable sum which they will charge for the use of the money, nor am I prepared to quarrel with the government's present policy with regard to the Export Credits Insurance Act.
We must remember that immediately south of us in the United States there is a government agency which looks after most large orders involving the export of machinery. I refer to the United States export-import bank. From what I have read in the newspapers I understand that in the past some difficulties have been encountered by business in floating loans through the Canadian government agency. However, with this private corporation in operation there will at least be no political implications whatsoever.
I would expect that with this corporation in operation there would be more processing of our raw materials before export. I certainly agree wholeheartedly with the sponsor of the bill that this is an excellent move and that it would be a good thing for the house to pass the bill.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-17, to incorporate Export Finance Corporation of Canada Limited, involves such an important principle and is of such purport that it should have been introduced as a government measure for the establishment of a crown corporation or agency. However, in view of the fact that the government has given no indication of any such intention and has nothing in mind as far as we know that would cover the provisions of this bill and in view of the fact that there is a need for such an operation, let me say as clearly as I can, since everybody seems to support the bill and nobody objects to it, let us put it to a vote.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill SD-161, an act for the relief of Audrey Isabella Wanda Patterson Gray.
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps these divorce bills could be taken together.


Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of divorce bills standing for second reading, is it the pleasure of the house that these bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Robert Jardine McCleave: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill SD-161, for the relief of Audrey Isabella Wanda Patterson Gray.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-162 for the relief of Raymonde Gagnon Tremblay.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-163, for the relief of Aline Brunette Farago.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-164, for the relief of Martina Bernice Patterson Baker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-165, for the relief of Nelly Hugen-tobler Larsen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-166, for the relief of Jean Trachtenberg Levy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-167, for the relief of Louise Martel Abel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-168, for the relief of Marie Louise Fauteux Roy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-169, for the relief of Helen Lyon Bain Gardeler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-170, for the relief of Joan Brazer Brazier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-171, for the relief of Maria Luise Ahnhudt Sandberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-172, for the relief of Susan Gilda Levin Klein.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-173, for the relief of James Alvin Bradley.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-174, for the relief of Emily Mary Kredl Keller.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-175, for the relief of Raymond Winston Farren.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-176, for the relief of Marie Lucille Pauline St. Jacques Parent.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-177, for the relief of Mario Baldo. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-178, for the relief of Frank William Staples.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-179, for the relief of Zdenek Nosek. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-180, for the relief of Margaret Viola McCullough Morrow.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-181, for the relief of Sheila Carole Neidik Schwartz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-182, for the relief of Gordon Clarence Hunting.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-183, for the relief of Ida Shlafman Zimendstark.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-184, for the relief of Audrey Elsie Asbury Ross.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-185, for the relief of Patricia Anne McKenna Coombes.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-186, for the relief of William Lawrence Hughes.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-187, for the relief of Armand Lacombe.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill SD-188, for the relief of Rita Stein-bach Gruia.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-189, for the relief of George Meredith Scott Burton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-190, for the relief of Helen Borer Marcovitch.-Mr. McCleave.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, this group of bills we are considering today brings us a little over the halfway mark in the amount of work in this particular field that will confront the House of Commons this session. There are a few points with which I should like to deal this afternoon in moving the second reading of these bills, points which are directly related to individual cases that are to be found amongst the group we are considering.
Since the house earlier today heard hymns of praise from various members in favour of the women's institutes, I should like to refer to something absolutely new that has crept into the divorce practice in the province which sends its cases to us. For the first time, so far as I am aware, we have had the appearance of lady detectives before a parliamentary committee. These charming creatures ordinarily operate in civil life, in one instance as a saleslady and in the other instance as a photographer. They have chosen to supplement their income by doing a bit of investigating. They appeared, for those members who are curious, in those cases presented in the 180th report of the committee of the other place which deals with these cases.
It might be refreshing, Mr. Speaker, to put into the record some brief extracts from the testimony of these ladies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. member got photographs of the ladies that he would like to put in Hansard.'!


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, but I daresay they would be very photogenic. It is difficult, under the circumstances, to read the testimony of one of these private eyes because she uses such phrases as, "I says", and other mutilations of the English language which seem to suggest a greater familiarity with the work of Mickey Spillane than with the ordinary rules of grammar.
However, I did not intend to comment on that, but rather to answer the point I am sure most of the members of the house will be asking and that is, how did these ladies turn out as witnesses? It must be said for them that they brought their cases to a very successful conclusion. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain rules of law which
Private Bills-Divorce
frown on hearsay evidence and which, in short, tend to keep witnesses right to the point of the case. I must say that the ladies did manage to put a great deal of hearsay evidence on the record before the committee of the other place. I can only presume that the gentlemen who heard the evidence were extraordinarily gallant that day and gave a certain leeway to these lady detectives.
For example, I might say that the elder of the lady detectives was waiting outside an apartment where the rendezvous was taking place between the respondent and the co-respondent. This is the evidence she gave to the Senate committee, and I cite this as an example of the kind of hearsay evidence that crept into the record:
Around 6, not more alter 6, I saw that man coming around the street and he came through the building and he went to his apartment, same apartment; and we sat down and wait; it was a warm, warm day in August. I said, "Well, we can have lunch; they will have their supper, I suppose;"-
That is quite irrelevant, but the senators allowed it to go on the record. Then, they had a cup of tea and came back a few minutes afterwards. By this time it was 7.30 and the ladies waited around till 10 or 11 at night. Then, they marched in upon their quarry at 11.30. Then, continuing to quote from the testimony of the elder of the two detectives, I read:
-I said to my witness, "It is O.K.; it is late enough"; because it is a big apartment, ol course, and I knew before that.
They went in, and carried out this investigation very well. Indeed, they acted just like men detectives. Once the door was opened, one of them stuck her foot in it so it could not be closed, and they both marched in. The younger lady detective got a little bit excited and did not make all the notes she should have made as to what was observed. While both of them were lady detectives, they did not seem to be agreed as to the nightdress that was worn by the co-respondent. One said she had a nightgown or the top part of pyjamas, but the other one was not sure.
This case is one of several in which certain people connected therewith have taken up detective occupations at night, forsaking such ordinary occupations as lingerie salesman, insurance adjuster and other jobs. There have been any number who have appeared before parliament to give evidence in cases, including several in the group of cases we are considering now. Quite a number of these amateur detectives do not have licences issued by either the provincial or municipal authorities in Quebec. This, to me, seems to be a growing practice. Anybody in Montreal can try his hand at playing detective, without going

Private Bills-Divorce
through the legal formalities of being licensed to do so. I merely draw this to the attention of the people in Quebec because they may wish to consider this problem.
Also included in the cases before us this afternoon are several which indicate that there may be a new pattern developing in the city of Montreal, a sort of new switch on the motel and hotel type of case that has bothered parliament for some years. In making a check of these cases to try to analyse the pattern developing I found the same lawyers, the same firm of detectives and sometimes the same hotels or motels were involved. However, I came upon a curious set of cases in this particular batch in which the same lawyer, the same detectives were always involved; the evidence was very much the same, but in each case the rendezvous had occurred in some young lady's apartment. It was not the same young lady in each case, but it was an apartment. It seems to me that the people down there who connive and contrive at these particular cases have hit upon this as a new modus operandi to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the members in the other place and the members in this House of Commons. It would seem they make arrangements with the young women so that the husband goes to an apartment instead of a hotel or a motel. This will be an extraordinarily difficult thing to check, but nonetheless it seems to have developed into a set pattern. There may be attempts to impose on parliament-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit another question? Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether he is moving the adoption of these bills or speaking against them?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer to this question could lead me into a very philosophic discussion about the role of the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee.
The practice was developed years ago of having the chairman on the committee act as sponsor for all these bills. It made things somewhat easier than would be the case with lawyers or petitioners running around badgering members of parliament to sponsor particular bills before parliament. I am in a curious position. My name is down as sponsor for each one of these divorce bills. Three hundred or so of these bills were dealt with last year and I suspect that 400 will be dealt with this year. I conscientiously go through them so that if other members should raise questions about them I will be able to give some assistance to the house or to the committee if we are in committee on them.


Mr, Winch:: Does not the sponsor have to stand behind every fact of the bill that he introduces?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I hope not.


Harold Edward Winch: It would be most interesting if the hon. member could do that.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If that is my position as sponsor, I would have no recourse than to walk out of the House of Commons. I could not in conscience say that it was my duty to stand behind every statement of fact or every statement of a witness before the committee of the other place nor do I conceive that to be my duty either.


Harold Edward Winch: You could not do it anyway.


Robert Jardine McCleave: As I see it, the position of myself, both as sponsor and as chairman of the committee which has to deal with these cases, is that when I speak to the house I must speak more in the role of chairman than as sponsor. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the way I see it.
There is a case here, namely Bill SD-178, in which the co-respondent and the respondent went to a motel on what one detective described as an extremely snowy night. I think that case will deserve particular consideration in committee. It seems to have a rather unpleasant odour about it. But in accordance with the practice of the house, which is on second reading to treat more with the principle than with the particulars of the individual bill, I am asking that these bills be given second reading. We shall have an opportunity to consider the more difficult cases in our committee where, I might say, we are already holding up the eleven bills for special consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on looking at the clock, it appears to me that it is now six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must be looking at a different clock. Pursuant to standing order 105, the said bills stand referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



REPRESENTATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Frechette, seconded by Mr. Richard (Kamouraska), moved that Bill

C-21, an act to amend the Representation Act, be now read the third time and passed. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there was an understanding that these other orders would not be proceeded with and that we would call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to give us the business for Monday and for as much as possible of next week so that we can be prepared to deal with it?


Howard Charles Green: On Monday we shall continue the debate on the budget resolutions in the order which I gave the other evening. That would be followed by the resolution concerning the Unemployment Insurance Act. I cannot give the business for each day definitely but this will at least be the manner in which we start off. When estimates are called next week they will be the estimates of the Department of Labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it definitely the intention to go on with the budget resolutions on both Monday and Tuesday? If the minister could indicate that intention it would be of great convenience to us on this side of the house.


Howard Charles Green: If they are not finished on Monday we would go on with them on Tuesday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thank you.


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

[Stage Direction]
10.	Agricultural Stabilization Act administration, $103,710.
11.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $235,500.
Dairy products division-
12.	Operation and maintenance, $901,306.
Supply-Items Passed
13.	Grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act, $985,676.
Fruit and vegetable division, including maple products and honey-
14.	Operation and maintenance, $1,880,989.
15.	Assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions approved by governor in council, $25,000.
Health of animals division-
16.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $6,957,334.
17.	Animal pathology, 1,079,437.
18.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $343,540.
19.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, $1,500,000.
Livestock division-
20.	Operation and maintenance, including premiums on pure bred sires and contributions for livestock improvement: stockyard supervision and furs, $2,553,666.
21.	Supervision of race track betting, $591,315.
22.	Grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1959, with exhibitions covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings: and a grant of $50,000 to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $923,600.
23.	Special grant to Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Toronto, $15,000.
24.	Grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $224,250.
25.	Quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs. $6,500,000.
Plant products division-
26.	Operation and maintenance, including seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, $1,743,872.
27.	Freight assistance on western feed grains
[Stage Direction]
28.	Agricultural lime assistance, $700,000.
29.	Plant protection division, $1,032,318.
30.	Poultry division, $1,130,289.
Special-
31.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $5,153,000.
32.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the western provinces, including payments in respect of the South Saskatchewan river project to be made in accordance with the agreement that was entered into between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Saskatchewan on the 25th day of July 1958 $14,649,128.
33.	Assiniboine and Qu'Appelle rivers-dyking and cut-offs, $150,000.
34.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council. $500,000.
35.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $2,357,195.
36.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $630,069.
66968-9-208
3272	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group