1959-03-06

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, following my remarks yesterday I am now in a position to advise that Mr. Macmillan has accepted the invitation to come to Ottawa. He will arrive in Ottawa accompanied by the foreign secretary, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, early in the morning of March 18, and the major portion of that day will be spent in consultation and talks with members of the government. They will leave for Washington on the morning of March 19.
I know that all hon. members will join in extending a warm welcome to Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Lloyd. By the time they visit us they will have completed a round of exploratory consultations which will have included discussions in Paris and Bonn.
The Prime Minister's visit will be unavoidably short, but plans have been made for a thorough, informal exchange of views on the international problems which confront us as interested members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. My colleagues and I look forward to the opportunity of discussing those matters in particular which resulted from the visit of the Prime Minister to the U.S.S.R.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the remarks of the Prime Minister, and wish to say that the C.C.F. group look forward very much to the visit of Prime Minister Macmillan and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd to Canada. We think this visit is most important at this time because of the discussions Prime Minister Macmillan has had with Premier Khrushchev. I want to say for the C.C.F. that we admire greatly the courage and foresight shown by Prime Minister Macmillan in making his recent trip to the Soviet union. We agree with statements we have seen in the press in which he has said that he would consider a pull-back of troops from Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and central Europe. We think these talks are most welcome, and we are very much in favour of continued conversations instead of the alternative of extermination for the world.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the report, Private and Public Investment in Canada-Outlook 1959, which summarizes the results of a recent survey of capital spending intentions. The survey, conducted annually, is designed to cover all anticipated outlays for new plant and equipment, institutional and government facilities and housing. For the fourth year in succession capital investment in Canada will exceed $8 billion, a more than threefold increase in a period of 12 years. Present investment plans provide for total new capital outlays in 1959 of $8.3 billion, slightly below the $8.4 billion expended in 1958. The over-all total of intended outlays on construction and machinery, including repairs, gives a grand total for 1959 of $11.1 billion, exactly the same as for 1958. An examination of preceding survey results shows that in the past, in comparable situations to that now prevailing in Canada, stated investment plans at the beginning of the year have tended to underestimate the amount of work eventually realized. It is quite possible, therefore, that some further filling out of investment programs will occur during the course of the present year.
Within the total program, the principal increases appear in commercial and institutional building and government projects. Increased capital outlays are indicated for each of the three levels of government. Provincial and municipal governments and agencies are faced with steadily expanding requirements for roads, schools, hospitals and many types of local improvements. Somewhat easier supply conditions in the construction industry have helped in getting ahead with these programs. The federal government also is proceeding with an expanded program of public projects designed to meet the needs for defence installations and other services and to foster national development. Outlays made directly by federal departments are estimated to increase by 10 per cent, while expenditures by all three levels of government combined are expected to rise at almost the same rate.
Within the business sector, commercial construction will apparently go ahead more

Statement on Canadian Economy rapidly than ever. An approximately unchanged rate of capital spending is indicated for a broad range of industry, including agriculture, forest and mineral extraction and processing, secondary manufacturing and transportation and communications. Alone of the major business groups, fuel and power industries have indicated a somewhat lower level of capital expenditures in 1959. This reflects the near completion last year of a number of large scale undertakings, including the trans-Canada gas pipe line, the St. Lawrence seaway and power projects and other major power developments.
In recent months there has been a marked increase in the volume of new projects coming forward. Consequently a larger proportion of the 1959 program is comprised of work on newly-initiated projects, as opposed to the carryover of work on undertakings started in previous years. This change in the makeup of the investment program is indicative of new interest in expansion.
The rate of anticipated expenditures for 1959 indicates that Canadian industry is continuing to expand rapidly. As a proportion of total national output, anticipated outlays for new plant and equipment compare favourably with levels in most post-war years. This continuing build-up in the tools of industry reflects the underlying confidence of the businessman in the future of Canada, and is indicative of the strength and diversity of the expansive forces within the Canadian economy.
The physical impact of the anticipated investment program, in terms of its demands upon Canadian industry, will be about the same in 1959 as in the preceding year. Other types of demand, however, will be higher. Consumer purchases are rising. There are indications that inventory liquidation, which exerted a depressive effect on business activity for most of 1958, will soon give way to accumulation. With recovery proceeding steadily in the United States, export prospects are brightening. A sustained demand for capital goods, in conjunction with expanding markets in other fields, gives promise of further growth in production and employment levels in the period ahead.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made an extremely important statement which, so far as one can gather from listening to it without notice, represents that in regard to investment intentions and capital expenditures this country merely is holding its own. That is a situation which is surely not satisfactory if we wish to have a dynamic and expanding economy. However, the statement deserves and will receive attention

from this side of the house. In due course there will be an opportunity to discuss it, possibly in connection with the budget debate which perhaps will be commencing before the Easter recess.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, knowing the tradition of governments and that the Minister of Trade and Commerce usually tries to put forecasts in the best possible light, it is my opinion that having regard to the need for a tremendous expansion in the Canadian economy, on a study little room will be found for comfort in the statement that has just been made. The statement, in effect, says we are going to be marking time; we will be holding our own, and there will be a reduction of expenditures in certain circumstances. There will be increases in certain other outlays.
When one considers the further increase in automation in this country and its further impact on employment, one can only come to the conclusion that now is the time for a great, dynamic development sponsored and promoted by government action. This is the time for the government, and governments generally, to increase expenditures on self-liquidating projects for the Canadian nation that will result in an increased standard of living and full employment instead of the current stagnation, recession and unemployment.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-3 (from the Senate) to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
March 4-The Minister of Public Works-The following proposed motion:-That items numbered 127 to 145, inclusive, as listed in the main estimates for the year ending March 31, 1960, relating to the Department of Fisheries, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Mr. Green:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of

motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
March 4-The Minister of Finance-The following proposed motion:-That the public accounts volumes I and II and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958 and the financial statements of the Canada Council and the report of the Auditor General thereon for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958 be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinfon):: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he has received a telegram from the C.B.C. producers in Montreal with regard to the settlement of the strike, and whether he proposes to take any action in regard to that telegram.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received the telegram to which the hon. gentleman refers. All mail and telegrams go to the departmental office first and then come up here. There may be one there, but it has not come to my attention this morning.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the
minister say whether there has been any change in the attitude of the C.B.C., and whether the C.B.C. is now prepared, as are the producers, to sign the original agreement to which initials had been attached and bring this strike to a conclusion?


George Clyde Nowlan: There has been no change in the attitude of the C.B.C. I do not think I can amplify what I said yesterday. The C.B.C. is quite prepared to sign the agreement, provided that agreement means what it says and what it was intended to say when it was initialled early in February.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would that not be the position the C.B.C. should have taken before they initialled the agreement?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Clyde Nowlan: There was no need to take that position before they initialled the agreement because it was fully understood at that time what the agreement meant, and it was only some weeks later that a new interpretation was put upon it.


Mr. J. P. Deschafelefs (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it a fact that the C.B.C. has now proposed a new definition of functions for its producers in Montreal after having refused to ratify the agreement it had accepted on February 7?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not accepting that premise at all. The C.B.C. has not refused to ratify an agreement which had been accepted. The producers have refused to ratify an agreement which they had accepted. So far as I know there has been no change such as the hon. member suggests.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell us why the C.B.C. is making that proposal at this stage, when it had refused to accept a similar one on January 11, two months ago?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know to what proposal the hon. gentleman refers. I am not in touch directly with negotiations or conversations which have taken place between the corporation and producers. If there is any substance in this question to which the hon. gentleman has called my attention, I will make inquiries and deal with it on Monday.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of National Revenue. I am sorry I did not have time to send him notice. My question can be taken as notice. In view of press reports indicating that Mr. Murray Hayes, vice president of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, received a phone call from a member of the C.B.C. board of directors in connection with the protection of the C.B.C. building in Montreal, can the minister tell us the name of the C.B.C. director who made the call and what was the nature of the representations he made to Mr. Hayes?


George Clyde Nowlan: I certainly cannot, Mr. Speaker.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Can the Minister of Justice say whether the attorney general of the province of Quebec has authorized the
1676	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry intervention of the R.C.M.P. for the alleged protection of C.B.C. buildings in Montreal? Can he also say why such intervention has been undertaken, and what has been done in this connection by the R.C.M.P. up to now?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: So
far as I know the attorney general of the province of Quebec has not taken any steps in the matter. There is, however, an over-all responsibility on the R.C.M. police for the protection of federal properties. The C.B.C. building in Montreal is crown owned property, and some R.C.M. police have been inside the building, prepared to carry out their responsibilities should the need arise.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I ask a supplementary question. Has this intervention of the R.C.M.P. been decided upon by the R.C.M.P., or were they ordered by the government to do so?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The commissioner of the R.C.M. police is responsible for the operations of the R.C.M. police, and in my experience I have not found that the commissioner requires to be ordered to carry out his responsibilities.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Has the commissioner discussed this difficulty with the minister, and is this action taken with the approval of the minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The commissioner has discussed the situation with me, and as I have said the action referred to consists of the stationing of a small detail of R.C.M. police inside the radio corporation building to protect federal government property and the persons of those who may be using that property. But there has been, according to my information, no intervention. Nothing has actually happened in that regard calling for action by the R.C.M. police.



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENT ON AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question arises out of the answers given to a question and supplementary question which I asked yesterday concerning the expiry of the trade treaty with Russia. The point to which X wish to address my question is this. The minister, in answer to the supplementary question, having indicated that there was no trade treaty with Russia at the moment, said this:


...but Russia enjoys most favoured nation treatment and has for a number of years now.
I would like to ask the minister if he would clarify the position as to the most favoured nation treatment with Russia at the present time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker. The trade treaty which was signed in 1956 expired at the end of February. That trade treaty, with which my hon. friends opposite are quite familiar, principally established the exchange of most favoured nation treatment between Russia and Canada. An order in council was passed in 1956 in this regard, and an order in council would have to be passed to revoke that most favoured nation treatment. In the interval, while negotiations are going on with the Russians, they have been informed that the most favoured nation treatment will be continued in effect. As hon. members are aware, that most favoured nation treatment does not entitle another country to any unique advantage but merely guarantees that the country will not be discriminated against in trade matters.
The main advantage gained by the treaty of 1956 was an agreement for the purchase of wheat from Canada to the amount of 50 million bushels or more. That was to be taken up over a three-year period at not less than 400,000 tons a year. We are in this position at the moment, that for the crop year 19581959 the third and final commitment under that arrangement is in process of being settled between the Russians and ourselves. So although the trade treaty of 1956 expired at the end of February, our trade relations in respect of Russia are unchanged.
Perhaps I was not clear in my remarks yesterday that the only restriction with regard to trade with Russia has relation to the strategic list.


George James McIlraith: I thank the minister.



U.S. IMPORT CONTROLS ESTABLISHED DURING TERM OF LIBERAL GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the undertaking made by him last Tuesday in this house, and reported at page 1550 of Hansard, he is now in a position to supply the list of import controls established by the United States when the former Liberal government was in office, on Canadian oil as well as on other Canadian minerals?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have the list available. I had hoped the hon. gentleman would

let me know in anticipation that he would like to have it today. It is available, and I will see that the entire list of protests sent by Canada over the years will be made available to the house.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister received any representations from government employees in Hay River, Northwest Territories, concerning the discriminatory isolation allowances paid to civil servants there as compared with allowances paid to other civil servants in the north where the costs of living are comparable? If so, what do they intend to do about it?


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, no.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can ask the Prime Minister if it is his intention to attend the summit conference that has been called by the hereditary chiefs of the Six Nations Indians?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. gentleman is also an honorary chief, so I return the compliment and ask him the same question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, sir, I unfortunately am not a chief, honorary or otherwise. There is a provision that the superintendent general can never accept a chieftainship. I am sure that is the only reason I was not chosen.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question arising out of the interview I believe he had yesterday with Mr. Claude Jodoin, president of the Canadian Congress of Labour. Can the minister say whether it is the intention of the government to have the controversial bills now before the Newfoundland 66968-9-107
Supply-A griculture
legislature referred to any committee of the cabinet or to any body for study, and whether the government is doing this for the purpose of considering whether or not those acts will be disallowed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As
the hon. gentleman says, I had a visit from Mr. Jodoin and Mr. Forsey yesterday. They indicated to me their concern about the reported legislation of Newfoundland. I advised them that full note was taken of their concern and of the point of view they then put forward and that the matter would be considered by cabinet, where it is now being considered. One of our difficulties, of course, is that the legislation has not yet completed its passage through the Newfoundland house and we do not know in what final form it may emerge, so it is not too easy to arrive at a final decision at the present time; but the questions referred to us are under active study.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the minister's answer. Can he say whether the bills in their present form are before the cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the answer the minister has given makes it clear that to pursue this matter would be to pursue something that is hypothetical at the present time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch-
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $747,531.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, in introducing the
estimates of the Department of Agriculture I think perhaps it would be appropriate for me to start by saying something about the reorganization which has been taking place within the department during the past several months and which will go into full effect at the end of this fiscal year, being the end of this month. The change shows up, of course, in the form of the estimates, and most hon. members who have looked at these estimates will no doubt have noted that they are in considerably different form than they were last year and in preceding years.
The physical growth of the department and the increasing dependence of farmers on the results of scientific research have brought about a need for changes in the form and direction of the departmental machine. There is no intention, however, of losing sight of

Supply-Agriculture
the primary objective of service to agriculture. Rather, the changes are aimed at bringing to bear on farm problems the full resources of the scientific and administrative staffs. I think perhaps I should note that there have been some stories and misapprehensions at one time or another as to what the results of this reorganization would be. Some farmers got the idea that they would no longer be welcome at experimental farms across the country, and so on. Nothing is further from the truth. We are very anxious at all times to have people interested in what is going on at the experimental farms and research centres come there, learn what they can and carry away the results of the experimental work we are doing and put them into practical operation on their own farms.
The main features of the present plan are the establishment of a research branch that will integrate the former experimental farms and science services, and the incorporation of the marketing service and the production service into a production and marketing branch. Each of these new units will have at its head an assistant deputy minister under whom will be a director general with appropriate supporting staff. An administration branch will take care of departmental administration and will also embrace the information division and the economics division, the latter formerly associated with the marketing service.
Undoubtedly the most radical feature of this reorganization is the development of the research branch as the principal research agency of the department. Its organization will differ markedly from the present pattern. The old divisional lines will disappear, and the program directorate will plan and coordinate the research program. It will be the duty of this directorate to search out problems, to study them from the standpoint of their effects on the farmers' economy, and to recommend appropriate action.
Another feature will be the establishment within the department of 10 research institutes organized on the basis of scientific disciplines rather than problems. I have a list of those here but I will not take the time at the moment to go over them. If anyone is interested, when we come to the particular item I will be very glad to give the information in connection with the 10 new research institutes which are being set up.
Apart from the research institutes, the research program will be organized on a regional basis with the type of establishment and the program of work varying with the area. There will be little actual physical change in the present regional establishments,
[Mr. Harkness.l
but rather a consolidation of effort and unified administrative control at each centre.
The second major arm of the reorganized department will be the production and marketing branch, bringing under unified direction all departmental activities in the fields of agriculture production and marketing. The largest single unit in this branch will be the health of animals division, which will remain unchanged as to organization. Livestock work in both the production and marketing fields will be centred in the new livestock division. Similarly, poultry work in both fields will be brought together in the poultry division. The present divisions dealing with dairy products, fruits and vegetables, plant products and plant protection will enter the new branch unchanged.
I think I should perhaps also say something about the plans for the central experimental farm here at Ottawa, which have been the subject of a good deal of speculation, not all of it by any means correct. The national capital commission is in the process of acquiring some 4,000 acres of land in the green belt to be used by the Department of Agriculture as an annex to the central experimental farm. It will accommodate the animal research studies, including the animal research institute of the research branch and the animal pathology laboratories of the production and marketing branch.
The commission has actively pursued its land acquiring program and will have the land available as required to carry out the department's plans. It will turn over the land progressively as it is needed to implement these plans. The animal research institute will require one main office-laboratory building to provide working facilities for approximately 80 research officers and satellite functional buildings for dairy cattle, beef cattle, sheep, swine, poultry and fur bearing animals. The animal pathology laboratories will require office-laboratory facilities, a special isolation unit for research on virus diseases, and limited functional buildings for livestock.
It is anticipated that the following work program will go forward during 1959-60: (1) surveys of the site will be completed and the site plan for the animal research centre will be agreed on; (2) plans for the installation of services will be completed; (3) land at and around the building site will be taken over from the national capital commission, the area being approximately 1,000 acres;
(4)	preliminary plans for the animal research institute office-laboratory will be completed;
(5)	phase 1 of the building program will be implemented, including the functional buildings for beef cattle and sheep and part of the requirements for poultry; (6) plans for

the functional buildings of phase 2 will be completed and will provide for dairy cattle and for the remaining poultry.
It is hoped that the architects can produce a plan for the office-laboratory building and for the functional livestock buildings which will fit into the agricultural setting and the highest ideals of the green belt conception. Speculations that a part or parts of the present experimental farm will be sold or given over to other uses are entirely without foundation at the present time. The agriculture department can use and intends to use all the present central experimental farm, and has no plans whatever for disposing of any part of it. In my view the farm is one of the great assets of Ottawa as a city, and the farm will be increasingly an asset as time goes on. I would envisage that 100 years from now the farm will be to Ottawa what Hyde park is to London or Central park to New York. I would certainly hope that it would not be used for building purposes, and the only big open space left in the city thus alienated and done away with.
I should like to turn to some of the economic matters in connection with agriculture. In the debate on the speech from the throne on January 23 I gave a general picture of the agricultural economy, and I do not intend to repeat what I said at that time. However, I think I should add some of the further statistics which have become available since that time and in this way complete the story of 1958 from the agricultural point of view.
Supply-Agriculture
I spoke in January about the gross cash income received by the farmers in 1958 as the highest on record, $2,869 million. I shall not repeat at this moment the gross cash income which I gave at that time in respect of previous years. However, I have here a breakdown of cash income as far as the provinces are concerned. It is quite interesting to analyse this and see what the effect has been in all parts of Canada. I might say these figures are from the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin of May 29, 1958, which gives the cash income by provinces for the years 1940-57. We have added the current figures.
In 1958, in Prince Edward Island, cash income amounted to $28,730,000 which was the highest cash income ever earned in Prince Edward Island except for one year. The same is true of Nova Scotia, where the cash income received was the highest except for the year 1956, when I guess they had a good apple crop. It was about $750,000 less than that year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister put
these figures on the record?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should be very glad to file this document and have the figures printed in Hansard. I wonder whether the committee would be agreeable to having this done?


The Chairman:: Does the committee agree to having these figures printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: When we come to New Brunswick we find that the total of $48,147,000 was exceeded only in 1956 by about $1 million, and in 1952 by $100,000 odd. In the province of Quebec, one of our bigger agricultural provinces, the total is the highest in history, $424 million. The same is true of Ontario, with $873,287,000 of cash income.
The highest previous figure was in 1951, when it was $800 million. In succeeding years it has amounted to $770 million in 1952; $749 million in 1953; $726 million in 1954; $791 million in 1957. Last year it amounted to $873 million. In Manitoba there were only four previous years in which cash income was higher, 1948, 1949, 1951 and 1952. In Saskatchewan there were four years in which income was higher, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1956. In Alberta there was only one year in which income was higher; that was 1952. In British Columbia, last year was the highest on record. For the country as a whole, of course, this is by far the biggest cash income we have ever had in Canada.
I think these figures are very significant Mr. Chairman. They indicate that a great deal of the talk we have heard about agriculture in 1958 being in a poorer condition than in previous years is incorrect. Agriculture in 1958 was in a better position than in any year since 1953, and I think the figures I have just given the committee are sufficient to indicate that this is the case. I should like to point out also that in 1958 cash income increased by 10 per cent in comparison with 1957; by 74 per cent as compared with 1956; by 20 per cent as compared with 1955, and by 20 per cent as compared with 1954.
At the same time the cost of the goods and services which farmers have had to buy or use increased in 1958 by exactly 1.2 per cent. In other words, the increase in the expenses which farmers have had to bear was considerably less than the increase in their gross income; which means, of course, that their net income has considerably improved. We have no figures yet as to net income, but when those figures come out there is no question but that net income will show a very considerable improvement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister permit a question? That comparison of real income with 1951, 1952 or 1953 would not show an improvement?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned I think it would. I have not calculated it. As far as the western provinces are concerned it would not. But real income and other incomes were certainly better in 1958 than in any year since 1953.
[The Chairman.]
It is interesting to look at the statistics with regard to the index of the prices of commodities and services used by farmers. I have had a list prepared which shows not only the index numbers but the percentage increase in costs from one year to another. When we look at these figures we see that a big increase in costs took place between 1946 and 1947 when the cost of the goods and services for which farmers have to pay went up by 8.5 per cent. The biggest jump of all was between 1947 and 1948, when the cost of goods and services went up by 16 per cent in that one year. Then follow two years in which they went up by a little more than 3 per cent each year. Between 1950 and 1951 we find they were up by 9.3 per cent, another big jump, and from 1951 to 1952 by 5.7 per cent. Then we find two years, 1953 and 1954, during which costs fell by about 1 per cent in each year. In 1955 we find costs going up a little, one half of one per cent, 3.9 per cent in
1956.	In 1957 it was 3.4 per cent and then in 1958, 1.2 per cent.
It is quite easy to see from these figures in which years the big increase in farm costs took place. It was during the years up to and including 1952. From then on the increase in costs has been nothing like as marked as it was before and, as I say, last year it amounted to only 1.2 per cent.
This table is of value because I think there are some very serious misconceptions with regard to the rate at which the cost of goods and services for which farmers have to pay has increased, and also in regard to the times at which these increases have taken place. There is one other point I think I should make. These index numbers respecting the prices of commodities and services used by farmers have been prepared for Canada as a whole. There is a separate index for western farmers. The figures it shows are similar to the figures in the index for Canada as a whole. They are a little bit lower. For example, as to the average in 1958 for all Canada, the index number is 258.9. For western Canada it is 256.6.
One thing I think I should point out is that the index for western Canada, which is the best official index that can be used, does not give the true picture with respect to grain production, particularly wheat production. The error in it is owing to the weighting which is given to the labour factor. The economics branch of the Department of Agriculture have produced another index which gives, on the basis of a sampling, how much labour cost western grain producers, wheat producers particularly, and how they are making use of the amount of labour they use. They have a labour rating of

1.2 per cent rather than the D.B.S. rate of 13.9 per cent. Actual investigation as to the amount of labour employed by wheat producers shows that it comes to 1.2 per cent of their expenses rather than the 13.9 per cent which D.B.S. assigns with regard to labour costs.
I might say, of course, that this D.B.S. index is the best official index. It is generally known, however, that the index is out of date and that it is being revised at the present time. I think that is the thing we should keep in mind. The actual true index of the cost of goods and services used by farmers as prepared on the basis of the sampling done by the economics branch is 211.4 rather than 256.5 which is given in the official index.
I have here an interesting table. I do not think I had better take the time of the committee to go over it. Besides, it is extremely difficult to put the point across unless you actually have the document in front of you or are using a blackboard. However, I have here quite an interesting table showing how these various indexes are arrived at and the weighting which is given to each of the factors such as machinery, labour costs, seed, fertilizer and so forth.
At this point I should just like to say that a considerable amount of work is being done in order to improve the statistics with regard to agriculture. There is no question but that a great deal of improvement can be made in that matter. I find that one of the complaints of delegations that come down here is that the statistics with regard to agricultural matters, and particularly with regard to production, are not adequate and thus do not enable them to form judgments as well or as correctly as they would like to be able to form them.
In connection with what I have just said about these index numbers I should like to say that of course no blame attaches to anybody for using the indexes which have been supplied. However, I should like to point out that they do not really give the true picture with regard to western grain production. They tend to distort the matter and show a worse situation than that which actually exists with regard to western wheat producers.
Speaking generally, Mr. Chairman, I make no claim that the farmer is in excellent shape. Anybody who did that would be foolish. I make no claim that there is no reason for concern over the farmer's economic situation. The very reverse is the case. The farmer was in a severe cost-price squeeze for several years up to 1958. Since we have been in office over the last 20 months we
Supply-Agriculture
have followed a long range plan to improve the farmer's position. It will, of course, take time to implement all of this plan, and it will take more time for the effects of the reforms we are making to be fully felt and fully apparent.
The first big step we took in our agricultural program was the passing of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which during the last year has had an important effect in maintaining and improving the farmer's income. I will not say more on that matter at the present moment.
The other main features of our long range farm program have been mentioned here previously. I will merely indicate them once more. One is an improved system of farm credit. As everyone knows, its was indicated in the speech from the throne that legislation in that regard would be brought in during this session. The same thing applies to a system of crop insurance. Another important matter is soil and water conservation. We have already taken steps in regard to that matter. A final and extremely important matter is that of rural redevelopment in order to look after the farmers on small subsistence farms. According to the last census report, something like 38 per cent of all our farmers had cash incomes of less than $1,200 a year. That is gross income, not net. They had a gross income of less than $1,200 a year. As everyone realizes, that amount is not nearly sufficient to support a farm family. We must take measures to improve the situation of that large segment of our farming population.
The farm situation today, Mr. Chairman, is still far from satisfactory, but

and I should like to emphasize this point-we have made considerable progress. From some points of view 1958 was the best year agriculture has ever had. Certainly it is the best year since 1953 from almost every point of view. Some of the farmers on the prairies say this may be true for eastern livestock and dairy men but not for western grain producers. It is true, Mr. Chairman, that the western farmers had better years in 1951, 1952 and 1953, but those are probably the only years that were better than 1958 as far as western farmers are concerned.
I have here a table which gives the average cash income for farmers from 1951 to 1958 inclusive. It shows that in 1958 the cash income in Manitoba, for example, was better than in any year back to 1953, and was exceeded only in 1951 and 1953 and just barely exceeded in 1952 by about $30 a farm. In 1958 the average cash income in Manitoba was $4,814 a farm. In Saskatchewan the average cash income in 1958 was $5,958 a farm, which was higher than in any year except 1951, 1952 and 1953. In 1954, for

Supply-Agriculture
example, the average cash income was $4,406 per farm. In Alberta the average cash income in 1958 was $6,495 per farm. That figure is the highest on record. As far as Alberta is concerned it indicates the great value of diversified agriculture. In Alberta you have not the dependence on wheat that you have in Saskatchewan. You have a much greater diversification in agriculture, with specialty crops in the irrigated areas and so on. This diversification explains the fact that the average cash income in Alberta is considerably better than that in Saskatchewan and very much better than that in Manitoba.
These figures with regard to average cash income as far as the three western provinces are concerned I think indicate fairly well that 1958 was a reasonably satisfactory year, and particularly that it was a much more satisfactory year than 1954, 1955, 1956 and
1957.
All, this Mr. Chairman, makes one wonder why there is so much complaint at the present time, and in some quarters, so far as the situation of agriculture is concerned. A great deal of the complaint which is coming forward at the present time, I submit, should have come forward in past years rather than now, when the situation is considerably improved over what it was in 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957.


Mr. Forbes:: May I ask the minister a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Richard Elmer Forbes: Is the minister referring to net income or gross income?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Those figures are for gross cash income.


Richard Elmer Forbes: I should like to remind the minister at this point that a man's fuel and repair bill could easily amount to the figures he has given.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I beg your pardon?


Richard Elmer Forbes: A man's fuel and repair bill could easily amount to the figures the minister has given.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, all I can do is give you the statistics to indicate what farm income has been in past years, and to point out that the average cash income in 1958 is considerably better than it was in the four previous years. In the case of Alberta, at least the cash income is higher than it was in any previous year. So far as the figures I have are concerned, they indicate a better position with respect to cash income for farmers across Canada, and they are at an all-time high for this particular year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister say what the forecast is for 1959?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not come to the forecast for 1959. We are dealing with the situation in 1958 now.


Hazen Robert Argue: Your officials say it will be worse.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The officials, as a matter of fact, have not made any such prediction.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have it in my hand.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have the January bulletin, too, and they say the situation, so far as hogs are concerned, is not going to be as good as it was in 1958; that is quite correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: They say much more than that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a result of that the net income, not definitely but probably, will not be as good as it was in 1958.


Hazen Robert Argue: In other words it is getting worse.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We are talking now about
1958.	The hon. member for Assiniboia said all during 1958 that the situation was far worse than it had been before. He went all through the country in 1958 saying we had done nothing for agriculture and that the agricultural situation was much worse than it had ever been before.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said you had not kept your
promises.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Every statistic shows the agricultural situation in 1958 was better than it was in 1954, 1955 and 1956.


Hazen Robert Argue: These fabricated ones that were brought in this morning.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret having to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. Has the minister unanimous consent to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The stock in trade of the hon. member for Assiniboia is going around the country saying how bad conditions are, and he does not like to hear these statistics which show that 1958 was a considerable improvement over past years.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is that why the mass delegation is coming to Ottawa.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must remind hon. members on my left that the minister has the floor, and will they kindly make their remarks in as low a voice as possible.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I may say that all the statistics I have been able to get, and I am

sure all the statistics hon. members opposite will be able to get, indicate that 1958 was an improved year tor agriculture. For example, retail sales are a fairly good indicator. They are at an all-time high in the prairie provinces. I have a list of them here. Retail sales for the prairie provinces as a whole in 1958 were $2,905 million; in 1953, the year to which most people in the west look back as a very good year for agriculture, the retail sales were $2,509 million, about $400 million less than they were last year.
Then if we take the various provinces, we find that in Manitoba the figure was $755 million, the highest figure on record. In Saskatchewan it was $901 million, very considerably the highest figure on record for retail sales. The previous high was in 1957 when the figure was $859,800,000, in 1953 they amounted to $845 million. In Alberta retail sales amounted to $1,248 million, and in 1953 to $987 million. In other words, retail sales in that province were up $260 million.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would those figures include retail sales made to everyone or just to agriculture?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, those are the retail sales made in those three provinces. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member, as he is always pointing out and as is true, that agriculture is the basic industry of these three prairie provinces. The great majority of the people in the three prairie provinces derive their living, either directly or indirectly from agriculture. Therefore if agricultural income is not relatively good, there is not the money available in those provinces to buy goods and services. The fact that the amount of goods and services purchased there was considerably higher in 1958 than in previous years indicates that the situation was not nearly as desperate as the hon. member for Assiniboia is constantly trying to make out.
Now we may go to another statistic which is a pretty good indication of how good or bad the situation is, and that is passenger car sales. We can examine what they were for several years back and make a comparison. The value of new passenger automobiles sold is at a new all-time high in the three prairie provinces. Total sales were $208,708,000 in 1958; in 1953, $182 million; in 1954, $137 million; in 1955, $156 million; in 1956, $180 mllion; in 1957, $204 million, and last year, as I have said, $208 million. The only province in which sales are not considerably up over any previous year is Saskatchewan, where
Supply-Agriculture
they are higher than any time since 1953. These statistics indicate that the farm population is not starving to death; otherwise we would not have statistics of this kind.
Another thing at which I think we should look is the value of farm implements purchased in 1958. These figures are the highest since 1953. They do not, of course, go to anything like the levels of 1951 and 1952, when farmers were re-equipping themselves and completely mechanizing their operations. Most of that machinery is still in good shape and in operation. In 1958 the value of farm machinery purchased in the three prairie provinces was $94,578,000; in 1954 it was $80 million; in 1955, $75 million; in 1956, $92 million; in 1957, $77 million. Once again we find a very considerable volume of farm implements was purchased in 1958.
We have heard, JVlr. Chairman, in this chamber and in other places, a great deal about the cost of production of agricultural commodities. It has been taken for granted by many people, I believe, speaking on agricultural matters that the farmer was not getting the cost of production so far as many commodities were concerned. It may be true that some farmers are not getting the cost of production at the present time, and it may be true as far as some commodities are concerned that the cost of production as a whole is not being secured. But by and large that statement, from the investigation we have been able to make, is not correct.
During the last year and a half in the Department of Agriculture, particularly in the economics branch, we have done a good deal of work on cost of production, and other people have also been working on that problem. Quite a few surveys have been made as to what is the cost of production for raising wheat, for raising hogs, for producing milk, for producing eggs, and so forth. A series of studies by J. W. Clarke of the Kindersley vocational farmers provide information on cost of production as far as wheat is concerned. It shows a wide variation in cost between small and large farms. An allowance of 5 per cent interest on capital and a $3,000 operator's wage was made, in addition to other operating costs. In 1955 the cost per bushel varied from $1.39 for the group of small farms to 72 cents for the group of large farms. That is the cost per bushel of producing wheat in the area he was studing in that year. In 1956 these costs were $1.37 and 97 cents respectively; in 1957, $1.44 and $1.21 respectively.
I would like to emphasize what I said a little earlier, that these studies show a terrific variation in cost between small and large farms. When you come to the cost of

Supply-Agriculture
production per bushel you also have an extremely wide variation, depending on what the yield was in the particular year you are dealing with. If you had a high yield the cost of production per bushel is quite low; if you had a low yield the cost is high. These figures indicate some of the difficulties of trying to arrive at the cost of production per bushel of wheat. It varies terrifically from area to area, from farmer to farmer, from type of soil to type of soil, and from year to year.
The studies of the economics division indicated a variation similar to the studies conducted by Mr. Clarke. In these studies an allowance of 5 per cent on capital and $2,400 for the operator was made. In 1954, with high productivity soil-and in this case we put it on cost per acre rather than cost per bushel-the cost per acre varied from $36 on small farms to $22 on large farms. With medium productivity soil for the same year the cost varied from $28 on small farms to $16.50 on large farms. In 1955 with heavy soil it varied from $26.50 on small farms to $17.50 on large farms. These cost of production figures as far as wheat is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think are quite interesting.
As far as the costs produced by Mr. Clarke in his studies around Kindersley are concerned, as I say he allowed in these costs 5 per cent return on the capital invested. In 1954 on farms up to 480 acres the cost per bushel was $1.26. In the range from 481 to 960 acres the cost was $1.14, and in larger farms of 961 acres and over it was $1.08 and an average of $1.16. That was with a yield on summerfallow of 21 bushels, and on stubble of 14 bushels. In the next year, 1955, with the same area farms the average cost instead of being $1.16 per bushel was 72 cents a bushel.	Why? Because the yield
was 27 bushels on summerfallow and 20 bushels on stubble. In 1956 the average cost was 80 cents a bushel, and in 1957 the average cost was $1.03 per bushel. Kindersley is a good area, as I think all members from Saskatchewan will agree, and the yields there have been relatively good.
What these cost of production figures show, however, is that as far as farmers in the Kindersley area are concerned they have all been making good money in the past several years, because if you figure 5 per cent return on their capital invested you still get $1.16, 72 cents, 80 cents and $1.03 per bushel cost of production of their wheat; and during that period they sold their wheat at considerably better prices than that. The studies carried on by the economics division of the Department of Agriculture indicate what were the costs-and these are quite interesting-of producing a bushel of wheat on
[Mr. Harkness.l
medium sized farms with high and medium productivity soils in the years 1939, 1947, 1954, 1955 and 1956. The result of this study shows that the cost of producing a bushel of wheat in 1939 with a high productivity soil was 61 cents. In 1947 it was 88 cents; in 1954 it was $1.12; and in 1955, $1.11. With medium productivity soil for 1939 the cost was 95 cents; for 1947, $1.18 cents; for 1954, $1.27 and in this case, for 1956, $1.13.


Hazen Robert Argue: Might I ask the minister to clarify a point? Can the minister say on what basis the farm operator's labour is calculated?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was on the basis as indicated before, an allowance of 5 per cent on capital and $2,400 wages for the operator. In other words these costs include 5 per cent on capital and $2,400 for wages. What these cost of production figures indicate, as I said before, is the great variation, more than anything else, from farmer to farmer, from area to area and from year to year, depending on what the yield has been.
We have also carried on extensive studies on the cost of production of other commodities. I have one study with regard to hogs, and I would like to say something about it because I am sure hon. members will be interested. This cost data was secured from areas in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. They are the three big hog producing provinces. As far as Quebec is concerned, the Quebec department of agriculture has carried on complete cost account studies on 25 farms throughout the province since 1956, and that was the data we took and used, having been collected by the Quebec department of agriculture. As far as costing is concerned, farm grown grain was charged at the farm cost and skim milk at 25 cents per hundredweight. In the 1956-57 report the operator's labour was counted in at $150 per month. In 1956-57 the cost of producing hogs averaged $16.25 per live hundredweight in the province of Quebec, and ranged from a low of $7.81 to a high of $29.18. This gives you some idea of the terrific difference in cost which you get from one farmer to another. These are all farmers who kept records.


Mr. Gour:: When you find the name of the farmer who produced at $7.81, I would like to know it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I presume I could find the name. I am putting these figures on record to show the marked variation one finds in the figures given for cost of production, and in order to show how unreliable they are in some instances.


Joseph-Omer Gour: That gentleman has never been born.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These are the figures which were collected during a survey made by the Quebec department of agriculture. I intend myself to point out a striking disparity in these figures-


Mr. Boulanger:: Where was this survey
made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: These are figures supplied by various farmers scattered over Quebec. In any event, as I say, the average cost of production on all the farms was shown as $16.25. The largest cost item was for feed, which averaged 78.6 per cent of the total cost in 1956-57 and 80.7 per cent of the cost in 1955-56.
Now we come to Ontario, and the data used in this report were obtained from studies conducted by the farm economics branch of the Ontario department of agriculture for the years 1955 and 1956. A total of 50 records were obtained in the counties of Waterloo, Perth and Wellington. I may say that family and operator labour were charged at the current rate of average hired male wages, including board, in the area, and that an additional allowance of 20 per cent was charged in respect of the operator for management. These charges are all included, and in 1956-57 the cost of producing hogs averaged $14.06 per live hundredweight and $33.70 per pig for the feeder plant as compared with $15.67 per live hundredweight and $31.34 per pig for the combined enterprise group where they are raising the pigs themselves from brood sows.
Once again the largest item of cost was feed. In 1956-57 it averaged 84 per cent of the total cost per hundredweight for feeder plants and 79 per cent for combined enterprise farms where the pig is raised from birth. These figures are further broken down. The cost of feed in 1956-57 was $11.83 for the feeder plant and $12.44 for the combined enterprise. In 1955-56 corresponding figures were $11.55 and $12.83.
We turn now to Alberta. In this case the summary is taken from the mixed farm cost studies conducted by the Alberta department of agriculture. Cost data were obtained from 50 farms in central Alberta during the period from 1951 to 1955. The years are not exactly the same, except for the last year. The costs for the most recent year shown, 1955, were adjusted to 1958 rather than using the five year period figures in order to arrive at comparable figures for Alberta as compared with Ontario and Quebec. This study shows that the average cost of producing hogs on a herd basis per 200-pound hog in 1958 was $35.83. On a hundredweight basis this was $17.92. It was thus slightly higher than the average cost of $17.58 in
Supply-Agriculture
1955. But when one comes to consider the cost of feed one finds that in Alberta, in 1955, all feed amounted to a total of $22.10, and that in 1958 the cost was $21.86. According to the Ontario study the cost of feed is just about half that sum. The cost in Ontario is shown as being $11.83 and $11.55.
It is quite clear that this is wrong, because everyone knows the average cost of feed is less in Alberta than in Ontario. After all, the feed has to be shipped from Alberta to Ontario. It has to be moved from the farm and put into the elevator. There is the handling charge to be paid. In addition there is freight, though of course the subsidy carries a large portion of that. However, one has only to look at the cost of a bushel of wheat or barley in Alberta as compared with the cost in Ontario to see what the difference is. Yet these cost of production figures show that the cost of feed in Alberta is much higher than it is in Ontario, an indication that it is almost impossible to arrive at anything which can be considered as scientifically accurate in these cost of production figures and studies.
We in the department have been carrying on such studies for the last year and a half with respect to various commodities. We have done a great deal of work on them, but I would hesitate very much about putting them out as being definite, reliable and dependable. Here we have a great variation in the results of studies carried out by different departments of agriculture showing a wide variation in their figures. It is quite apparent that the Alberta figures and the Ontario figures cannot both be right.
One of the reasons I mention this matter is that there is such a widespread demand for cost of production studies to be carried on and for support prices to be related to. the figures produced by these studies. We have been doing our best and producing the most reliable figures we can. However, I call attention to this particular difference in connection with hogs to show how difficult it is to reach a reliable figure concerning cost of production.
One other thing I should like to say before I leave the subject is this. All these figures as far as hogs are concerned show that the cost of production, including wages, was lower than the floor price, in other words that the floor price is higher than the cost of production on any figures produced. I think that is significant.
I had intended to say something about the operation of the agricultural stabilization board and about irrigation, drainage work and P.F.R.A. work generally, in addition to touching on various other matters of interest

Supply-Agriculture
in the department, but I think it would be unfair for me to impose on the time of the committee any further, and that it would be better to go into these matters as they arise under specified items.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I was very much interested in the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). He gave us a splendid outline of farm conditions in 1958. He also made interesting comparisons with previous years. However, I think he forgot to tell us a most important thing. He forgot to say that the results obtained were due to the wise and considered policy applied by the Liberal government during 22 years of administration. I am willing to admit that the Liberal party did not find a cure-all for all the ills of agriculture, because the Liberal party is as humble as it is great. However, it is recognized that the farming industry in Canada has developed considerably under the Liberal administration which was led by honest and sincere men who only wanted the best for the country as a whole.
The Minister of Agriculture-
(Text):


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: That is really stretching it.


Mr. Henderson:: You mean Gardiner?


Samuel Boulanger: He is a better man than anyone you have, anyway.


Walter Clarence Henderson: No, sir; you are wrong. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: If the hon. member
wants to rise and ask a question-
(Text):


Walter Clarence Henderson: I come from a district-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: Order. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska may proceed.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to find that the simultaneous interpretation system is working very well.


Mr. Pigeon:: Thanks to the Conservative government, and to the Prime Minister.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, in the remarks he made during the debate in reply to the speech from the throne as well as in his latest statement, the Minister of Agriculture has tried to list all agricultural legislation passed in the two years his government has been in power. He even went

further, and referred certain bills adopted by the Liberal administration. We are happy and appreciative about it. We are sincerely convinced of having done something for our farmers.
The Minister of Agriculture has detailed the new bills which the government intends to submit to this house:	to amend the
Canadian Farm Loan Act, to introduce a crop insurance plan, to set up a soil and water conservation project, to institute a program for the re-development of certain farming districts, to extend our export markets, and so on.
I would ask	the	minister that
when he introduces those bills, he let us have advance copies of them at least a week before they are discussed. The part of his speech to which	the hon. gentleman
seems to have given greatest emphasis is the listing of farm products that are being sold at higher prices than in other countries. He was very happy to announce that the value of products sold by farmers had risen in 1958.
Wheat prices are the only ones to remain lower than those obtained by farmers in other countries. Yet, wheat represents the main source of income of western farmers. The minister did not dwell at length on the wheat problem. I am sorry I have not any figures on hand, but I am sure I can safely say that Canadian wheat prices only come in twelfth place in comparison to prices obtained by producers in other countries.
In his speech on the address in reply, the hon. Minister of Agriculture closed his enumeration with a list of payments made directly to the farmers in 1958. He told us then that under the following measures the government had paid these amounts to
Canadian farmers:
Payments to western farmers $42,000,000
Prairie farm assistance	 $25,000,000
Prairie farm rehabilitation ....	$17,285,988
Maritime marshland rehabilitation	 $ 2,275,000
Premiums on high grade hogs $ 6,830,000 Freight assistance on grains ..	$21,000,000
Farm price stabilization	 $15,000,000
Thus, the federal government has paid to our farmers in 1958 some $166 million.
Mr. Chairman, this increase in the net income from the sale of farm products, as well as the payments made to farmers under the various acts I have just referred to, are the result of Liberal policy, as I said previously.

A good portion of this increase in income is the result of increased sales of our beef cattle to the United States, at a better price and that, thanks to an agreement concluded by the Liberal government. However, the hon. Minister of Agriculture may take credit for that, if he so wishes.
There are, however, other facts on which the minister did not elaborate, particularly in regard to the increase in costs of professional service goods needed by the farmers, as compared to the prices obtained for their products.
A moment ago, the hon. minister gave us a detailed series of index numbers, which we are at a loss to understand.
I have also prepared index numbers, which may be found in the reports of the Economists agricole. In the December 1958 issue, it is said that the general index of services used by farmers rose from 251.2 in January 1958, to 262.9 in August of the same year, an increase of 11.7. The increase is even greater in the western provinces, where the index rose from 245 in January 1958, to 262.7 in April 1958, an increase of 17.7.
This increase in the general index of service goods bought by the farmers does not correspond to the decrease of the general index of wholesale prices of farm products, which was down to 231 in 1957, the lowest level ever reached since 1948. For the first seven months of 1958, the index improved somewhat and reached 238.
If we consider the practical aspect of the matter, we come to the conclusion that the farmers now get 44 cents per dollar spent by the consumer for the purchase of food products of Canadian origin, whereas according to the Prime Minister's very words, reproduced in the Ottawa Journal of April 27, 1957, following a speech he had delivered at Newcastle on April 26, 1957, he got the following:
(Text):
"Between 1951-1952", he said, "the farmer's share of the consumer price dollar dropped from 59 cents to 51 cents.
It is now 44 cents.


An hon. Member:: That is what you say. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Those are figures that the Minister of Agriculture was afraid to mention, but that he will have to put in the records of his department, as a contribution to the development of Canadian agriculture.
Supply-Agriculture
And there will be yet, during this session, Conservative members-even among the 71 who represent the western provinces-to support and commend the agricultural policies of the government and of the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, the time of boasting is passed, and it is now time, more than ever, to act.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is precisely what the government did.


Samuel Boulanger: I understand that the
government-
(Text):


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Samuel Boulanger: After I have finished it can be arranged.


Frank Charles McGee: Order. If the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska wishes to yield the floor he may. Otherwise he has the floor.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, the time for bragging is over, as I was saying just a moment ago. I understand that the government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture, after their heady victory in March 1958, felt they were supermen and thought the administration of Canada raised no greater problems than were involved in winning an election through irresponsible promises.
I should like to recall a few of the premises made by the Prime Minister in a speech he delivered at Brantford on May 9, 1957, as reported the same day in the Ottawa Journal. The Prime Minister then stated: (Text):
If elected to power the Conservatives will take action to improve the condition of agriculture so that farm people may successfully re-establish their rightful position in our economy.
(Translation):
I hope the members will go on cheering till the end.
(Text):
Maintain a flexible price support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers, based on a fair price-cost relationship.
Place a formula in the Agricultural Prices Support Act for arriving at support prices. It would allow for variation in production and demand for individual products.
Establish support prices in consultation with farm organizations to be announced each year well in advance of the production period.
The Conservatives would seek effective trade agreements with other countries and make use of vigorous marketing and advertising programs.

Supply-Agriculture
They would extend and ease farm credit policies. They would work with the provinces in establishing a proper program of soil and water conservation on a national basis.
At Minnedosa, Manitoba, on May 16, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of May 17, he said:
To farmers whose family income has dropped from $3,600 to $3,000 since 1951, while the average income across Canada has risen from $4,100 to $4,900, action must be taken to reverse the continuing decline in farm income. The farmer was the forgotten man in Canada and only a Conservative government could restore the prosperity he once enjoyed.
(Translation):
Now we can see that all this amounted to no more than big words and irresponsible, foolish promises designed to pick up votes.
What action is the government taking to stop the soaring prices of goods and services used by farmers, when the index, which was at 247.6 in 1956, rose to 255.8 in 1957, and stood at 262.7 last April? Where will the index stand when you add the 17 per cent boost in freight rates? According to the Manitoba Co-Operator, it will cost $450 more for the transport of a combine from Ontario to Brandon, Manitoba; $280 for a tractor with four plows; $55 for a raker and $30 for a mower. Where will the index stand after you pile on the increased taxes, loan interest and the 8.2 per cent increase in handling cost of food products, and the 30 per cent increase in handling and grading costs for eggs?
It was not without reason that the chairman of the commission on price spreads stated last November 12 that farmers are able to stay on the farm only by ignoring the depreciation on their equipment and by living, in effect, on their capital. Such persistence is seldom seen in other fields of activity.
Again, farmers will be the ones to bear the burden of such an increase, particularly those of average income. They will again have to tighten their belts, because farmers are not in the category of those who can pass on to consumers the increased costs of services they use.
When the government decided to approve higher freight rates, it took into consideration the difference between wages paid in other industries and those paid to railway employees, but took no account of farmers' incomes.
I ask the government just what was meant when during the last two election campaigns,

the Prime Minister and his supporters said that the Conservatives would give back to the farmers their fair share of the national income.
It is interesting to thumb through copies of Hansard for the year 1956. You will find in them the finest speeches ever made on parity prices and on the farmers' right to a fair share in the national economy. Those speeches were made by the Prime Minister who was then Leader of the Opposition.
Here is what he said, according to page 2021 of Hansard, English text, of March 12, 1956:
The squeeze which the farmer suffers results from the disparity in the relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices the farmer has to pay. When they are in proper relationship parity is established, and it is parity that the farm organizations across this country are asking for today.
He then made the following proposal:
In the opinion of this house-
Those were promises made by the present Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition.
I come now to the motion he moved in this house on March 12, 1956:
In the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advis-ibility of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to insure producers a fair price-cost relationship.
That was the attitude taken by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition.
Yesterday's cream has turned to to-day's curds.
Mr. Chairman, farmers cannot tighten their belt any more than they have done. We have come to a point that will lead us to the failure of the farming class and to a breakdown of our general economy unless drastic action is taken to safeguard our family farms, the backbone of our economic system.
This will require unity of thought on the part of our leaders. Unfortunately, that is not the impression we get from the statements made by members of the government side, as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) so ably indicated in his speech of January 22, as found on page 229, English text, of Hansard.
The Prime Minister said in Saskatoon, at the opening of the exhibition:
To those who think that in the field of agriculture we have come to a point where expansion is no longer desirable, I shall say this: one

fourth of the world's population goes to bed at night on an empty stomach and we must devise means of distributing our surpluses so that the nations of the world can find happiness.
Before making the gifts he has in mind, tie should consult his members from the province of Quebec who said during the last election campaign: "Duplessis gives to his province and Ottawa gives to foreign countries".
On the other hand, the Minister of Agriculture said at the federal-provincial agricultural conference last fall:
There are but two possible ways to prevent the stockpiling of heavy surpluses in sustained farming. One depends on the farmer, the other on the government. Either farmers, as a group voluntarily submit to a production rate as consistent as possible with domestic and foreign needs or the government tries to get the same results by lowering prices. For the time being, we are counting on the voluntary system to restore this balance in certain productions: if we cannot do it that way, we will have to lower present support levels a notch or two.
That is the statement made by a federal minister.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I do not know whether or not the hon. member has translated my remarks himself, but certainly the re-translation I am hearing bears very little resemblance to what I said on this occasion. As I said, I do not know as between these translations what the situation is, but if the hon. member translated my remarks into French himself, the re-translation I am hearing is not what I said.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: That quotation, Mr. Chairman, comes from the paper La Terre de chez nous, published a few days only after the federal-provincial conference on agriculture. The statement is not mine. If he wants to cast blame on anyone, he should direct it to the paper La Terre de chez nous.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: On that point, I do not
know that is the case at all. The translation may be correct, but what I am hearing in my ear is not what I said; that is all.


Mr. Habel:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should complain to the translation people and not about the member who is now speaking.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I make this point
clear? I was not complaining about the member speaking, I was merely pointing out that what I was hearing was not what I said. I wanted to make it clear that these were not my words and I was not assenting to them as being what I said; that is all.
Supply-Agriculture (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: The important thing is not whether my words were properly or improperly interpreted but the fact that they are on the record and that they are true.
Such was the statement of a minister of the Canadian government who is moreover, a member of a departmental committee responsible for the disposal of surpluses.
This is irrefutable proof of incompetence on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and of the lack of a real farm policy. This lack of single purpose is the more serious at this time, when Canada's general economy is facing unprecedented difficulties and when unemployment is rising at an alarming rate. Agriculture should be at the very basis of our economy and not its doormat as it seems to be considered by those men who lack unity of purpose.
The number of farmers who leave the farm to swell the ranks of the unemployed in cities is disconcerting. Another cabinet member, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton),-who might be described as the minister with visions,-said over the radio, in Regina, on January 31, according to reports in the Western Producer for February 12 and March 5:
(Text) :
This seems to he organized mainly by Mr. Wesson, the head of the wheat pool, and supported to some degree by Mr. Gleave of the S.F.N.
There is grave suspicion in the minds of many that the march on Ottawa is not a genuine march of grassroots farmers that rose from the grassroots.
Some comments were made following the minister's speech, and let me give you an example.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order; I must remind the
hon. member that his time has expired.


Hazen Robert Argue: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the
committee that the hon. member be permitted to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. The hon. member
will be permitted to carry on his remarks at 2.30. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Agriculture AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I thank the house for allowing me to proceed with my remarks.
When the house adjourned at one o'clock, I was reading from an editorial published in the Western Producer last February 12, which reads as follows:
(Text):
If keeping a promise can be described as a "political conspiracy," how would one describe the broken promises of Conservative members from the west? One could be tempted, in a moment of anger, to describe them as political renegades. But, not being given to strong language, let us just say that they suffer from lapse of memory. It is to be hoped that the farm delegation will serve to remind them of the numerous promises they made to those engaged in agriculture.
How different is the attitude of the present Prime Minister from that of a slightly younger politician from Saskatchewan, by the name of John Diefenbaker! In 1942, under similar circumstances, Mr. Diefenbaker addressed huge farm meetings and urged them to "march to Ottawa and demand justice."
What does he expect them to do now, crawl to Ottawa and beg charity?
The whole issue, if it were not so serious, would be amusing. There was truth in the old English ditty, which ran something like this:
When the Devil was ill
The Devil a saint would be,
But when he grew well
Devil a saint was he!
(Translation):
If Canadian farmers' living conditions are as interesting as the hon. Minister of Agriculture made them out, why does he travel to western Canada to set things right? It is simply with the idea of toning down the promises made by the Prime Minister and his candidates during the last elections.
Mr. Chairman, on looking through the magazine "Conditions and Prospects of the Farming Industry in 1959", I find that, according to that publication, the net revenue in 1959 will probably be slightly less than in 1958. It says here that the prices of steers and calves might be lower in 1959, as might the price of lamb. Hog prices during the first nine months will be very much lower than in 1958.
Prospects for the export of hogs are not bright, for production in the United States is being increased and therefore the price stabilization board will go on buying as it has since October 1958.
The demand for beef cattle from the United States will remain firm, but the average price will be less than in 1958.
[The Chairman.]
Those are briefly the conditions which farmers are up against in 1959.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier in my remarks, the speech from the throne announced that new legislation was to be submitted at this session. Such new legislation would certainly be of appreciable value, but it would not be a lasting solution to the farm problem, which is in a constant state of flux.
Indeed of what good will the Price Stabilization Act be for submarginal farms?
Was the Price Stabilization Act passed for the purpose of maintaining the level of farm revenues, or for the purpose of increasing prices? Will it bring about production control, as previously intimated by the hon. Minister of Agriculture?
How could one then reconcile the practice of production control with the education and research work being carried out by our experimental farms, laboratories and information services?
What is the good of deficiency payments to farmers who do not earn enough to provide for their families?
What is the good of the farm credit legislation, even improved, if the farmer does not earn enough to meet his yearly payments. I agree there is an urgent need of amendments, but that does not touch the core of the problem.
At its latest conventions, the Liberal party had considered those problems in the light of the new legislation it planned to introduce. A few resolutions were adopted and I am glad to submit some of them to the minister. Besides promoting the setting up of a farm and fisheries development bank, designed to facilitate and increase present credits-a resolution which I personally proposed, and dealt with here on February 2 last-the Liberal party recommended the establishment in each province of an advisory committee on agriculture whose membership would include federal and provincial authorities. That committee would be responsible for studying agricultural problems within the limits of each province and making fair and appropriate recommendations to the federal government.
Those provincial committees would have a hard task but the surveys and recommendations they could make would be tremendously useful.
While I do not wish to minimize the value of the senate committee on land use, I am

inclined to believe that within the limits of its province, a commission such as this would render greater services.
On the federal level, those committees could advise the minister on the setting of prices for farm products.
In every province, there are different problems which require special attention. Thus in the maritimes and in Newfoundland, those studies would be concentrated on fisheries perhaps more than on agriculture. In Quebec and Ontario, a study might be made of land classification and reforestation, while in the prairies, the wheat problem might be gone into.
This morning, in his remarks, the Minister of Agriculture said he was in favour of setting up certain research committees. We shall be glad to co-operate, inasmuch as such committees meet the needs of all Canadian farmers.
(Text) :


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: The
hon. member stated that he would answer my question when he had finished. He has just made a forceful speech on agriculture. The hon. member seems to be the chief agriculture critic for the Liberal party. Will he tell the committee whether or not he is in favour of the proposed deficiency payments for grain farmers?


Samuel Boulanger: I do not have to commit myself on this. We have already discussed this question and I have given my answer. If you wish to refer to it you can do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I listened this morning with very great interest to the Minister of Agriculture making a very important statement at this time as to the economic condition of agriculture. I have heard many speeches in this house by ministers of agriculture, and I never thought I would ever listen to a minister who showed greater dexterity with figures than the former minister of agriculture, Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner. However, I see that the present Minister of Agriculture has learned everything the former minister used to know in this respect, and I think has learned even more. Because he has brought in today a conglomeration of statistics, some official, some from provincial administrations, some concocted for this debate from the recesses of the Department of Agriculture, to prove something that every farmer in this country knows is not the case, namely that in some respects the year 1958 was the best year agriculture ever had.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the record straight, I did not make that
Supply-Agriculture
statement. What I said was that it was the best year agriculture had had since 1953.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the minister cares to read Hansard he will see the words used by him this morning. But I challenge the general statistics that the minister has used. I challenge his conclusions and I say to him that the very best evidence of the state of agriculture will be shown in this very city on Monday morning by the people who disagree completely with his views, when 1,000 or more delegates from the prairie provinces come here to tell him that his agricultural policy is not as he has painted it today.


Mr. Speakman:: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: He went to great lengths to bring forth statistics to show cash income. He was unable, he said, to bring forth statistics to show net income for 1958; but he did not point out that, in the way he presented it, that cash income in no way took into account the very serious drop in the purchasing power of the dollar in the last ten years. You do not prove the case that 1958 was the best year agriculture has ever had, or even the best year since 1953, unless you take into account the obvious fact that money will not buy as much as it used to. Every other industry, or almost every other industry, has seen year after year a steady increase in its cash income and its net income. Some industries and some people have been in the very favourable position of being able to obtain an increase in real income.
The Minister of Agriculture was not content with bringing forth figures which were alleged to relate to the economic situation in agriculture today, but he went far afield to use retail sales statistics, such as passenger car sales statistics, without taking into account what is obvious to any member who knows anything about agriculture, namely that people who are not directly connected with agriculture have not experienced the difficulties of the farming industry.
The province of Saskatchewan, which is substantially an agricultural province, has enjoyed in recent years a very rapid industrial expansion. Because of the urban and industrial expansion in that province, it is possible for retail sales to increase, for passenger car sales to increase, and for agriculture to remain in a very depressed position. Cash income in 1958 increased, and it increased in the main because we have exported larger numbers of cattle to the United States at higher prices. This is the main central fact in the increase in agricultural income. Can the minister say with any certainty that these exports at this price will be maintained this year?

Supp ly-A griculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says yes, he can assure us of this. We are glad to have that assurance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I hope the hon. member will not keep trying to put words into my mouth which I did not say. What I do say is that there is every prospect that the exports of cattle to the United States will continue throughout this year at much the same prices as last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: There we have another opinion from the Department of Agriculture. The minister failed in his speech this morning to relate anything to export markets. There was no reference to the difficulty we are having in obtaining a new trade agreement with the Soviet union. There was no reference to the possibility of a continued trade agreement with Poland. The minister knows, I believe, that agriculture in this country today is sitting on a keg of powder which is likely to go off at any time because of the very difficult situation we find ourselves in with regard to export markets, the growing threat to our markets in the United States, and the fact that the government has not come to grips with the central question of inflation and the rising costs of production.
The minister today made a much different speech from the speech which he made in this city on November 12 last. The speech he made today was for the consumption, in the main, I suggest, not of people who know anything about agriculture but of the people who are not acquainted with agriculture. After this speech you will see one editorial after another in the main newspapers of this country; you will see prominent newspaper reports, based on the minister's statement, that agriculture is in a good position, that agriculture is booming, that-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor and the minister cannot interrupt me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am rising both on a question of privilege and a point of order. The member is stating that I said agriculture was in a good situation. I did not say that. What I said in my speech was that no one would say agriculture is in a good position, but it is in the best position since the previous four years. I did not say it was in a good position or was booming, and I object most strongly to the hon. member constantly putting words which I did not utter into my mouth in an attempt to give a completely false impression of what I said this morning.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, when the minister rises again in such a violent and volatile mood I hope he will rise on something which is a point of order. The minister knows from long experience in this house that if he disagrees with what I am saying, or even disagrees with the interpretation which I am putting on remarks of his, then it is his privilege, in keeping with the rules of the house, to rise when I sit down and contradict those statements. It is not the privilege of the minister to rise on what are fictitious points of order in an attempt to interpret statements I am making while I have the floor.
To return to the statement I was making. As a result of the most unfortunate speech which the minister made this morning there will be a great many editorials in the principal newspapers of this country and strong arguments put forward that agriculture is in a good situation, that agriculture is in a much better position than it has been for years. Those editorials and those comments will be misleading to the people who are outside the agriculture industry and to those who do not know the difficult position in which the industry finds itself today.
The industry is in a very difficult position, not only because the cost of production continues to rise and because the minister was unable this morning to give the committee any assurance that in 1959 there will be any improvement, but because this government has no policy for dealing with the problems which confront the farmer. Here is the Canadian Minister of Agriculture making a very important statement in this house in the year 1959 without commenting at all on the problem presented by vertical integration- without commenting at all on the problem of contract farming.
Contract farming, we are informed by the people who are in this business, has taken over in the province of Ontario upwards of 90 per cent of the broiler industry. The great chain stores, the great retail outlets, are moving in on the family farm and elbowing it out of existence, through contracts and through vertical integration what was a very special segment of free enterprise. All this is going on without the Minister of Agriculture having any comment to make.
We intend to wait for the minister to tell us what the policy of the government is with regard to preventing the liquidation of very important segments of agriculture in this country. And lest anybody be under any misapprehension, let me say that I and the group with which I am associated believe that farming in this country is best operated in the hands of the farmer and his family.


An hon. Member:: That is a new one.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not a new one; that has been our policy all the time.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: On a point of order, I think the Chair should try to stop these blue jays from croaking in the background.


Hazen Robert Argue: I enjoy their interventions.


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


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is, no. I enjoy the squawks from over there, because I have observed in recent weeks that it is the most effective contribution many of them are apparently capable of making to the discussion of this very important subject. I am not one who is going to run to the Chair and ask to be rescued from these ineffective and rather ridiculous interruptions.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then will the hon. member permit a question? Does he know that there is more land operated by farmers in Saskatchewan who own that land than in previous years.


Hazen Robert Argue: You mean than under the Anderson government-that old Tory government with their horses and buggies-and then under Jimmie Gardiner's political machine? Of course, more and more farms are being placed in the hands of their operators because of the position which the C.C.F. government has taken.
I have been referring to some of the statements which were made by the minister today. The Minister of Agriculture places a lot of statistics on the record including, as I have said, some which he had to get fabricated for this occasion. We have heard the statistics of the hon. member for Essex East-his own personal and private statistics-now we have the personal statistics of the Minister of Agriculture.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These are all official statistics.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are not official statistics at all. The minister stood up and said that the cost of production index of farm commodities as put out by the dominion bureau of statistics was not accurate, and he went on to say that he had some later statistics-some fabricated statistics-which some of the officials had prepared for his speech. And how the minister needed those figures in order to bolster his speech. But the same Minister of Agriculture spoke in this city in November. What did he have to say about agriculture then? He said:
It is evident that in these circumstances we cannot continue to increase our production of dried skim milk and, in fact, must cut it down.
An he said, further, referring to poultry:
It is quite apparent that a rate of increase such as this will create in the very near future an
Supply-Agriculture
impossible marketing and price situation with consequent distress and bankruptcy for many producers.
In November, it will be noted, the minister forecast bankruptcy for many producers.


An hon. Member:: Of poultry.


Hazen Robert Argue: For many poultry producers, and that is very important. Yet today the minister says that agriculture is all right. I have said that one of the great omissions of the Minister of Agriculture was that he did not relate his statistics to real income, and I would suggest to him on the basis of the statistics I have-


An hon. Member:: Where did you get yours?


Hazen Robert Argue: -and which I have calculated myself-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: because the government has no statistics in this field; for a very obvious reason, that it is evident that in terms of purchasing power the position of the Canadian farmer in 1957 was worse than it had been in any year since 1946. It is indicated that 1958, with the exception of two years, will be worse in terms of real purchasing power than any year since 1946. I do not have to argue that these figures are accurate today because that is the very basis on which the delegation is coming to Ottawa; that because the increase in the cost of production has been so tremendous at a time when prices have either not risen or have fallen, the government must be asked for assistance by way of deficiency payments.
We have heard the Conservative party enunciate its agriculture policy over the years. Since 1940, on a number of occasions in this house the Prime Minister, when he was the hon. member for Lake Centre or the hon. member for Prince Albert, moved motions asking for parity prices, asking for a fair share of the national income for farmers. Lest anyone might think that these were merely private motions put forward by the hon. gentleman, let me say that these motions have been made the official policy of the Conservative party in a pamphlet put out by the Progressive Conservative party national headquarters before the election of 1957 and entitled "Agriculture". On page 8 this document had this to say:
The following motions have been introduced in the house by Mr. Diefenbaker in order to secure for the farmer a more satisfactory share of the national income:
"Immediate steps should be taken to create a parity of prices as between agriculture and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture so that it may receive a just and fair return."

Supply-Agriculture
"Consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing in the present session, 1953, legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural production at such levels as to ensure for producers a fair price-cost relationship.


An hon. Member:: We did.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no cost-price relationship in that legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no price-cost formula in that legislation. The minister announces the floor prices from year to year under this legislation as he did under the old prices support act. Prices are set at the whim of the government.
In view of all these circumstances, the farmers of western Canada are coming to Ottawa. What are they coming for? They are coming to ask the Prime Minister and this government to fulfil that part of their election program which said they believed in parity prices. They are not asking for full parity prices for farm products; they are asking for deficiency payments which will bring the price of grain upwards toward but not reaching the full level of a parity price. By this means they are asking that the government put a floor price under wheat, oats and barley. They are asking this because of the tremendous increases in the cost of production. They are coming to Ottawa representing people in many occupations on the prairies, representing people in all walks of life, carrying to this capital a petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures.
They have asked the people who have signed the petition to contribute to the cost of the delegation and I read that in the province of Saskatchewan the average contribution toward the cost of the delegation was just over 70 cents. Therefore, they have not found a bag of money; they have not found a mint. People who believe with them that it is a problem that should be brought to the foot of the throne are coming to Ottawa to bring their plea to the government and to the Prime Minister. They are doing this because it is a movement of all the people to try to get a solution to this aggravating problem.
People should not be inferring that this is some kind of undemocratic action. Farmers of the west came to Ottawa in 1910 to ask for action on a grain marketing act to protect them in the selling of their grain as to grade, dockage and weight. In 1942, the farmers of the west came to Ottawa, 400 strong, in February to ask for $1 a bushel wheat. They came to this parliament; they interviewed the government of the day and

not very long after they had gone home they achieved an increase of 20 cents a bushel. They are coming now with, I think, the greatest problem that they have ever had, a problem that is tied up with their very survival. Unless this government does two things, namely put a floor under the price of grain and do this by way of a deficiency payment, which is the technique they wish used and prevent further increases in the cost of production, then this industry is threatened.
I for one believe that the grain growing industry of the three prairie provinces is important to Canada. I think our grain export market is important and everything should be done to protect this industry in a reasonable way. I do not mean protection in the classic sense of tariffs and a special income tax protection, but protection by seeing that we put a floor under our products. We should not allow the cost of production to eat away our standard of living. That is why the delegation is coming to Ottawa and I am hopeful that the government will give them-and I believe it will-a courteous reception. I hope the government will give them a very careful hearing.
When I heard the statement of the Minister of Agriculture this morning as he painted a picture-he may not think he painted a picture-of agriculture making rapid improvement and when he went to the Kindersley area, which is not only one of the best farming districts in western Canada-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said that.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister did not say this-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said that.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the minister will just contain himself. This he did not say, namely that in that area in the last few years they have had relatively good crops and much better crops than in most other districts of western Canada. If the minister had come to the constituency of Assiniboia and if there had been statistics on this basis he could have proved exactly the opposite, because we have not had the bumper crops; we have not the tremendous grain carryover that they have in the Kindersley and surrounding districts. Mainly because climatic conditions have been good their crops have been much above average and this is the area in which the major part of the surplus grain lies on the farms. So far as the majority of farmers who are not in this crop area are concerned, their granaries will be swept clean; there will be no farm grain surplus and the farmers, in spite of the fact that in the last 10 years they have had higher than average crops,

are in the position where they are faced with the threat of bankruptcy for their industry.
What has been the attitude of the government members? Have they welcomed this delegation? Have they said it is a good thing; have they said that the farmers have a good cause? No, I have-


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the record of the radio broadcasts that some of them have been making and the radio broadcast that was made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources-


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Talk to the farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: -on the march to Ottawa as it is being called. They do not put it in its true light, namely that it is a move by the people to ask for correction and assistance from the government, but they look [DOT]on it as a deep, dark political plot. Oh, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in a radio broadcast that was given tremendous coverage and publicity and reported rather fully on page 4 of the Western Producer for February 12, had this to say:
It looks to us as if it has been imposed from the top by a group of C.C.F. ex-M.P.'s and the Saskatchewan government


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Hazen Robert Argue: Somebody said, "That is right". I continue:
-working in close participation with certain leaders in the wheat pool.
The very people that cuddled up back in 1945 and 1946 to impose on us the British wheat agreement, the C.C.F. and Liberal henchmen, are now cuddling up together to march on us for political purposes.
That is absolute nonsense, Mr. Chairman. It is an insult to the farm leaders; it is-


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: The best part of your speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is nice on the record as coming from a western member. It is an insult to the over 200,000 citizens of Saskatchewan who have signed the petition.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Is the hon. member denying that the Liberals and C.C.F. ganged up in 1945 and 1946 to support the British wheat agreement which cost the western farmers $600 million?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the most interesting question I have had today.


An hon. Member:: Answer it.
Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: Instead of talking about the Liberals and the C.C.F. ganging up, as he had alleged, to bring a mass delegation to Ottawa, he wants to go back to 1945. Therefore, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: -has said something which is foolish, ill-founded and untrue, as it is recorded in his speech in the Western Producer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Answer my question.


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is no. I have already answered my friend's question.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: He
has not got an answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister went on to say:
I would suggest that deficiency payments, if you are considering the small farmer, is wrong in principle and dangerous.
So, here, the thousand farmers with these signatures of the vast majority of the farm people in Saskatchewan and petitions from Alberta and Manitoba are coming to Ottawa to ask for something that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources calls dangerous.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon. member permit another question?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is no.


An hon. Member:: You did not like the other question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will take the minister's questions when I sit down. I will deal with them one at a time and as far as I am concerned we can go on all afternoon.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Follow your script.


Hazen Robert Argue: "Follow your script", somebody else says. The Western Producer. I am proud, Mr. Chairman, to be a member of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. As a farmer I am proud to be a supporter of the Saskatchewan wheat pool and I am very pleased to be in the position to say that I support the proposals being brought to Ottawa, as do other members of the C.C.F. These farmers are coming to Ottawa because the government has failed them. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources can say that this is the same gang who cuddled up in 1945 and 1946 in something that he thought was a nefarious agreement. I say to him that by and large these are the very same people who voted for him and his colleagues from western Canada in the last

Supply-Agriculture
election, who voted for me, who voted for candidates who were elected and candidates who were not elected.
This is not a plot. This is not, as the minister has said, a ganging up of people on the government. I imagine that the Prime Minister must be having a difficult time when colleagues of his are going around shooting off this stuff in all directions. He should have taken a page out of the book of former prime minister, W. L. Mackenzie King, who in 1942, when a delegation came here, said, "You do not have to come here to convince me; I know you are in trouble but I am glad you came here to convince my colleagues who come from other parts of Canada and to convince the people of Canada who do not know the problem."
Today the Minister of Agriculture gets up and paints a picture which is not accurate. I think the problem can be met only by a program which includes parity prices and deficiency payments. I suggest that the domestic price of wheat should be a parity one. I suggest that an adequate program for agriculture calls for national marketing boards and a board of livestock commissioners. It calls for international commodity agreements and the continuation of the international wheat agreement. It calls for an international food pool. It calls for better nutrition for Canadians which could be brought about in part by a free school lunch program.
To provide a square deal for agriculture requires an increase in the benefits under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and extension of the act. It requires an extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to all parts of Canada. It requires the provision of low cost credit to farmers, credit that will be really available to farmers so that they will not have to go through the tremendous amount of red tape involved in applying for a loan now from the Canadian farm loan board, only to be refused very often without cause in my opinion. It calls for the restoration of the farmer's right to deliver grain to the elevator of his own choice. We thought this would be the result of the Bracken commission. We are still waiting for action in this regard. It calls for the further step of placing the marketing of all grain under the Canadian wheat board.
The solution of the agricultural problem calls for planning. It calls for national marketing boards. It calls for a reduction in the margin between the prices paid to producers and the very high prices paid by consumers. It calls for the reversal of the trend in evidence now for many years

whereby the farmers' share of the consumer dollar has gone down and the retailers' share has gone up.
I have mentioned 12 points that I believe should constitute a bill of rights for agriculture. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that a good many of these points have been in the agricultural policy of the Conservative party in recent years. I suggest that they fulfil their commitments to the farmers. I suggest that they give a sympathetic hearing to the delegation coming to Ottawa and that the government consider the proposals the delegation wishes to make and not close the door on them.
I think the timing of the speech of the Minister of Agriculture has been most unfortunate. I do not think this kind of misleading speech should have been made in advance of the arrival of the delegation. I suggest that the speech was made by the minister to try to strengthen the position of those who are opposed to the requests of his organization. If that was not his fundamental purpose in building an argument against the delegation, I fail to realize the purpose of his speech. In my opinion he has not shown that agriculture is in the sound position that he suggested.
Before I resume my seat, having regard to the interruptions that have taken place, perhaps I might be permitted to refer to a publication issued by his own department, the Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada, the issue for January, 1959. On page 4 of the review I find the following statement:
Information available at the end of November indicated a farm cash income of about $2.7 billion in 1958, about five per cent higher than in 1957. ...In 1959 farm cash income is expected to remain about the same as in 1958...
With little change anticipated for cash income and income in kind and a continued rise in farm expenses in prospect, realized net income in 1959 is likely to be somewhat lower than in 1958.
There, Mr. Chairman, is a statement in the Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada which is very much in keeping with the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture himself on November 12. It shows that agriculture is in a most difficult position and that action is required now along the lines I have suggested in the 12 point program which I have termed a bill of rights for agriculture and along the lines of the presentation that will be made here by the mass delegation early next week.
( Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I, first of all, congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for the steps he is taking in favour of farmers. I would not like

to hurt his modesty, but I can say in this house that he is one of the best brains in Canada in matters of agriculture. Day in and day out, he directs his attention to farmers' problems. If a request is put to him, if some organization submits a brief to him, he considers it at once. In brief, he conscientiously strives to improve the farmer's lot.
I have listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger). In my opinion, it is more of a liability than an asset to the farmers of Canada. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska made no constructive suggestions. His speech was merely critical.
Mr. Chairman, if farmers today are finding it hard to sell their products, it is because we have lost our export markets. And who made us lose those markets? The previous government.
It is being claimed in certain quarters that the farming situation is in a bad way.
Mr. Chairman, need I refer to discussions that took place in this house at the time our hon. friends were in power? May I however, refer to page 69 of the English text of Hansard for January 27, 1942, i.e. during the war, when farmers were said to be prosperous. This is what the hon. member for Stormont, who is today the representative for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), said at that time:
In view of the shortage of labour on the farm and the increase in the cost of production it seems to me that the farmer, and particularly the cheese producer, is called upon to make an extra sacrifice, or an extra contribution. Every year since the beginning of the war-and I believe these are the words of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)-Canadian farmers have accepted prices for their food commodities far below those to which they were entitled. This is particularly true of cheese. It is interesting to note in the speech from the throne that vast quantities of foodstuffs will go to Britain as an integral part of the war effort. It is to be hoped that for the primary producer this will mean an increase in prices. It seems to me there should be a greater parity between the return of the wage earner and the return of the farmer producer. Canada's contribution in foodstuffs centres chiefly around pork products, cheese, canned salmon, wheat and flour; and in all these commodities we are the chief source of supply for Britain.
My purpose, Mr. Chairman, in quoting those remarks is to call your attention to the fact that, at the time, the hon. member for Stormont rose in this house to tell of the farmer's plight, although it was in wartime. Mr. Chairman, no government to date has more thoroughly looked after the needs of Canadian farmers than has the present government.
Supply-Agriculture
Need I mention that the Minister of Agriculture, in introducing the Agricultural Stabilization Act-and the opposition voted in favour of this legislation- gave most valuable help to our prairie farmers. Now we will soon have a crop insurance act.
At the last session, a bill was adopted covering the grading of leaf tobacco. The Minister of Agriculture is always on the forward march. He is always proposing new legislation. In other words, although this government has been in power for only a few months, it has done more, all things considered, than the previous one did in 25 years.
(Text):


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question before he goes on to another subject?
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If you please, Mr. Chairman, when I am through with my speech, if the hon. member wishes to ask me a question, he may do so and I shall gladly reply.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: After my speech.


Osias.-J. Godin: I shall be very brief. Could the hon. member tell me-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This question you have in mind has been suggested by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger).
(Text):


The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):: believe the hon. member stated that he would allow a question after he completes his speech.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is too bad, really, that a member who is unable to assume his own responsibilities should allow himself to be prompted by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. If the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska wishes to ask questions, let him stand on his feet, and do so, but I note he is afraid-


Samuel Boulanger: What right has the hon.
member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm to talk that way and put words into my mouth I have never uttered, and ideas that never crossed my mind. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) is entitled to his own opinions, and has the right to express them. When I have views to make known or questions to ask, I am not in the habit of relaying them through a desk mate.

Supply-Agriculture
I therefore ask the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to withdraw what he said.
(Text):


Osias.-J. Godin: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman; since the point of order raised refers to me, I feel that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should retract the remark that possibly I was directed by someone else to ask the question. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would take it as obvious that I am able to ask questions on my own.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I saw what happened. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was not at his seat but next to the hon. member for Nickel Belt, whispering something to him. If the hon. member wants me to say that he did not whisper that question to his neighbour, even though he seemed to be doing so, then I apologize.


Samuel Boulanger: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has just said that I am not in my seat; I would like him to tell me just where I should be sitting. I ask him to withdraw his remark.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I understood the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to apologize for the remark he had made. Accordingly, it seems to me there is no cause for further discussion on the point of order.
May I point out to hon. members who are behind the curtains that, if they wish to make suggestions, they should make them from their seats.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, it is a habit with hon. members of the opposition to hide behind the curtains and to whisper questions. At any rate, I will revert to more significant matters and resume my remarks.
In the first six months of 1958 the proceeds of Canadian farmers' sales of farm products reached an estimated amount of 1 billion 300 million dollars. This is 9 per cent more than the 1 billion 200 million dollar proceeds they got in the corresponding period of 1957. That increase over the previous year is due largely to the sale of livestock and related products.
In all provinces, estimates for the first half of the year were above those of the previous year. The increases, in most provinces, were close to the national average of 9 per cent. The major exception was in Prince Edward Island where the increase was 25 per cent because of larger income from the sale of cattle, calves and potatoes.

Sales of livestock and animal products amounted to $807 million in the first six months, or about 16 per cent more than in the previous year. About half the increase went to the prairie farmers, so that returns from the sale of livestock and animal products rose by only about 10 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, may I most humbly make a few suggestions to the house concerning Canadian agriculture, knowing that, as usual, the hon. Minister of Agriculture will give them close consideration.
I wonder whether it might not be desirable, in the interest of Canadian farmers, and more particularly in the interest of milk producers, to levy a tax, no matter how small-


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Duplessis!


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -on vegetable oils imported from abroad. The money thus collected could be paid indirectly, in some other way to milk producers, and this would fully meet their needs.


Samuel Boulanger: Before asking for that, why do you not ask Mr. Duplessis to enforce the law in Quebec?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, as a federal member I am making my remarks on the national level. If the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) wishes to go into provincial politics, he should resign his seat and stand for election in his provincial riding; then we would see what support he would get from the Quebec farmers.


Samuel Boulanger: I accept the challenge.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I also ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider raising import duties on American potatoes.
I also urge officials of the Department of Agriculture to consider establishing a support price for maple products.
Mr. Chairman, the experimental farm at l'Assomption is located in the federal constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to increase, if possible, the funds available to this experimental farm, in order to promote research-


Osias.-J. Godin: For the future.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the federal constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is a tobacco centre, and we find that insofar as cigar tobacco is concerned, consumer demand is mostly for mild tobaccos. In my

view, additional funds should be made available to the authorities of that experimental farm, to enable them to promote research with a view to producing milder varieties of tobacco.
The federal constituency of Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm is also the largest tobacco-producing centre in the province of Quebec. I know that certain members from Ontario also represent constituencies where there are many tobacco producers.
I appeal to the firms buying cigarette tobacco, most of which are controlled by foreign investors, to pay a fair price to tobacco producers, who are farmers and average Canadians, in order that they may contribute to the progress of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make those suggestions. Were any suggestions forthcoming from the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska? On the contrary, his was destructive criticism; his speech is a liability for the farm people of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, our attitude is quite different from that of our opponents, those who previously held office. They used to sit around, not daring to rise and make themselves heard on behalf of their constituencies. Today, it can be said that Conservative members are expressing in this house the views of their constituents.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make those suggestions quite humbly and I am sure that they will receive careful consideration from the officials of the Department of Agriculture.
(Text):


Joseph-Omer Gour: Before I go on with the few remarks I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members, particularly of the Minister of Agriculture, the fact that I do not agree with my good friend when he said that the revenue of the farmer in 1958 was better than it was up to the year 1953-54. I understand that my hon. friend must bring in a little bit of politics. He is under the big boss. Therefore it was necessary for him to follow along that line. However, I do not intend to participate. Before going on, I want to tell hon. members and the minister that I am not one who would try to make it appear that I believe the minister is not an honest man. I have known him since 1945. My opinion is that he certainly makes mistakes. However, I am not ready to believe that he is not honest.
Supply-Agriculture
I should like to make an appeal to those hon. members who desire to have a little bit of fair play for the farmer and ask that we throw aside the question of politics and speak about what is good for the farmer. Let us stop playing small politics, something that has always been done by one party and the other. I have been here for 14 years. During that time when we were in power the opposition were playing politics on this matter and I do not intend to do it. I did not do it when they were in the opposition. The story was the same with regard to the C.C.F. and the Social Credit groups.
I think agriculture is an important business. The Minister of Agriculture has one of the most difficult jobs in Canada. We have a large country producing various products far from the market and with not half the market we need for the things we produce. I know the minister has problems. I sympathize with him. I like him. He has done the same thing, as far as I have known him,, for 14 years. The same thing applies to. another matter. When they were in opposition they were saying that our friend Right. Hon. James Gardiner was not an honest man. He was the best minister of agriculture we had in this country. The minister is a nice gentleman but he is playing a little bit of politics. That is all he is doing. It is all right, to have a little bit as long as it is kept at a reasonable level.
I regret that the minister has been forced to bring in these statistics. I have to go back a little bit in the review of these statistics. I will take first the production of pork. I think the price of $7 for pork was right, but only six weeks old, not six months old. It is right for five to six weeks. That is all right for from five to six weeks old if they are not too unlucky with the sow. The other price in Ontario, namely $13.30 and $14, is all right for feeders from two and a half to three months old but not more than that. The price for Alberta is high enough. I think it is exaggerated a little bit.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Too high?


Joseph-Omer Gour: A little bit. As to the cost of feed for hogs in Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes, the feed that is brought from the west costs about 25 per cent more or something like that. I think in this part we can, if we are not too unlucky, bring the pig to 200 pounds at a cost of about $35 or $38 or $40 for a 200-pound pig. I think the price in Alberta is exaggerated by $2. But what I find is this. If the minister wants to be honest as he likes to be I think these people who make out these reports had better get together. We should get more honest reports than that. There is something wrong with

Supply-Agriculture
these reports. I do not blame the minister but I do not need to tell the committee that they leave something to be desired and it is too bad tor these people that 1958 was not a better year than it was. Pork was cheaper than in 1957. The price of pork was 34 cents, 9 cents higher. Beef was lower. The minister dropped the price of dry milk by three cents therefore that is not an increase.
The year is not so bad in 1958. As I said not very long ago in the house, we had a good crop. The Americans are buying our cattle. They bought more in 1958. They bought about eight times more than they bought in 1957. We had that revenue which helped to give more money to the farmer. But what should be done for the farmer? There is a change in farming just as there is in the rest of industrial Canada. Therefore the minister and the government should change year after year the means adopted to help the farmers. But they do not do that. They just pay a little bit on something. It is a small thing.
The main thing in this country is the danger for the farmer of these big organizations. They call them farmers. Some people say they are farmers, others say they are not, that they are poultry raisers, egg farmers, grain growers or beef cattle raisers. The person who is a farmer is one who is a mixed farmer. They have more to put up with than anybody thinks. To be a good farmer he has to work 365 days a year and like it. Next, you have to be equally skilled in agriculture as well as in mechanics and carpentry. You have to have the knowledge of a veterinary surgeon; and after that you have to have a good wife. You need to be a good worker and in good health. That is what I call a farmer.
To keep those good farmers this country needs to help them. I am not talking about 600-acre or 1,000-acre farms, as I had myself. I was just a gentleman farmer. What we need are the good family farmers. To keep these farmers we need a special organization, call it the name you like. We need the same sort of thing like the Department of Veterans Affairs. Some farmers have not enough money to buy sufficient grain or cattle. A farmer who has to do work half the time outside his farm will never be a good farmer; he will ruin himself, his health, and his wife, and that is all he is able to do. Therefore you need an organization which will guarantee a certain price. You must find a way to stop these big companies which give the farmer so much a chicken so that he will go into debt. That farmer may have to assume a $40,000 or $50,000 debt. The same applies to hogs and small cattle farms, as it does to the big ranges of

beef cattle and dairy cattle. But the little farmer cannot stand it. Those people must have help from the government because they need it so much. I would like to see an organization which guarantees a return of so much per pound for butter, cheese, pork, eggs or chickens to those farmers who are the ordinary farmers. I mean the little farms of not more than 100-odd head. We must stop those big concerns ruining the little man. The way things are going now the farmer will be ruined, and so will the government through the subsidization of them.
I do not agree with my hon. friend who talked a minute ago that there should be a higher price for wheat in Canada. If something has to be done to help those farmers, it is not by raising the consumer price, because that is high enough. The taxpayers should only be called upon to pay a reasonable price for their goods. The more the price goes up, the more the need for higher wages, which leads very often to strikes; and so it goes round in a vicious circle. During the war butter was selling for about 50 cents a pound and in addition to this price the farmer also received a bonus of 10 cents per pound from the cheese factory, this being paid by the federal government. So we should have so much per head up to a certain limit. If we do not, I do not know what will happen to our small farmers. They cannot compete with these big outfits with their new mechanical machinery. The larger the farm the larger the machine, and they are very expensive. Lots of farmers bought tractors and machines for $10,000 or $20,000 each. They have borrowed some $120 million.
In my own district they have borrowed so much for machines that most of the farmers are in debt, and if we do not give the farmer a chance to make a living by their own honest labour, he and his family will quit. Most of the farmers' wives work all hours of the day to help their husbands on the farms, and they get their sons of seven or eight years to help with the tractor when they come home from school. If they did not do that about 25 per cent of the farmers at the present moment would have to leave and come to the city. They are still on the farms. Therefore it is up to the government to help them. I cannot believe there are no honest Tories; there are some honest people in the Tory party.
It is evident that the minister has made promises which he is not able to keep, but that is not his fault, it is the fault of the irresponsible undertakings that were made by his leader. Now the Minister of Agriculture finds himself in the position where he cannot fulfil even a quarter of those

promises. What does he say now about parity prices? Oh, when the minister was on this side of the house he was a very good speaker and the phrase "parity price" was always on his lips. But now parity prices have disappeared like a sputnik. But let us not talk politics for too long. The farmers of this country are more important than politics, and it is in the best interest of the whole country that something should be done to help certain parts of this industry.
In some ways conditions are improving. I can remember that five or six years ago in my own riding a man might raise 100 or 125 chickens in a year. He would work, helped by his sons, for every day of the week except Sunday when he would go to Mass. Hon. members know, of course, that they are good people in my riding. They did this work for peanut money. It is the big people who control the grain and grind it to make feed who run the market and are able to fix the prices, and when the time comes to renew the contract, they dropped the price.
As I said a moment ago, there is no lawyer who is bright enough to be a good farmer without experience. Farming cannot be carried out successfully without experience, and in order that young people may have a chance we should try to help them out, while at the same time exercising some control in advancing money. We have a lot of good men in the provincial departments of agriculture, and a lot of good men in the federal department, too, who can take part in this work. We might try to get some more and use them to help supervise the small farms not these big companies or big concerns who farm 3,000 acres of wheat and whose cheque has to be sent to Miami because they spend six months down there. The same applies to the people who raise cattle for beef, and the same is coming to apply to the dairy industry.
These people should have only a certain amount, and that is all. The same applies to business. The way things are going now, in a few years time all retail business will be in the hands of a few big companies. I spoke about this last session. It is the same with labour. I can imagine a situation in this country where we would have the big labour organizations fighting with the big farm companies. There could be a strike and we should all starve. With things like this happening we should not, as I said, make politics out of the farm industry.
But 1 believe we have too many big fellows at the present time. I am not against the farmers of the west, but I am not in favour of boosting the incomes of those 66968-9-108
Supply-Agriculture
millionaries who work for only three months of the year and spend the rest on vacation; these people who get a couple of men to run the tractors, sow a thousand acres a week and when the crop is gathered, say "Good-bye my friends". That is all right, but we should not take taxes from the people in general in order to make these operators still bigger. I am against the taxpayers of this country putting more money into the hands of these people.
I do not think I will take more time now, except to say a word about loans to farmers. I hope the minister will see that farmers who need loans and are in a position to apply will get them without any unnecessary delay. Perhaps it is because there are so many lawyers mixed up in the administration that it takes so much time to grant these loans. Of course, I know that lots of care is needed in order to see that title is clear, and so on. All I am asking is that the procedure be as quick as possible.
I believe the minister should see that producers are covered and that he should find a way by which they can get back any deficiency; that he should refund a certain amount up to a certain level, but not too far. For chickens, 3,000 would be good enough; eggs, 2,000, would be reasonable. Never mind the speculators; they will look after themselves. I do not want the taxpayers' money spent to help them. The same applies to wheat, and the same applies to hogs. I do not think we should protect them by going beyond 200 hogs. That is enough. This should be protection enough.
That is all I wish to say today. I will return to this question later on. I know that the minister has to introduce a certain amount of politics into his speech, because the boss is the boss, but I think that his leader should at least have given him more assistance. In my opinion the Minister of Agriculture should certainly have the help of a parliamentary assistant. As soon as a parliamentary assistant is named it will relieve the anxieties of some of those funny figures over there who would have to live for 200 years before they could become parliamentary assistants. There will be less nervousness among a lot of those Tory members than there is now, and, finally, they would feel more free to vote with the opposition when the time comes.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Russell, and I bow to his parliamentary experience as well as to his experience of the farming industry. I believe he made the statement that the reason for the slowness, as far as farm loan board applications were concerned,

Supply-Agriculture
is that too many lawyers have something to do with the Canadian farm loan board. That may be so. I am sure that the proposed legislation which will be brought down later this session by this government will be such that even the lawyers will be able to give some help to see that it is enacted in the proper manner and loans given without delay.
He also mentioned the fact that the small family farm in Canada needed more help, and he also referred to the health of the farmer's wife. I can go along with that. I hope perhaps he will endorse the way it is looked at down east, where it is said that in order to provide healthy farmers what you need is plenty of fresh air and buttermilk. Perhaps that is the answer. I would agree with the remarks in which he said that the family farm is important in Canada. In the constituency which I represent agriculture is quite an important industry, along with a number of others.
While I was home in the interval between the sessions I had the opportunity to attend the meeting of the Pictou-North Colchester federation of agriculture. This was the first time that I was able to attend the meetings. Along with the hon. member for Colchester-Hants and some of the members of the Nova Scotia provincial legislature I met with farmers from the area in their annual meeting. Various matters were brought up there and we were able to get a picture of farming, especially in our own area and indeed in the province of Nova Scotia. Later on the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture held a meeting in Truro which I was not able to attend, but after coming to Ottawa the executive of the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture met the Nova Scotia members and made certain recommendations and submissions. It is with a few of those submissions that I would like to deal just briefly this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Time does not permit my going into all of them or any one of them too closely, but I believe they are important matters.
The first one is that of farm credit. During the last session I spoke in the house on the matter of farm credit, especially in reference to the province of Nova Scotia and the findings of the Hawkins commission. The Hawkins commission was set up in Nova Scotia to inquire into rural credit. Among its recommendations was something to this effect, that the provincial and federal boards, that is, the Nova Scotia land settlement board and the Canadian farm loan board, should be integrated into one and combined so as to provide more adequately for short term, intermediate and long term loans.
I was pleased to note that the Minister of Agriculture has stated that there are to

be amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I should like to thank him and also probably the Minister of Finance who will be concerned in the matter. The speech from the throne stated:
-a comprehensive review and revision of the legislation concerning farm credit, in order that credit may be more effective in assisting in the development and maintenance of an efficient and prosperous agriculture.
The amendment will be introduced at this session. As far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, I would say that farm credit is the crux of the whole agricultural industry and situation in that province, and that changes must be made to cover present day agricultural matters. As the legislation now stands-and as I said before in this house -it would seem that the Canadian Farm Loan Act does not cover the small farmers, and especially the farmers in the east. This is something which was pointed out by the executive of the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture in a meeting. As late as 1931 the land and buildings on a farm constituted 77 per cent of the total farm value. The submission is that today the land and buildings constitute not more than 50 per cent of the farm value and the other 50 per cent consists of stock and equipment. As we see it, so far as Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces are concerned, the act is not so constituted as to give farmers an opportunity to buy the stock and equipment necessary for modern day farming. I am glad to know that the act will be changed. I would support the government on this.
The matter of land use was also referred to by the Minister of Agriculture today. The federation of agriculture of the province of Nova Scotia pointed out to us as members that there was much good interval land in that province along the rivers which could not be taken advantage of because of the river erosion and so on. We have the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act which takes care of salt water areas, and I am glad to know that a committee has been set up to study the matter of these lands in Canada and undoubtedly this matter of erosion of good land and other matters will be studied. I would recommend that after the report of this committee is brought in the government should look into this matter. Perhaps something can be done because it is a most important matter.
I should like to refer to the matter of freight rate assistance. It was pointed out by the federation, and it is recognized by the people in the Atlantic provinces, that freight rate assistance given by the government on feed grains coming from the western provinces is most important. After the recent

increase in freight rates, as shown by the further supplementary estimates which were passed in the house not too long ago, assistance was given to the eastern farmers to help them out in the matter of freight rates.
It was suggested and recommended by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants during the last session that the freight rate assistance policy should become a permanent one and should be so enacted. This is recommended by our local federation. I would suggest that the government look into this matter with a view to making it a permanent policy. It is most necessary to have this freight rate assistance because it is a great stimulus to the production of livestock in the maritime provinces. Beef cattle are now being raised in Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia department of agriculture has set up community pastures throughout the province and an abattoir will be built in Halifax to take care of the beef and pork produce which will come to it. This was a combined effort of the government of the province of Nova Scotia and the farmers of Nova Scotia. It is being recommended and lauded a great deal because it means a lot to our cattle and hog producers. As I have said, feed grains are necessary, they are the key to the whole problem. Assistance on feed grains is most vital and I would recommend that this matter be made permanent by the government. In travelling through northern New Brunswick, particularly through the area of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, I was pleased to note that many of the potato producers in that area were going into beef cattle raising in order to help themselves and not be dependent on one crop only.
These are submissions which were made to the Nova Scotia members and they are most important ones. The federation of agriculture in our province is doing a good job. They are co-operating together. There are many able men in this federation and with the assistance of our able Minister of Agriculture here and with the assistance of the able minister of agriculture in the province of Nova Scotia and with the assistance of everyone, particularly the farmers in the province, the industry is going ahead and I believe will go ahead even more. It is important to our province and to many provinces, and I think we are just beginning to see the light and to put the industry really on its feet.
I do not intend to enter into discussion of the matter of wheat and deficiency payments brought up by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I will let my western colleagues say a few words on that. They probably will not be too peaceful and calm. Their words will probably make the storm outside today look 66968-9-108i
Supp ly-A griculture
like a south sea island breeze by the time they are finished. I thought I would make a few remarks now and bring forward matters that are important to my own province.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, since my name came into the debate earlier-


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is a well known practice in the house-if members want to change it I am not going to object-to call on an opposition member after a government member has spoken. The hon. member for Fort William was on his feet.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Coates):: I saw
the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry that the hon. member for Assiniboia raised a point of order because he was the one who brought my name into the debate. I stood up on previous occasions.


George James McIlraith: So did the hon. member for Fort William.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right. Many stood up, but the great majority of the members of the house from western Canada are from one party and they have just as much right to speak as the hon. member for Assiniboia, the hon. member for Fort William or any other member. I recognize that the hon. member for Assiniboia does not want to hear what I am going to tell him now because this afternoon we heard a classic example of the extreme statements by the C.C.F. which have done more harm to agriculture in western Canada in the last 20 years than any other single thing. In his remarks he indicated that these farmers coming to Ottawa would be met with an unfriendly reception from the government side. By reading extracts from a report in the Western Producer of a speech I made, which report is entirely accurate, he left the impression that there would be an unfriendly reception. Nothing could be further from the truth.
All this started some weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, when an article appeared in a western Canada paper, the Leader-Post. There was much comment about the news story in the Leader-Post. I am going to read into the record a letter I wrote to the editor of the Star-Phoenix concerning the same subject. The letter reads as follows:
In your February 6th edition you have an editorial charging me with poor taste in doubting the grass roots character of the march on Ottawa. We have very few ways of measuring this. My personal mail for some months has run three to one asking that we stick with acreage payments. Other members report the same experience. Therefore I have to keep my mind open.

Supply-Agriculture
I would ask the privilege of pointing out the following circumstances. Your editorial appears to be based on an emasculated story that appeared in the Leader-Post. Rarely, if ever, has the Leader-Post reported a speech of mine from the series, "Report from Parliament". Yet this time it did using only selected sentences.
By contrast, the Western Producer, the organ of the wheat pool, asked for and got the full text. The farm paper may choose to disagree with me, but it will do so with all my remarks before it.
For your information, my chief concern over the march on Ottawa is not the purpose of the march but the harmful effects which may result to western agriculture. In the final paragraph of my radio address I made it clear that the federal government "will always be ready to meet and talk in good faith with western Canadian farmers at any time."
Our government will welcome the delegation because we all have a common purpose, namely, to raise the level of farm income and/or reduce farm costs. The whole matter is crystallizing into an issue of for and against immediate relief versus an attack on the fundamental problems facing agriculture. Actually we need both.
I personally am very disturbed that the tremendous pressure being put on western farmers and their organizations at the present time will make them lose sight of the basic reforms that are long overdue. Moreover, there are serious arguments against deficiency payments which are not being presented to the people.
For instance, present information is that deficiency payments, even with a $1,500 maximum, would go in large measure to larger farmers. We are trying to gather this information now, but using American estimates for their farmers the percentage is 79 per cent for 25 per cent of the farmers. I am enclosing a table showing comparative figures for two crop districts in Manitoba, one of smaller farmers and one of larger farmers. This will make clear the type of information that the western farmers should have and are not being given.
There are other points I could discuss but I will content myself with listing them.
(1)	The danger of destroying the unity of members of parliament from all parts of Canada achieved by the present government behind our national agricultural policy.
(2)	The danger of losing our oats and barley markets in the United States.
(3)	The danger of spoiling our efforts to get importing countries to reduce wheat subsidies.
(4)	The danger of getting into the same financial difficulties as the United States which resulted from their use of a fixed parity price concept instead of striving for a parity of income.
(5)	The danger of disrupting the present shift towards greater diversification of farm production.
I trust that these thoughts will add something to the present debate.
The Star-Phoenix took that letter, printed it and included the table that I gave them, and by so doing rendered a great service to the farmers of that area of western Canada.
There is another thing that happened in the debate. I came into the house toward the last part of the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia. He was making certain statements and was reading from a story in the Western Producer which was an exact replica of my speech. I asked him the question: Do you deny that the Liberals and the
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .3
C.C.F. cuddled up in 1946 in support of the British wheat agreement? The British wheat agreement was opposed by only one party in Canada, the Progressive Conservative party led by John Bracken who warned that certain things would happen if the government went through with this madness. That agreement did not come from the grass roots at all but was imposed from the top by a group of people led, I believe, by the then minister of agriculture, the then minister of trade and commerce and certain farm leaders who went back and told western farmers that they must support the agreement to guarantee high prices after the agreement was ended.
If any person wants to read about this, go back to the debates in Hansard for August, 1946. Read the remarks of Walter Tucker, the ex-member for Rosthern. Read the remarks of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party in those days, John Bracken. There you will find one of the greatest sell-outs of the western farmer that you ever saw. Nor was this the end of it. These same gentlemen came back to western Canada and joined in the attack on the Conservative party in the election of 1949. Because we were pointing out all the facts and dangers of the British wheat agreement to western Canadian farmers they accused us of being friends of the grain exchange. In fact, the C.C.F. did such a wonderful job of scaring the people silly in western Canada with respect to what we stood for, the right of the farmer to decide his own future instead of it being decided by government leaders at Ottawa, that there was hardly a C.C.F. member elected in the 1949 campaign. In 1945 the majority of members from Saskatchewan were C.C.F., but in 1949 they almost disappeared and the Liberals took over because they had scared the voters so badly the voters felt they had to turn to the only party that could stop the Conservatives.
This British wheat agreement cost the western farmers, by best estimates, about $600 million and I know how desperately the farmers would like to have some of that $600 million today. The most amazing thing is that farm organizations at the rank and file level, and political parties at the rank and file level, have been through a very rough time in Saskatchewan in the last 25 years. This applies to our prairie provinces generally. About three years ago it seemed that peace was coming because the members of every political party, Social Credit, Liberal, C.C.F., Conservative and every other party of which I have heard out there, were all saying pretty well the same thing about what the agricultural industry required. The farm organizations got together and, for the first

time, we had a unanimity of opinion in 1956 that has never existed since because of this ramp on deficiency payments.
Deficiency payments are a proper thing to discuss. There are certain arguments for them and certain arguments against them. However, when all the arguments and all the propaganda are in favour of one side, then somebody has to have the courage to stand up and put forth the facts concerning the other side. There are people who believe differently. The hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned his own bill of rights. I have said in this house that I could support every point in the bill of rights he enunciated in his speech at Crane Valley, Saskatchewan. This is the type of speech that western Canada needs, and the type of speech that agriculture in western Canada needs. Agriculture does not need the type of generalization and conflicting statements which were made today because all they do is rend and divide.
The Winnipeg Tribune of January 24 carried a newspaper story concerning the program of the Manitoba federation of agriculture. I have a copy here, and there are some six immediate points and 12 long range points. Not once in this series of 18 points mentioned is there any mention of deficiency payments. I could support almost everything in this program now. I could have supported it last year and I could next year. This is a sound, constructive report as to what they think agriculture needs. I know the hon. member for Assiniboia knows what should be done and I know the members of the Manitoba federation of agriculture know what should be done. However, when they, as farm leaders, are faced with the tremendous pressure of television shows two or three times a week, radio programs and an army of 7,000 people out collecting names on petitions, it is very difficult for a moderate, responsible farm leader to stand up in front of what looks like an avalanche. But somebody does have to stand up occasionally and speak his mind about what he believes is true. This is what I attempted to do in that speech of February 4 or 5, whatever the date was. I did not make the speech in any attempt at being derogatory to the march. I simply said, and other people were noticing the same thing, that this appeared to be a great promotion from above and I am always suspicious of anything that is promoted from above. I point that out, that these farm leaders from all across the west come and tell us that this federation program is what they want.
I am not finished with this thing yet. One of the great things that we have accomplished as a government is that we have brought
Supply-Agriculture
members of parliament from all parts of Canada to recognize that this agricultural problem is not only in western Canada, it is in every part of Canada. The hon. member for Russell was speaking today about his constituency. The same speech could be made for many ridings across this country. This is a national problem. Any effort made to try to pit the west against the east or the maritimes against Ontario or anything else like that is an effort to destroy the work of people who desperately need constructive help. I am going to read to you two paragraphs from an address delivered by Mr. Wesson on November 10, 1958.
I quote:
Even in the election campaign between January and March, questions were put to speakers in the country and they always gave the same answer- the government is continuing to give careful consideration to this whole question. And it was not until the end of August that we got an official denial and something else proposed in its place, after the rejection of the principle of deficiency payments as proposed by the three wheat pools.
He is referring to the Prime Minister's statement in the house in August laying down the seven points for a national agricultural policy.
Then, he goes on and says to these delegates:
I am not going to tell you what you should do before this discussion is closed, but in view of what happened with government policy, it is obvious to me with conversations that we had with private members from western Canada as well as ministers, that eastern Canada had a good deal to do with this final decision on this paltry $40 million and that is the reason why eastern Canada has got to get some education.
Now, this country, so long divided on many issues, so long divided by regional problems, has been able to get a government, under the banner of a great Canadian, to collect the people from all parts of this country, from all walks of life, and get them to see that there was a national problem in agriculture. This party supported that national agricultural policy in this house 100 per cent. This was unity of a real sort, and yet here we have this effort to divide.
This problem of agriculture cannot be resolved by pitting the west against the east and it was for that reason I charged, in my opening remarks, that the type of speech delivered here by the hon. member for Assiniboia was another classic example of the type of thing that stirs the emotions and divides the country on basic economic issues.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are very foolish; no truth in that at all.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: One of the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia was that 200,000 names were affixed to this petition from Saskatchewan, and I should

Supply-Agriculture
not have suggested that this is not a grass roots movement. Do hon. members believe that I, as an elected representative of a farm riding in Saskatchewan, have to measure my opinion of what is right or wrong by the number of names on a petition? I was elected, I hope, because the people of my riding believed that after many years of being turned down and rolled over by the C.C.F. machine in Saskatchewan and the Liberal machine I was a fellow who stuck to his principles. The people, therefore, supported me in June of 1957.


Mr. Benidickson:: You were with the rest on John Diefenbaker's coat tails.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think they expect me to stand up for something. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River mentioned "coat tails", but if I were him I would not mention "coat tails" in this house.
I have a very serious proposal to put before the hon. member for Assiniboia. In 1952 we in Saskatchewan recognized the serious difficulties which agriculture was facing and the provincial government set up a royal commission on agriculture and rural life. This commission reported in 1956 in 14 volumes, but I have only three of them here. How many times has any member from western Canada, or Saskatchewan in particular, heard the hon. member for Assiniboia mention the recommendations of this report?


An hon. Member:: He would not dare.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: How many
times has any member of this house heard any C.C.F. member mention this report when dealing with agriculture? Yet these 14 volumes are the only thorough study that western Canada has had, certainly in this century. Does it mean that he repudiates the men who wrote these 14 volumes? Who are they? They include Professor Baker, the chairman, a distinguished agricultural economist from the University of Saskatchewan; Charlie Gibbings, Rosetown, vice-president of the wheat pool.


An hon. Member:: And a C.C.F.'er.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I understand that he will be down here with this march from the west. Does he repudiate Charlie Gibbings?


An hon. Member:: He would not dare.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is J. L. Phelps Wilkie, a C.C.F. ex-cabinet minister, who is not coming down with this march from the west, I understand. He is also a close personal friend of mine. There is also H. L. Fowler of Saskatoon from the co-operative movement; there are Mrs. Nancy Adams and Mr. T. H. Bourassa, the other members.
Does he repudiate these people or does he repudiate the recommendations they made? I

have my volume 8 open at one page dealing with prices. I cannot read these whole 14 volumes to the committee nor do I intend to do so. But here is the type of recommendation that they make:
In achieving these goals-
They are talking about agricultural needs. -public policy with respect to markets, marketing, and prices can make an important but limited contribution:-
I would ask you to note this, Mr. Chairman.
-a comprehensive approach is necessary.
Then it goes on and lists 10 points in that basic approach. This same theme is carried out in all the volumes. If any person wants to know where this government is going, one of the best ways to find out is to go through these 14 volumes and read their conclusions and recommendations. We look at these volumes and they play a great part in our final decisions. We also look at many other sources of information because we are seriously trying to make up for almost a quarter of a century of inactivity on the agricultural front by the previous government. Liberals today in my province know that their party would not be where it is if they had moved to grapple with these extremely complex and difficult problems. No reasonable farmer expects any government to come up with final answers in one, two or three years. All he expects from his government is an honest and intelligent effort. As long as we have in this house, not only men like the Prime Minister but like the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, doing the type of work they are doing there is no question in my mind as to how these same farmers who supported us in 1957 and to a greater degree in 1958 will stand at the next appeal to the people.
The hon. member for Assiniboia makes some play with figures. I notice that he did not use too many of his own. He has not all the "M.B.S." to support him as opposed to the D.B.S. If hon. members do not understand what "M.B.S." means, may I say that spelled out it stands for the Martin bureau of statistics.
One of the things that must be remembered is that farm income and the statistics indicate for the first time in a long while that the gross income is moving upwards and that the cost figure quoted by the Minister of Agriculture is only one per cent. I believe in an earlier speech in the house he mentioned that the gross income increased by ten per cent across Canada. No one is satisfied with this situation. But we at least feel, particularly with our stabilization bill in effect and beginning to take hold, that the long fight upwards for better prices and a better return

to the farmer is beginning to show results. I mention that matter with some feeling because I know that I must be honest with my own farm constituents. I know that any politician who says to them, "Vote for me and I will cure all your problems with some price change" is just fooling those people. That is the type of thing that I said in the election campaigns of 1953, 1957 and 1958 and I hope I can say it again when the next election comes.
The hon. member for Assiniboia raised the question of my stand on deficiency payments. He raised the matter previously in the house in the throne speech debate. At that time I rose on a question of privilege and said that the statement was not true. Then I came into the house and in making my own speech I read into the records of the house-and this can be found at page 327 of Hansard-exactly what the press reported and these press reports appeared all over the province.


Hazen Robert Argue: What the minister reported was from a different meeting.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would ask the hon. member to let me finish. Throughout the election campaign C.C.F. speakers went up and down Saskatchewan and said that Hamilton is against deficiency payments. Not one of them said I was for them.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yet he takes a clipping just before the election, in which appears a list of things including deficiency payments and states, "This is the statement of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle before he was elected". I have put on Hansard what actually took place, and I will go this step further and say that not only is this a matter of individual C.C.F. speakers saying it but that the premier of the province of Saskatchewan, on the Friday before the election, went into my constituency at the town of Grenfell and repeated this same statement which appeared in the headlines in the newspapers all over the province before the election, namely that I was opposed to deficiency payments.
That was the stand that I took.
I put it this way. I would not support any policy where a greater proportion of the money went to the larger farmers and a smaller proportion went to the more numerous small farmers. I do not back down from that stand. But if anybody can show me how deficiency payments will help the little farmer lift himself up and get out of this situation where his gross income is so low, then I am always willing to listen. But I look at the figures showing the amount of wheat, oats and barley sold by a small farmer in my riding and
Supply-Agriculture
I see the difference all through the north eastern part of Saskatchewan and through Manitoba. I do not care if you raise the price to $3 a bushel, you could not lift up the level of living of some of the farmers in my riding. They must feed their oats, their barley and some of their wheat to stock in order to make any sort of income at all. Yet this thing is designed to force them to sell to the elevator in order to get the deficiency payment. I could go on and discuss this matter at greater length but I think I have said enough to make my own stand clear.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the committee that last August when the Prime Minister stood up here and outlined that statement on the national agricultural policy it was a great day in Canada's history as far as the farmer was concerned. How many times have you heard the hon. member for Assiniboia discuss this farm program enunciated by the Prime Minister and taking a look at all its aspects, how it is trying to get at this question of the sale of our products; how it is trying to stabilize prices by a forward pricing system; how it is trying to stabilize the effect of weather calamities by crop insurance; how it is trying to give to the young farmer and the small farmer and even help the older farmer to sell his land; some help in doing the things that will make his farm operation more efficient and give a chance to see what we in the Conservative party stand for, namely the family farm all across Canada.
I wonder if the hon. member for Assiniboia has considered the great need for constructive suggestions on a rural development program? I know we are working on it, but I would like the views of the hon. members of this house, and I know the Minister of Agriculture would. I would like to hear various suggestions in connection with this program to help the smaller farmer, or any farmer, meet the technological problems which have arisen, as well as the problems of the machine age. I could discuss other things, such as research and so on, but I would like to put it in this way. If any hon. member would sit down and make a list of these various steps, which are only the seven main steps of a huge program, and figure out the amount of money that the people of Canada would be willing to put behind a constructive, comprehensive farm program, then the danger of threatening that great program by trying to divert farm organization attention away from the need of a comprehensive program to an isolated act will be realized.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, up to the present the committee has heard the voices of experts on the subject of agriculture. Now

Supply-A griculture
for a few moments I beg your indulgence to listen to a few remarks from an amateur. I want to assure hon. members that I will not speak until the deadline, so that all of us will be able to say a few words.
The district in which the two fine cities of Fort William and Port Arthur are located is not a prosperous agricultural area comparable to the prairie provinces, or even to the eastern portion of Ontario. But in the rugged terrain of Thunder bay there are numerous dairy and truck garden farms. They are small, with a few exceptions. We have, however, large tracts of empty barren area that could be profitably put to farming use if the prospective farmer had the means of acquiring machinery and stocks. The majority of those small farmers who are now engaged in farming in my constituency need assistance in the form of loans. At the present time unless a farmer has collateral assets it is virtually impossible for him to obtain a loan from a bank, and even the farm loan board is not always sympathetic to his need. I believe that the hon. member for Cape Breton South had the same thing in mind when he spoke a few moments ago about the needs of the farmers in Nova Scotia. I am very much concerned with the small farmer who is operating a comparatively small piece of land, judged by western farm standards, and who is making his living wholly from his produce.
Another important aspect of the small farm which should be considered is that a farm is a good place to bring up a large family. A lot of people are entering Canada through immigration channels, so let us start a number of small farms where there is plenty of room and fresh air, which is an ideal environment in which to raise children, whose worth to Canada transcends any consideration of small assistance in the way of a loan. I realize that this is a problem which concerns the provinces as much as the federal government. However, when we visualize the national benefit that would be derived from the over-all growth and prosperity of Canada by giving active encouragement to these people we should consider immediate steps to devise ways and means to assist those who are ready and willing to go on the land. It seems to me that while the government is very much interested in the wheat farming of the west and the fruit and tobacco farms of the east, it does not show the same zeal for the welfare of the small farmer of northwestern Ontario.
I am in full accord with the proposal to establish an independent research organization as suggested by the interprovincial farm union council, with representation from the

district of Thunder bay. We have qualified farmers in our district who could make a substantial contribution to such a research council. In any such organization a capable representative from northwestern Ontario should be essential, because farming in that part of the province of Ontario raises problems which are not prevalent in other parts of Canada. If a research council is to be established, such council should be made operative for all types of farming and not be only of benefit to the wheat farmers. It should also embrace the problem of the small mixed farmers, whose facilities for the development of their holdings are very limited. These are types of farms involving practices which do not apply to other areas; hence the importance of expert advice and assistance, beginning with the establishment of a policy which would enable the small farmers to obtain long term loans from the farm loan board, which at present, as I have indicated, because of undue restrictions does not meet the exigencies and requirements of the average farmer of northwestern Ontario.
In closing, I am going to ask the minister to indicate if the government is considering the establishment of a research council and, secondly, has the government any land loan policy which would be of benefit to small farmers?


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate I would like to be permitted to express my appreciation for some of the proposed legislation for this session pertaining to agriculture. As a western farmer it was very gratifying to me to hear that a national crop insurance plan will be presented to th ehouse for its consideration. This long sought legislation asked for by farmers and authorities on agriculture for many years is a very important and essential legislation and is long overdue. When I think back over the years when acres and acres of farm land in the west were flooded and could never be sown to crops; or when I think back to the years when land that was sown could never be harvested because of heavy fall rain and the crop had to be left in the fields over the winter to deteriorate to the point where it never could be harvested; or when I think of beautiful stands of grain wiped out, together with the farmers' hopes, by one hour's frost; then and only then can one understand what a national crop insurance scheme could mean to a farmer. Our Prime Minister is familiar with these hazards, and on August 30 last he spoke in the house about his intention to introduce legislation dealing with crop insurance.

The other legislation awaiting parliamentary approval concerns improved conditions of farm credit. We have heard much about the need of young farmers to establish themselves on economic farm units, but it would be both useless and senseless for us to keep talking about this if we cannot provide them with the necessary means of making their farms economic units either by diversifying them, enlarging them or by using the latest farm methods and equipment. All this can only be done if long term credit is made available to enable all these things to be accomplished. Many of our younger farmers, who wanted to make farming their life occupation have been handicapped because they could not qualify for farm loan credits.
But the most welcome and heart warming words which I have heard for a long time were those which spelled out this government's recommendation to review the discriminatory effects of horizontal freight rates and the latest increases. What do these increased freight rates mean to the farmer in the west and in the maritimes, and how do they affect their economies?
To give hon. members a true picture, and illustrate my point, I must take the committee back to the year 1947. If a farmer bought a harvester combine in that year he had to have it shipped to his home town in the west, and was charged $300 for freight. Ten years later, in 1957, let us suppose he has to replace his combine. Suppose he buys the same kind of machine, a machine of the same size which suits his farm best. Again he has to ship the combine to his farm, but this time the freight bill is not $300, it is a figure twice as high. Why is this? It is because freight rates had been allowed to increase by 125 per cent during the 10-year period. But this is not the end of the story. The manufacturer, too, had to pay a higher freight rate on the materials used to build this combine-125 per cent more in 1957 than in 1947. Of course, as far as the manufacturer was concerned this only meant that he had to increase the price of the combine by the amount of the additional freight it cost him.
The simple truth illustrated by this example of the purchase of a combine is that in freight rates alone the price rose during that 10-year period by between 200 and 300 per cent. However, a harvester is not the only piece of machinery which a farmer has to buy. He needs many more implements such as tractors, drills, and so on, the list seeming to be unending once a farmer begins to buy machinery. And farmers must pay freight on them all, whether they 66968-9-109
Supply-Agriculture
buy an $8,000 combine or whether they sell and ship their own products. For them it is a one way street, coming and going. Mr. Chairman, are you still wondering why the cost of farm production is so high, and what the facts are behind the price squeeze?
Freight rates are one most important factor about which we have heard many complaints. These discriminatory freight rates should never have been allowed to come into force. The Turgeon royal commission recommended that horizontal freight rate increases were unfair and unjust. Nevertheless they were allowed to go on year after year until they reached the point where they were a staggering 125 per cent above the 1947 level. Our party, in opposition at that time, sounded a warning and pointed out the serious consequences these increases would have on our economy, but nothing was done. Of course, we are not washing our hands as if to say it is not our fault and nothing can be done to remedy the situation. This government has recognized that a serious problem exists, and has undertaken to revise the whole freight rate structure so as to avoid the detrimental effects of a horizontal freight rate increase.
Speaking of freight rates, I should like to bring to the attention of the committee another unjust freight rate, namely the freight rate on rapeseed. The present freight rate structure will definitely restrict the development of the rapeseed industry. In order that hon. members may be able to compare the figures, may I say that the freight rate on wheat, oats, barley and rye from Saskatoon to Fort William is 22 cents per hundredweight: the rate for flax is 23| cents per hundredweight. The rate for rapeseed, however, is no less than 70 cents per hundredweight. Cereal grains and flax are covered by the Crownest pass agreement, but rapeseed is not. Consequently, rapeseed is subjected to further increases in freight rates as they become effective. At the present time, the railways have a further application pending for a 17 per cent increase in freight rates. Applied to rapeseed this would bring the rate from Saskatoon to Fort William to 82 cents per hundredweight. Unless action is taken to modify the effect of present rates, production will be curtailed and acreage now growing rapeseed will again be put under wheat.
Rapeseed cannot be competitive in the situation I have described. The handling, marketing and storage of rapeseed are processes identical with those carried out in the case of other grains. Rapeseed is accepted and carried by ocean carriers at the same rate as flax or other grains to all parts of the world and lake freighters carry rapeseed at the same rate as they carry other grains.

Private Bills
Seemingly the only people who do not recognize rapeseed as a grain are the Canadian railways. Yet the railroads incur no more costs in handling rapeseed than are incurred in handling any other grain; there is no difference between rapeseed and flax when it comes to transportation.
In addition to freight rates, tariffs have also affected the expansion of this branch of the industry. Rapeseed, when processed, is manufactured into an edible oil comparable to soybean oil, or any of the other oils on the vegetable oil market.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to standing order 15(3).



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of private bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole house. Is it agreed that in accordance with standing order 54(1) they be referred to the committee of the whole in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Just before we go into committee, do I understand that private bills, items No. 130, 131, and so on, are included?


Mr. Speaker:: They are all included. No member loses any precedence or rights. All this means is that it takes one motion instead of seven to put them into committee.


George James McIlraith: Thank you.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-1, An Act for the relief of Lise Nolet Lunghi.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-2, An Act for the relief of Margaret Stewart Cairns Bamber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-3, An Act for the relief of Gertrude Czerny Thomschitz, otherwise known as Gertrude Czerny Thomas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-4, An Act for the relief of Miriam Hirsh Leff.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-5, An Act for the relief of Phyllida Fairbairn Smith Draper.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-6, An Act for the relief of Janos Sztecsinics, otherwise known as Jean Sztec-sinics.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-7, An Act for the relief of Margaret Craig Murdoch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-8, An Act for the relief of Nita Stella Pollock Adams.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-9, An Act for the relief of Enis (Ines) Vit Desnoyers.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill SD-10, An Act for the relief of Helen Elizabeth MacDonald Downey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-11, An Act for the relief of Silvia Frederike Diethilde Beate Angela Buchsel Fatter.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-12, An Act for the relief of Marie Cordelia Marie-Ange Pigeon Gaboriau dit Lapalme.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-13, An Act for the relief of Jeannine Genevieve Jagelavicus Kusleika.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-14, An Act for the relief of Viola Bleir Josephovits.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-15, An Act for the relief of James John Thomson Keay.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-16, An Act for the relief of Cons-tandina Alimanisteanu Butas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-17, An Act for the relief of Viola Gertrude Elizabeth Boyd Theroux.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-18, An Act for the relief of Sydney Arthur Powell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-21, An Act for the relief of Geraldine Joy Conway Cook.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-22, An Act for the relief of Joan Natalie Miller Martin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-23, An Act for the relief of Jeanne d'Arc Gravelle Senecal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-24, An Act for the relief of Barbara Mary Scott Norman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-25, An Act for the relief of Alice Schleicher Dorotich.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-26, An Act for the relief of Mary Jane Holmes Phillips.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-27, An Act for the relief of Barbara Lorrain Campbell Clarke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-28, An Act for the relief of Helen Margaret Davidson Beckett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-29, An Act for the relief of Ruth Dankner Liberman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-30, An Act for the relief of Norma Mary Rose Purchard Clarkin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-31, An Act for the relief of Eva Greenblatt Besner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-32, An Act for the relief of Ruth Millstein Backman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-33, An Act for the relief of Percy Kark Claxton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-34, An Act for the relief of Marion Beulah Francis Meehan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-35, An Act for the relief of Nina Olga Titow Dorion.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-36, An Act for the relief of Sylvia Florence Van Straten Weber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-37, An Act for the relief of Joseph Fernand Roger Boucher.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill SD-38, An Act for the relief of Jacqueline Shirley Mary Parnell Gardner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-39, An Act for the relief of Esther Daisy Moynan O'Regan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-40, An Act for the relief of Susan Pick Bereznik.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-41, An Act for the relief of Josephine Zauberman Schiller.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-42, An Act for the relief of Hanna Liselotte Gertrud Tiegs Kallus.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-43, An Act for the relief of Dorothy Louisa Stradwick Coffin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-44, An Act for the relief of Marc Aurele Bourget.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-45, An Act for the relief of Marie Yolanda Marotta Henshaw.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-46, An Act for the relief of Bernice Sylvia Sinclair Somerville.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-47, An Act for the relief of Judith Ortenberg Baxt King.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-48, An Act for the relief of Yaros-lavna Zonia Lazarowich Johnson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-49, An Act for the relief of Gertrude Scharge Izenberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-50, An Act for the relief of Joseph Moreau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-51, An Act for the relief of Sydney Hislop, otherwise known as Sidney Hislop. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-52, An Act for the relief of Lenoir Grace Spencer Jennings.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-53, An Act for the relief of Olive Florence Andrews Bowness.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-54, An Act for the relief of Pearl Severs Schrieder.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-55, An Act for the relief of Vivien Joyce Taylor Ross.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-56, An Act for the relief of Jacqueline Jeanne Lamy Harper.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-57, An Act for the relief of Kathleen Iris Daunt Robinson.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-58, An Act for the relief of Jacques Flahault.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-59, An Act for the relief of Gladys Allen Marvin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-60, An Act for the relief of Miriam Keppel Segal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-61, An Act for the relief of Ronald Ernest Fyfe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-62, An Act for the relief of Elsie Elizabeth Wand Bourret.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-63, An Act for the relief of Margaret Sonia Lawrence Canny.-Mr. McCleave.
66968-9-109J
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill SD-64, An Act for the relief of Andree Pauline Dorothy Pryce Clarke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-65, An Act for the relief of Henry Frank Whiston.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-66, An Act for the relief of Rita Thibeaudeau Cardinal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-67, An Act for the relief of Janine Sutto Dagenais.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-68, An Act for the relief of Evangeline Vaughan Fortin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-69, An Act for the relief of Gloria Helen Gross Caplan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-70, An Act for the relief of Thelma Georgine Ferguson Strathy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-71, An Act for the relief of Percy Herbert Manuel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-72, An Act for the relief of Irene Balk Goodson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-73, An Act for the relief of Jean Grant Shaddock.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-74, An Act for the relief of James Kennedy Andrews.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-75, An Act for the relief of Lillian Haber Rudner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-76, An Act for the relief of Esther Lilian Issenman Rosen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-77, An Act for the relief of Ana Nili Indursky Seeman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-78, An Act for the relief of Joan Howell McShane McNulty.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-79, An Act for the relief of Euphemia Caldwell Miller Armitt Esber, otherwise known as Effie Monas Esber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-80, An Act for the relief of Goldie Yelin Freedman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-81, An Act for the relief of Claire Segal Pottel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-82, An Act for the relief of Klara Schillinger Aschner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-83, An Act for the relief of Bernice Helena Peritz Loeb.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-84, An Act for the relief of Margaret Soli Rajeczky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-85, An Act for the relief of Audrey Edna Watson Robert.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-86, An Act for the relief of Abbie Alice Mahon Reed.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-87, An Act for the relief of Alice Christine Leduc Patrick.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-88, An Act for the relief of Georgina Joan Saunders Smith.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-89, An Act for the relief of Bryan Mills Taylor.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-90, An Act for the relief of Dorothy Sarah Sheehan Burchmore.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill SD-91, An Act for the relief of William Irvine Moore.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-92, An Act for the relief of Audrey Lynn MacGillivray.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-93, An Act for the relief of Sarah Goldfarb Nash.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-94, An Act for the relief of Witolda Poplawska Wojciechowski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-95, An Act for the relief of Martha Waugh McClure.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-96, An Act for the relief of Leslie Ronald Cant.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-97, An Act for the relief of Cecile Desjardins Morin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill S-4, An Act to incorporate The Waterloo Mutual Insurance Company. - Mr. Weichel.
Bill S-7, An Act respecting Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company. - Mr. Anderson.
Bill S-10, An Act respecting Baloise Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill S-9, An Act respecting The North American Accident Insurance Company. - Mr. Macnaughton.
Bill S-5, An Act respecting The Canadian Medical Association.-Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson).

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-8, respecting the Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Morton-Mr. MacEwan in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Subdivision of existing capital stock.
Mr. Morton:: Mr. Chairman, in respect of clause 3, as a result of a discussion when this bill was before the committee I understand the hon. member for Ottawa West has an amendment to propose. I understand it is an amendment that has to do only with the changing of wording but makes no material change in the meaning.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, clause 3 of the bill as it appears reads this way:
The three thousand shares of the company issued and outstanding prior to the passing of this act and having a par value of one hundred dollars each shall be subdivided into thirty thousand of the aforesaid shares having a par value of ten dollars each on the basis of ten shares for one. The said thirty thousand ordinary shares shall constitute the total issued capital of the company at the date of the coming into force of this act.
At the time this bill was being dealt with by the banking and commerce committee some question was raised to the language used in

this clause, although there was no difference of opinion, or no disapproval of what was being sought to be done by the clause, or what the petitioners were asking to be done. Following that discussion and because I had taken a rather active part in it in committee, I took the opportunity of consulting with the law clerks on the question of the draftsmanship of the clause and I found that some of the views I held on the draftsmanship were supported, and some additional points of view were expressed on them. I got a rather lengthy opinion from the parliamentary counsel and the assistant law clerk. I think it is not necessary to take up the time of the committee on the points raised but perhaps I should say a word or two about them. It will be noted that in the third line-that is, line 30 of the bill now before the committee-the words "shall be subdivided" are used. The provision is that the existing shares of the compnay now in existence shall be subdivided when the new legislation now before us comes into effect. Then, in the last sentence this statement is made:
The said thirty thousand ordinary shares shall constitute the total issued capital of the company at the date of the coming into force of this act.
That is, presumably, the new shares. It was pointed out that probably the difficulty in language can be corrected by simply striking out the words "shall be" in line 30 and substituting therefor the word "are". But there are still further difficulties in the language because, referring to the point of time and the coming into force of the act the expression is used in the second and third lines, "prior to the passing of this act" and then, in referring to the point of time at the very end of the clause, the expression is used, "at the date of the coming into force of this act." It will be seen that there is a looseness of terminology there. It will be further seen that in line 33 of the clause the words, "the said thirty thousand shares" appear, when there are no said thirty thousand shares. It seems to me that the use of these words is not accurate and it is capable of a good deal of confusion. The result of it all is that I think there should be new language and the suggested language which I propose to move after I have read it is the language suggested by the parliamentary counsel and the assistant law clerk, which reads:
Each of the 3,000 shares of the company issued and outstanding and having a par value of $100 is hereby subdivided into 10 shares having a par value of $10 each, so that the capital stock of the company now issued and outstanding shall consist of 30,000 shares having a total par value of $300,000.

That is the clause suggested by the officials. Therefore I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy):
That clause 3 of Bill S-8, an act respecting the Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Canada, be deleted, and that the following be substituted therefor:
"Each of the 3,000 shares of the company issued and outstanding and having a par value of $100 is hereby subdivided into 10 shares having a par value of $10 each, so that the capital stock of the company now issued and outstanding shall consist of 30,000 shares having a total par value of $300,000."


Mr.   Morion@: Mr. Chairman, just to assure the committee I should state that after the amendment was brought to my attention I brought it to the attention of the parliamentary agent, the Toronto solicitor acting for the company, and he approved of the amendment as being satisfactory. I also checked with the superintendent of insurance, under whose jurisdiction these matters come, and he has forwarded a letter to me approving of the change. I have also checked with other officials concerned, including the chairman of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and the amendment is in order so far as they are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher) moved: the second reading of Bill S-ll, to incorporate the Evangelical Mennonite Conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman going to say something?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The purpose of the bill is to establish a co-ordinating body for the Mennonite congregation now adhering to the group commonly called the Mennonite Evangelican Church. Incorporation is primarily for administration purposes.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill SD-98, an act for the relief of Dawn Jean McKenzie Barr.-Mr. McCleave.
Canada Elections Act
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the divorce bills standing on the order paper for second reading be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-98, An Act for the relief of Dawn Jean McKenzie Barr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-99, An Act for the relief of Helen Ann Kovach Ujvary.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-100, An Act for the relief of David Scott Brown.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-101, An Act for the relief of Doris Margaret Turner Smiley.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-102, An Act for the relief of Esther Mendelson Levy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-103, An Act for the relief of Joseph Louis Charles Gabriel Gascon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-104, An Act for the relief of Angelo Ciamarro.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-105, An Act for the relief of Gerald Leblanc.-Mr. McCleave.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-10, to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting at advance polls).
He said: The disconcerting speed with which we have moved in processing bills today is in marked contrast to the fate of this particular bill, because this is the fifth time it has been introduced into the house and each time it has been garlanded with all sorts of approval. Everyone seems to think there is a marvelous principle involved in this particular bill, but it is usually talked out. Fortunately today the time during which it can be talked out is not going to be very long. I am pleased to see the minister who is responsible for this particular department in attendance. I am pleased also to see the tall member for Halifax, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) and the other member from Toronto, whom we usually see when bills are to be talked out. I hope they will pass around the honours today.
The Canada Elections Act is peculiarly an act that is handled within the House of Commons framework. The executive takes much less of a lead in regard to amendments to this act. This act is much more sensitive to the opinion of hon. members. It is traditional that during the first session after an election when most grievances with regard to the act are sharper the standing

Canada Elections Act
committee on privileges and elections does not sit. The sittings of this committee are postponed until the second session. I have a good hunch when the next election is going to be. It is going to be sometime in late May or early June of 1962. The reason it is going to be then is, of course, that with the great majority the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has he can call an election at any time. It will not be any later than that because if it is later he will have to go to the people with a completely new distribution of seats which will mean the losing of at least three seats in Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister comes from there and I am assuming he will not want to fight the next election on that basis, so I have deduced the date to be early June, 1962.
This does give us some considerable time to make changes in the Canada Elections Act. I think there is almost universal agreement, even amongst such generally contradictory bodies as the Canadian chamber of commerce and the Canadian Labour Congress, that we need to extend the advance polling privileges. This privilege is limited now to a few occupations. The general reason for extending the scope has to do with changes in society. We have much more mobility in our labour force; many more sales personnel on the road and wider distances to cover. People are planning their vacations to a greater extent, even planning them months ahead because it is possible to make that type of arrangement now which cannot be altered even for such a fundamental as casting a vote.
The principle involved in this particular bill is a very simple one. The amendment seeks to extend the privilege of voting at advance polls to any Canadian who is aware of the fact he is not going to be at his proper polling place on election day. This is really all the bill does, and that is the principle involved. It has been noticeable in previous debates that speakers who approved of the principle and wanted to have enough time to talk the bill out always dove into the actual provisions of the bill.
Hon. members have been critical of several points, and one of those points has been the feeling that the regulation involved in this particular bill will make it difficult in rural polls. I should like to put it to most hon. members, not so much in contradiction of that but in balance, that the people in rural polls have a tremendous advantage in so far as voting is concerned over the people in urban polls. Provided a voter in a rural poll can get a neighbour to identify him, he can be sworn in and cast his vote. However,

this provision does not apply to urban polls and it is in urban polls where the greatest pressure exists for advance polling privileges, not only because they are the more populous but because they are the polls in which there are more people who are moving in society.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has another bill on the order paper relating to absentee voting. This is something with which the standing committee on privileges and elections will have to deal. I should like to remind hon. members that there is a distinction between the two. I have to say, fairly and truthfully, that what we need is a complete revision of the Canada Elections Act from a fairly wide point of view. A thorough study is needed to assess the merits of the various schemes of absentee voting and voting at advance polls. The absentee voting system is really designed so that no matter where you are in Canada you can vote for a particular candidate in your particular constituency. This is not such an urgent problem as voting at advance polls, that is in the sense of a real grievance, but it also needs to be considered.
We have some marvelous examples in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and to a degree in Ontario and Manitoba, where very serious and sincere efforts have been made to extend this particular privilege to more people. I think, in the main, they have worked well. Last year I touched on one of the weaknesses of the extension of advance polling privileges in Ontario, and that was the relatively high cost in relation to the number of votes cast. However, we are going to have an election in Ontario this year. It seems to be in the cards, and I think we will find that the advance polling privilege will be used much more this time than it was last, when the people, especially the party organizations, were not so aware of it.
Now, the final point I wanted to make in so far as the bill is concerned is that the principle is a good one. I think almost everyone will recognize that there is hardly a member of parliament who has not been haunted at election time, and especially on election day, by phone calls from people who have not been able to vote because of the narrowness of the restriction of this privilege. There really is no reason why a commercial traveller or a transport worker should have an advantage in voting over someone who, because of the nature of his employment, is forced to be away on election day.
This particular lack disenfranchised hundreds of voters in my own constituency in the last election. They are woods workers and were covered and put on a poll list out

in the woods camp. It just so happened that between the time they were registered as voters and polling day these camps were closed down and the majority of the men moved into urban polls where they could not be sworn in. Hence that whole group was disenfranchised. I am not saying that this particular legislation would cure that particular difficulty but it would tend to cure it in that it would give them a longer period in which to vote. I hope it would fit in with the other changes in the election act that would give them a chance to vote such as extending to the urban polls the privilege that people now have in the rural polls.
The electoral officer this particular house has to deal with is a well-informed gentleman. He has helped to a degree in conection with almost all the bills that private members have brought in with respect to changing the Canada Elections Act. At the very least he has provided a tremendous amount of information. I hope the present minister who has the responsibility and the present chairman of the standing committee on privileges and elections are in close touch with the chief electoral officer. I know the spirit and the general attitude of the chief electoral officer and his senior officials is a progressive one; I mean it is progressive in the sense that they are as much aware as we are or perhaps more so, of the tedious administrative difficulties involved in changes in the act but also in bringing the privilege of voting and the right of voting to more people. For that reason I should like to see someone move that this bill, after the principle has been approved, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
After this particular committee has heard from the electoral officer and from the various members who have an interest in this kind of amendment and change, this particular bill could be the focal point for considering that particular aspect of the Canada Elections Act. I think it would provide the members of the committee with a starting point that would be a good relative consideration in relation to the present regulations. Certainly I believe the difficulties involved in the consequential changes arising out of this bill are going to be encountered in making adjustments. I think this particular bill and the bill on absentee voting would be an excellent starting point for major changes in the elections act with regard to polling.
Despite what I seem to feel is a thickening lethargy and a thickening disinterest on the part of many government members on such matters, I feel that this particular change is going to come before the election in late May or June of 1962.
Canada Elections Act


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, during the early part of the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) I was tempted to rise on a question of privilege; but in view of the incident which occurred yesterday it does not seem that that crowd pays too much attention to the rules of this house anyway, so I decided not to bother. His remarks were another aspect of the sanctimonious and pious attitude emanating from that corner of the house based an the assumption that anybody who speaks after the great man has let fly his pearls of wisdom simply has nothing to say; and that once this great wealth of wisdom has commented on a certain bill there is really no necessity for any of us to speak, we can all go home and that group can carry on throughout the rest of the session and pass all of the bills. As I say, that seems to be the assumption. I should like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to let the hon. member for Port Arthur know that there are certain of us who have a genuine and honest interest in matters such as this and that simply because we have the temerity to rise and speak to a bill does not mean what the hon. member indicates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that the typescript of the hon. gentleman's speech?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Read it.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is still incapable of keeping his nose out of virtually every speech that is made here. I should like to quote a pertinent remark made by one Hilaire Belloc. He reminds us that the very eccentricities of professors, their peculiarities of gait, their squint, their oddities of gesture and speech, are a curse put upon them as punishment of their terrible sin of pride.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not know that professors were involved in this particular piece of legislation.


Frank Charles McGee: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; but it was an opportunity to reply to the consistent and persistent interruptions from that section of the house.
As far as my views are concerned on this particular bill, I approve the principle of it with reservations. My reasons for approving the principle apply in particular to some of the aspects of the bill mentioned by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I would refer to such people as holidayers, employees of companies, of which there are large numbers in my riding-and I used to be one myself-who have virtually no choice when they will take their holidays. They apply early in the year, months and months

Canada Elections Act
ahead, to take their holidays at a particular week or period of one or two weeks in the summer, late spring or early fall. When an election is called after that decision is made these people have no opportunity to alter that holiday period and they are either at the cottage or resort some hundreds of miles away from their normal place of residence, or are touring through the many beauty spots of Canada or the United States. I think it is asking a great deal to ask a person, particularly one such as I was in recent years, with two short weeks to enjoy in a regular working year, to leave a cottage two or three hundred miles away, spend the better part of two or three days in getting back home and then to drive back to the cottage or to interrupt touring plans in order to return home to vote.
I approve the principle as it applies and as this bill will obviously assist such persons. The same thing applies to employees of commercial firms in capacities other than those covered by the present act. While a travelling salesman operating on commission certainly is entitled to go to the advance poll under the present regulations, a man working for someone else again has no choice. He is told to go to a certain place at a certain time. While we have many responsible employers in this country who try to avoid the possibility of this difficulty costing a man his vote, unfortunately there are many who either do not consider it in time or who have plans which have been made so far in advance that it is impossible to change them.
These are the obvious reasons and there are many others. I have been looking over the debates on this bill in the past two sessions. What I should like to discuss for a few moments are some of the problems inherent in the holding of an earlier poll. I suggest there are serious difficulties in this matter and prodigious problems as far as I myself am concerned.
One aspect of that argument, of course, is that an election is something like a jury trial. The electors are the jury and the candidates present their cases to that jury. It seems to me that at a period of something like ten days before an election all the evidence is simply not in. Issues are developing and move from side to side. Public opinion sways back and forth between the two major candidates. It raises doubts in my mind from what I have seen of municipal, provincial and federal elections. You have to contend with the well known technique of the smear campaign. A statement is made late enough in the election that it is impossible for the person who is alleged to

have committed an offence to have the opportunity to reply to it. How this would affect the results of an advance poll raises serious questions in my mind.
Another thing I am concerned about is, what percentage of the voters eligible to vote in advance polls will vote? I know from reading previous debates that reference was made by the then member for Winnipeg North Centre to recent elections in Manitoba. I think he described the percentage of advance poll voters as relatively small. I think the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) last year made reference to the fact that in the Ontario election in 1955 again the numbers were small. I would like to know what sort of percentages we are dealing with here. What are the anticipated percentages in the event that the scope of this particular aspect of the act is widened? It seems to me, on examining the records of elections over the years, that the percentage difference between the votes of the two major parties which decide who shall form the government, and the percentages in individual cases of candidates in most of the federal elections in our history, has been relatively small. I am wondering if there is a danger, when you are increasing the percentage of those who make the decision at a time when, as I have suggested, the evidence is not in and the picture is not complete, that this might have quite a serious result. Certainly in a close election it could have a decisive effect on the result. The percentage increases, as I think it will when people become accustomed to these new voting habits. Is this likely to result in two campaigns in one? Is it likely to result in a campaign designed to appeal to that section of the electorate which would be voting earlier and then a later campaign designed to focus upon the final election date?
I mentioned earlier that this would pose a virtually insurmountable problem in my own case. There are in my constituency at the moment about a quarter of a million people. My estimate is that by the time the next election rolls around there will be approximately a third of a million. As to what the number of voters might be is very difficult to assess. There are large numbers of young children in my riding, and many young families. However, the simple problem does remain, that in my case I can inform the electorate what my name is, what my party is, and so on, in the form of a postcard to them, but if this legislation is enacted, how can I tell these people the simple facts without going broke in the process? My estimate is that it would cost me something like

$3,000 to pay for the stamps to put on the postcards to tell the electors in my riding who I am.
If there is going to be an appreciable number of the electors in my riding voting at an advance poll, the question arises, should I send this information out ten or even fifteen days before the election? Obviously if there are going to be an appreciable number of persons voting I am in trouble, because I must contact them either too early or wait until later in the election and I cannot do both. I was hoping I would have heard some discussion from the hon. member who introduced this bill as to the numbers he has in mind when he suggests that these advance polls be moved back as the bill indicates. If any other member speaking to this bill has any ideas on this subject, I would be most interested to hear them. As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I favour the principle of this bill, but I have some reservations about its application in my particular case in the next election.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) clarify two things this afternoon. He told us first when the next federal election will be, and he has told us when the next Ontario provincial election will likely be. I am sure now that we know these facts we can prepare ourselves accordingly.
In rising to speak to this question, I, like the other two members, agree with the principle. I think all of us who have taken part in elections, even before we had our nominations-when perhaps we were working for others who were federal candidates- appreciate the fact that in many cases people who are entitled to vote and have the qualifications under the act were denied the right to vote because they were absent. In principle I go along with the terms and conditions of the amendment in question. The explanatory notes very simply put states:
The privilege of voting at an advance poll is now restricted to a limited number of voters, namely commercial travellers, fishermen, persons employed upon railways, vessels, airships, etc., members of the reserve forces, the R.C.M.P. etc.
It does seem, on examining and discussing this matter with the people who feel they have the privilege of voting in their absence, that because they do not fill in their application they are denied their franchise. On examining the bill itself one is faced with two or three questions. I want to deal with some of the questions which might affect a rural constituency, particularly one like mine, Bow River, in Alberta. In rural constituencies it would seem, when setting up advance polls, that it would be necessary
Canada Elections Act
that all communities, all villages or towns, have an advance poll. In that instance there would be an increase in the number of advance polls. The way the position stands at the moment, I only have a very small portion of the city of Calgary along by the Bow river and thgre is only one advance poll. Under the amendment, if it passed, it would mean we would have to have advance polls in all the towns and villages in some of the rural communities, because if the act is to be equitable and carry out in principle what it intends, then it would be very unfair for a man in one constituency to travel 35 miles while another man travels only one mile. There would have to be a lot more advance polls, and when we run into that sort of thing it would affect the question of the cost of running an election.
There is a second point I should like to make. I am sure it is one which has been considered by others in the past because I understand this bill has been before the house on previous occasions. The time between the date of nomination and the date of the election would be extended under the terms of the act by at least one week, which would make it three weeks instead of two. The reason for that is that because of the number of advance polls which would take place in these circumstances it would be necessary for the deputy returning officer to tally the number of advance votes so that there would be no duplication. Then you would have to set up special machinery for advance polls similar to the machinery set up in the ordinary poll on voting day, complete with clerks, scrutineers and other officials-almost a duplication. This would, of course, work some hardship on the candidates themselves because they would have to have agents working for three or four days instead of on the one day at the election as presently required and that, of course, would result in extra expense.
It would be necessary for a candidate to have such scrutineers or agents, because if arrangements are not made similar to those made at the polls on election day there is always the chance of something taking place which is not quite according to law. This may seem like a digression, but it might be helpful to give an example of what happened at one of the polls when I first became a candidate in the election of 1957. I attended one of the polls and I saw two or three people handing out literature. This happened to be a facsimile of the ballot, on the back of which was a picture of my main opponent and the words: on the other side, see how to mark your ballot. And the people were able to take the ballot handed out-the facsimile-into the voting booth and mark the

Canada Elections Act ballot accordingly. That is the reason why we have provision for scrutineers in the original act, and that is why we should have to have candidates' agents present all the time. That is why it is clearly set out in the act that the principle of equity for all shall apply. If matters were left entirely to the discretion of the returning officers there would be a different system in every poll and in every constituency across the country and there would be no uniformity at all.
I have not done a great deal of research on this, but it does seem to me that some of the suggestions which were made by the hon. member for Port Arthur had merit and that they could profitably be studied in committee. With regard to the idea of an absentee voting system, I do know from my experience as a practising lawyer that Americans have come into my office in order to have certain documents notarized, thus entitling them to vote in elections at home. I believe this system is also used in certain countries of the commonwealth. It should be compared, in my opinion, with the system of advance polls which would be more costly and more cumbersome because it would mean a three-day election set up instead of the one-day system we have at present.
In summary I should like to repeat the main points I have raised. If this amendment were to carry it would mean the setting up of a number of advance polls. Second, there would have to be a greater time between the date of the nomination and the election date in order that the returning officer could get in all the returns so that it could be ascertained that those who had taken advantage of the advance poll in question had been removed from the voters list. Third, there would have to be special machinery set up which, again, would be more costly. Last, but not least it would impose something of a burden on candidates themselves, because they would be running a three-day election instead of a one-day election.
Before I sit down I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Port Arthur for presenting this amendment to the present act. As I understand it, the Canada Elections Act has not been changed for a number of years. The amendment deals with one of the major problems which all candidates encounter in an election. There are numbers of people who are denied their right to the franchise, and I feel that in a democracy if a man is absent because of business reasons or for some reason beyond his control he should not be prevented from voting. The hon. member for Port Arthur made a good point when he differentiated between the type of rules and 

regulations governing city polls and those governing rural polls. In the rural poll it is always possible for an applicant to be sworn in, but a person in a city poll is denied this privilege. Unless he checks the voters list and finds his name there or takes action in the period which is set before the election, he cannot take part.
I think we should streamline the act somewhat and make it possible for every qualified person in Canada to have the privilege of exercising his vote, whether he is at home on the day of the election or not. This legislation is equitable in its effect upon all, whether we support the Liberal party, the C.C.F. party or the Conservative party. We all know that it is a free contest in this democracy of ours, and we want to see such rules and regulations set up under the election act as will be fair to one and all.


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: I see it is nearly six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I had quite a number of points I wished to add to this debate. Perhaps I might point out, however, that schedule 2 of the election act does provide for the constitution of advance polls across the country. At the present time there are approximately 150 towns, cities and villages which are able to hold advance polls. I have been advised by the chief electoral officer that in the last election about 250 advance polls were actually in existence because of the fact that some of the larger cities often had one advance poll per constituency. One advance poll was held in my own riding, and I know it was a busy poll.
Unfortunately, too few of our citizens have the privilege of voting at advance polls. There are many people such as loggers, miners, prospectors, and so on who, because of the rigid requirements of our election act, are in effect disenfranchised.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the leader of the house what is to be the business for Tuesday and Wednesday and, if possible, for the whole week.


Howard Charles Green: On Tuesday we intend to take four routine motions. One is in the name of the Prime Minister, providing for the Easter adjournment. The second is also in the name of the Prime Minister asking that the report of the Canada Council be referred to the public accounts committee pursuant to the Canada Council Act. These two motions are contained in Votes and Proceedings for today.
Then there are two other notices on today's order paper under government notices of

motion, one under my own name which would refer the estimates of the Department of Fisheries to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, the other in the name of the Minister of Finance referring the public accounts and some other documents to the public accounts committee. Then, we will take item No. 9 on today's order paper. This is a motion to refer the subject of the humane slaughter of food animals to the standing committee on agriculture; item No. 6, dealing with the appointment of parliamentary secretaries; item No. 8, a resolution which will provide for an amendment to the bill we are considering to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; then, item No. 4, a resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act; item No. 3, a bill to amend the Public Servants Inventions
Business of the House
Act; item No. 1, a bill to confirm an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick respecting Indian reserves; a motion to step up a joint committee to consider the Indian Act; and we also intend to consider estimates next week of the departments of agriculture and citizenship and immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it the intention to go along with this program right through the week in the order indicated?


Howard Charles Green: It will be that order for Tuesday. There may have to be some variation on the three remaining days.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions