1959-04-10

[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 10, 1959


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he contemplates a visit to Washington in the near future to discuss with the United States government the taking up of the options with respect to uranium which are of such great importance to Canada and to our relations with the United States both economically and politically.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, there is no question about the importance of that contract to our uranium industry and to our economy, and during the last two months I have endeavoured to make arrangements to meet with the appropriate people in Washington concerning this matter. There was some delay, due to the illness of some of the people concerned in the United States, but I expect to have a chance to confer with the authorities in Washington very soon.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: In the absence from the house of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him whether, in view of the fact that the recent amendments to the immigration regulations obviously serve no public purpose and are causing great hardship to many families, he will urge his colleague to admit her mistake and recommend that the order be revoked.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: That is not a question; that is a political speech.
66968-9-163



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Have any persons representing the steel industry in Canada asked the government to increase the tariff on steel entering Canada as a protection against imports from West Germany?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Not within the last ten months.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of Labour whether in view of the statement made in the white paper presented by the Minister of Finance two days ago with regard to the position of the unemployment insurance fund he would not agree that it is desirable that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act should be placed before the house at the earliest possible moment, so that we may be in a position to appreciate the relation of the state of the fund to the financial situation of the country as presented by the Minister of Finance in his happy manner but gloomy results last night.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have felt that it is desirable to bring these amendments before the house much sooner than the hon. member probably proposes in his question. I have urged that this be expedited as much as possible, and everything is being done toward that end.



REFERENCE OF CANADA ELECTIONS ACT TO STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader and ask him when we might expect the carrying out of one of the provisions in the throne speech, namely the referral of the elections act to the standing committee on privileges and elections.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, consideration has been given to that question and I hope it will be possible to make a motion to that effect at a very early date.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of complaints I have received from unemployed persons to the effect that certain application forms for unemployment insurance are printed in the United States. Would the minister comment as to whether or not that is correct, and as to whether any steps have been taken to have these forms printed in our own country?


Michael Starr: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, and it is no surprise to me. We have recently installed a mechanical processing system in our prairie regional office located in Winnipeg. This office processes all claims for the prairie provinces, and the object of putting in a mechanical punch card system was to eliminate delays.
After some early difficulties were experienced the system is now beginning to operate satisfactorily, and it is estimated that it will result in a considerable saving of time. The system is a Remington Rand installation, and unfortunately the forms necessary for its operation are not as yet being made in Canada. Therefore they must be obtained in the United States. It is expected that when the system has achieved more widespread acceptance in this country these forms will be produced in Canada. I, as much as the hon. member for Assiniboia or any other hon. member of this house, am very conscious of the desirability of endeavouring to have as many as possible of our forms printed in Canada.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO MEETING ON R.C.M.P. AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Acting Minister of Justice is now in a position to reply to the question I asked him on Wednesday regarding the proposed and now postponed meeting between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general of the provinces in regard to contracts with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Minister of
Justice): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will be back on Monday, and as he has taken this decision himself he will be in a position to give an answer upon his return.

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


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, when speaking on this item yesterday I was trying to ascertain why there exists a discrepancy between the views of a western delegation which recently visited Ottawa and the views of certain western members.
The situation of agriculture in Ontario is not favourable. The farm union in a brief presented just a few weeks ago pointed out that the position has deteriorated again this year in terms of net income. By using dominion bureau of statistics figures they point out that in the last year the net income of the farmer increased by only $9 over the previous year, while at the same time the gross income increased by something over $1,000. Therefore when we hear the Minister of Agriculture quoting gross figures for western Canada as the total Canadian farm income, in terms of net income I think we can be sceptical about the farmer's position being anything near what it was in previous years.
One of the problems which face agriculture in eastern Canada is this matter of vertical integration. I would suggest that one of the reasons vertical integration has become so important is the fact that farm credit has been restricted in recent years. A few years ago a small farmer who was in the mixed farming industry would go to the bank and borrow enough money to buy a carload of feeder cattle from western Canada, or he would go to the feed company and make arrangements for a year's supply or six months' supply of feed on credit. He now finds this impossible. He cannot borrow the money from the bank to buy feeder cattle because the bank maintains this is not a stable investment, that it is quite a risk, and the banks are not willing to lend money at a reasonable rate of interest on that type of loan. When he goes to the feed company he also finds that the feed company is under this tight money policy that the banks have instituted, and it cannot get enough money to carry its credit and therefore it will not extend this type of credit to the farmer.

In my opinion this is why we find farmers going into contract farming and eventually finding themselves under complete vertical integration. Co-operatives have found themselves in a somewhat similar position. They have found that they also have to borrow money from the banks. They are borrowing money at higher and higher interest rates, and this must be passed on to their members when they in turn try to buy something from the co-operatives. This has happened to people who are raising large numbers of hogs, or who are in the broiler industry. The cooperatives have been able to advance money or feed only on the same basis that many of the small feed companies are advancing it, namely entering into a contract on a contract farming basis.
Therefore one of the problems the farmer faces today is this matter of short term credit. The government could give a great deal of assistance if they were to consider this matter of short term credit to the farmers in terms of maintaining the family farm. It is all very well to talk about long term credit, credit of $20,000, extended over a period of 30 years. Unless the farmer can see that he is going to be able to realize something from his farming operation by borrowing this large sum of money on a long term basis he would be well advised not to undertake the obligation. If he finds-and he has had this happen over the last few years-that the price of his product is going to continue to drop he would be very silly, in my opinion, to make a long term loan at a very high rate of interest if he cannot immediately apply it to his production cycle so that he can at least get enough money out of his borrowing to make it worth his while to do so. The fact that he gets $20,000 today to pay off a large number of bills is not sufficient justification for borrowing the money.
Therefore in many instances I think the farmer would be well advised not to borrow on a long term basis unless he can see in the future a stable market for his agricultural products.
In my opinion there is quite a difference between long term and short term credit. Short term credit is what will revitalize and maintain what Ontario farmers like to call the family farm. The family farm depends entirely upon the community, and in return most of the rural communities depend upon the family type of farm. If contract farming is extended through vertical integration, whereby a company runs the farm and the farmer is only a hired man, then obviously the community is going to disappear; because the individual farmer when in an advantageous purchasing position buys from the local grocery store, hardware store, feed store and
66968-9-163J
Supply-Agriculture
automobile dealer. These are the people who maintain small communities and rural agricultural life as we have known it. These are the people who support the schools and maintain the communities. On the other hand, when farms grow very rapidly we find that these people buy from the wholesale outlets. They always have the advantage of wanting 20 tractors instead of one. They do not want to buy one carload of feed at a time but 20 carloads, and they tend to deal outside of the rural communities as we know them.
I think the minister should give serious consideration to making short term credit available to the farmer so the farmer can deal within the community, so he can continue to purchase enough products to be able to expand and operate efficiently and not have to go outside the normal credit procedure he has used for many years. I do not think this matter has been given any consideration at all, and in my opinion it is one that should be given consideration.
I have heard some people say that vertical integration may not be a bad thing, and economically this may be true. Vertical integration means automation in agriculture. I am quite sure it will mean a lessening of production costs, but if this takes place I suggest it will not mean that people will be able to buy food cheaper or will receive any of the advantages of the lower cost of production. Rather it will mean that consumers will have to pay more and more for food products because their production will be controlled by a very few people.
We find that in Ontario the production of broilers has been vertically integrated. I am quite sure that some of the western members will say "So what?", but I suggest that if one segment of the economy becomes controlled by the packing companies or the feed companies it will immediately affect the rest of the meat industry across Canada. If they are going to control the broiler industry completely and they dump a large number of broilers on the market, there will be no meat sold in Canada. Such a situation would be developing very rapidly at the present time if it were not for the great impetus to the meat industry brought about by the export to the drought areas of Texas of a large number of feeder cattle.
I believe western farmers had better give very close consideration to the problem of vertical integration, because while they are not now affected to any great extent with respect to the meat industry I am quite sure they will be. Members from farming constituencies who do not agree should visit a local Loblaw store or any chain store in the city of Ottawa. They will find that the housewives

Supply-Agriculture
of Ottawa are buying a great many more broilers than steaks or roasts of beef. I do not think this market in the United States is a normal market; it is not a market that can be considered as permanent. Eventually when these Texas grazing lands return to production we are going to have to return to our previous methods of selling beef.
In so far as pork is concerned, I might say that 30 per cent of the pork industry in Ontario is under vertical integration. This is an industry that can be easily extended, because it does not take as long to raise pork as it does to raise beef. These big companies that have gone into the broiler industry have done so because the buildings will remain and they do not have to be operated in any one year. It is very easy for these big companies to get into the broiler industry on a three-month basis and then get out of it. With these companies controlling this segment of the farmers' economy, it behooves all farmers to take a very close look at what is happening in that field.
I would suggest that the way in which the minister could deal with this condition is not by legislating against vertical integration but by making credit available to the rural population in the way it was available to them before the Liberal government put their tight money policy into operation. This tight money policy is still in effect in so far as agriculture is concerned.
In my particular area a farmer has almost no opportunity to get any money. If he applies to the farm loan board he is told that the board is not able to make loans in northern Ontario because of land values. They value the land in northern Ontario at as low as $25 an acre. Anyone who has been connected with agriculture in northern Ontario knows that it costs at least $50 an acre to clear this land, so when the board make this type of valuation they are being completely unrealistic. The truth of this statement is even more evident when you consider that the price of a 160-acre farm is around $20,000 or $30,000 in that particular area. The land upon which loans are sought is probably not of this high calibre, but it certainly is in a much higher price class than $25 per acre. The farmers find that they are unable to borrow from mortgage companies or from banks. Unfortunately there is only one way in which a farmer can get enough money to carry on his farm. He leaves the farm and goes into the labour field, leaving his wife and children at home to run the farm.
This method of operation contributes to the creation of surplus agricultural products, because if the husband gets enough money through his labour to pay the expenses then

the products produced as a result of the work of the family are really surplus products. This in turn makes it much more difficult for the full time farmer to dispose of his products at reasonable prices.
I had hoped that the agriculture committee would give some consideration to the whole matter of short term as well as long term credit. I suggest to the minister that in my experience the short term credit the farmer uses to operate his business from month to month is causing much more difficulty in rural Ontario than the matter of long term loans. That is because farmers looking at the markets they have today, understanding the problems they have, the rising costs of production and a falling market, will not be stupid enough to borrow money on a 30-year basis at a fairly high rate of interest. What they want to do is operate the farms they have today so they can make a decent living, while hoping that in the near future the government will make some change to allow them to plan on a long term basis.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly with regard to the question of agriculture. Yesterday the hon. member who has just sat down made some remarks about the western members who had been home over the Easter recess and had had an opportunity to talk to some of their farmer constituents. Well, Mr. Chairman, I did that. I attended several meetings and talked to all the farmers I could get hold of, and I can stand up here and say that 95 per cent of the farmers in my area to whom I talked in the meetings I went to were in full support of the government's program and were not in favour of the deficiency payments as outlined by the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I will have more to say about that in a moment.
Before we take a look at agriculture in the west to see what we can do to help it, we should take a good look at what the situation is and go on from there. The problem as we all know it-


William Arnold Peters: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: If you will wait until I get through, sir.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not the way you behaved when we spoke.


William Arnold Peters: What about the delegation?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I will come to that. The problem, it seems to me, is one of maintaining income and increasing the share of all western farmers. I should say of all farmers; I do not want to segregate one from the other. The other problem which

has been touched on very briefly by the hon. member who has just sat down is that of vertical integration. These two problems have to be dealt with together, because no one scheme will help western agriculture. There has to be a general policy which is going to include all the factors which are important in developing our agricultural economy.
With regard to this brief which has been presented to us and to the government by the delegation of western farmers, I want first of all to say that I was very proud of the delegates who came from my area. I think they all acted like gentlemen and there was only one matter I found fault with, which was the premise which had been drilled into them by the members of the neighbouring farm unions and the Saskatchewan wheat pool that "You had better help us farmers get our deficiency payments or we'll go into livestock, and then look out." I think this is a completely false premise, because if you go over the figures you will find that the farmers in Saskatchewan have been diversified and since 1951 have been increasing the numbers of livestock on their farms, and these are the people this brief discriminates against and would not take into consideration. The points they raise are good, but the solution they suggest is not in the best interests of agriculture in western Canada.
I wonder, sir, to what extent the instigation of this brief from this delegation, as it was undertaken by the Saskatchewan wheat pool, was to encourage the production of wheat so we would have a larger surplus and the Saskatchewan wheat pool would be able to make more money storing the grain at government expense. This point has not been raised and I think it should be, because it is certainly a factor raised by the delegation in the brief.
We in western Canada, particularly in my constituency where mixed farming is the vogue, where they have been diversified and have had the initiative to go out and raise various types of crops and livestock, are concerned that a program such as this would do nothing more than give to those people who are now driving a Cadillac also a Buick, and they certainly do not need it. I think this whole problem, not only of income to the farmers but of vertical integration, should be, as I said, dealt with as one problem.
The solution to vertical integration by meat packing companies, feed companies and such like is to put our family farms in a position where they cannot only compete but will be the ones which provide most of the produce. We can do this by the policy which this government has outlined for agriculture. We are very happy with the announcement of the
Supply-Agriculture
Minister of Agriculture with regard to hogs, and we feel that this is one method whereby deficiency payments can be used very well. The question of when deficiency payments should be used on grain can certainly be discussed and should receive consideration, but that is not the problem which was raised or presented by this brief. So the solution to our problem is to set up the family farmer so he can compete with modern business methods and with modern technical improvements. Tto do this as the last speaker has said, we need a new credit system, crop insurance programs and an effective soil use program; and we need most of all the stabilization bill.
How do you define a family farm? The definition of a family farm is a farm on which the family is living. This is important, because it does not apply to a lot of the wheat farmers in Saskatchewan. The government is in support of the type of farmer who is working the year round, and if he is given this support he can be the most efficient type of farmer in the country and in that way can combat vertical integration from the ground. The important point in western agriculture at the moment is that we must support this family farm, the people living on the farm working 12 months of the year and who deserve our support, not only for economic reasons but also for social reasons and for the whole rehabilitation of rural agriculture.
As I said, this government has done a lot for agriculture in the last two years and the farmers in my area appreciate it. They appreciate the announcement with regard to hogs. The only addition we would like to suggest is that any deficiency payment on hogs be made on a premium basis; in other words, that no deficiency payment be made on grade C hogs. The other suggestion is that the floor price on hogs should be removed entirely and a deficiency payment system used exclusively. This does not mean that one should take over a deficiency payment scheme and use it on every product, because that would defeat the very purpose of the stabilization bill, and defeat the flexibility which is the important part of the bill. In years to come in our international relations we will have to play a part in the economic cold war, and there will be a case for the government buying up produce so they can dispose of it to the underveloped countries, or dispose of these products to an international food bank in the future.
As I have said, we all know very well the other things the government has done, but

Supply-Agriculture
sometimes our friends in the opposition require a little bit of memory brushing up, particularly those in the official opposition, as we realize that they are extremely weak on western agriculture at the moment. The cash advance program which they said could not work has worked tremendously well all over the west, even in our area which is not primarily a commercial grain producing area.
One other thing I should like to mention with regard to agriculture is the transport situation. We all know that this is the primary problem which faces western agriculture, because we have to pay for everything we bring in and all we ship out. We appreciated the stand taken by the government with regard to the Crowsnest pass arrangements, and I think we should point out to the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool in this connection that he is receiving, as representative of the grain producers, a substantial subsidy from the government which livestock producers are not receiving.
We hope the commission which is now being set up with regard to freight rates will delve into the whole question of the equalization of freight rates, because this is vital to the economic life of western Canada.
I think that puts my stand clearly on record. When I spoke on the address I had some remarks to make with regard to the delegation coming to Ottawa. I have not changed my opinion in this regard. One of the western daily newspapers recently carried an editorial entitled "Horner in a Corner".
I would say that I am certainly in a corner, the corner of the family farm and of those who are making a career of agriculture, who are working at it all the time. That is the corner in which I want to be, and the corner in which I intend to stay.
Before I close I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the organization of the Department of Agriculture, and I should like also to compliment the minister on the efficient manner in which he has headed this very difficult department and supervised the work of reorganization. I should also like to say a word with regard to research, particularly into the veterinary-medical aspects of agriculture. I think sometimes all of us do not realize how important this particular aspect of agriculture is, not only to the health of our animals but also to the health of our people generally.
There is only one complaint I have to make in this regard, and that is that we are not spending enough money; we have not a large enough staff of research scientists working in the animal diseases branch. We realize
that it is difficult to hold these experts, because they are highly trained men and private industry is competing strongly for their services. However, this is a vital part of the department's work and one which requires our constant help and scrutiny. I am particularly indebted to the Minister of Agriculture for including Johne's disease, or para-tuberculosis in cattle, under the animal diseases act this has already helped, in my area, to give one farmer a little hope for the future. I am sure, too, that his neighbours are also very thankful that the government has enacted regulations which make more effective control of the disease possible.
As I have said previously in this house, animal diseases cost this country a tremendous amount of money. Foot-and-mouth disease alone has cost farmers something in the neighbourhood of $600 million. Any money which is spent in the eradication of these diseases and in research into their control is money well spent and will mean a saving in the long run. If 20 years ago we had tackled the problem of brucellosis and done what we are now doing, the cost of eradicating that disease would be only a fraction of what it is today. However, I can say that the department is ahead of schedule in its brucellosis program, and those responsible should be complimented on the rapid and very efficient way in which they have gone about eradicating this disease from our herds.
At this point I urge, once again, that the government should give serious consideration to setting up a veterinary college in western Canada, if not directly then through the agency of the Canada Council. This is a very pressing need not only because it would mean better treatment for our animals but because it would enable the recruiting of veterinary surgeons who would be available for the inspection of meat, its proper grading, and so on.
And now if the hon. member for Timis-kaming would like to ask his question I should be happy to answer it.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the hon. member if he feels there was a difference between the delegation which represented the Saskatchewan area of the wheat pool and the over-all group which presented the deficiency payment brief. Did the hon. member agree with the over-all brief?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I certainly do say there was a difference between the delegation from Saskatchewan and the delegation from Alberta. Even in Saskatchewan there was a difference in the delegation; there are those delegates who are aligned to major wheat growing, and there are the others. Incidentally, I find it paradoxical that the
fMr. Homer (Jasper-Edson.]

hon. member who was speaking a moment ago about the evils of vertical integration should not have told us what he thinks a 5,000 acre wheat farm is. Is that not vertical integration?
Another point is that the farm union in Alberta supported this delegation as a method of demonstrating farm unity, and I commend the union for it; but they were sold a bill of goods. They were told by the Saskatchewan delegation, "If you do not support us we will go into livestock, and then look out". That is the only point they made, and it is a foolish argument, one that does not hold water.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Did the hon. member read the brief presented by the western delegation to Ottawa and, if so, does he deny the facts they presented and the conditions on the prairies as outlined in the brief which the delegation presented?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: As I said initially, we agree on the conditions which are prevalent in western agriculture, but they affect most of all the grain growers, particularly the small grain growers who are not going to get any benefit from the measures suggested in the brief. These are the people who are in trouble, but the brief is not going to help them. The solutions proposed are not going to be of any assistance to them. As I said before, there is no point in giving a Buick to someone who already drives a Cadillac, and that is exactly what the hon. member for Timiskaming is suggesting when he says we should pay $4,500 each to the biggest farmers in western Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only assume from the very generous manner in which I am received as I rise to speak on these estimates that the committee generally will expect from me a contribution to this very important subject which concerns all the people of Canada.
After listening to the observations which have just been made I should like to give some political advice to the hon. member, if he would take it from one who has had a fairly long experience in this house. He said that when he went home he found that his constituents without exception fully supported the attitude of the present administration with regard to deficiency payments.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Ninety-five
per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, he said 95
per cent. I would suggest to him that as a political novice he ought not to use percentages in that particular context, because it must be apparent that the farmers of western Canada are dissatisfied not to the extent of
Supply-Agriculture
5 per cent but, in so far as one can judge from the orderly and very significant delegation that came to Ottawa from western Canada, the farmers generally in western Canada are totally dissatisfied with the policies of this government, policies that arise out of assurances given by this administration in the course of two election campaigns.
There is no doubt that the government through the Prime Minister in particular, through the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and through the Minister of Agriculture did give the farmers of western Canada and farmers throughout Canada generally the impression that if they were entrusted with the responsibility of governing this country the farmers would receive from this government a better deal either through parity prices or deficiency payments. No form of dialectics the Minister of Agriculture may use will destroy the impression these hon. gentlemen created in the country: "Entrust us with the responsibility of office and we will provide parity prices"-represented by various amendments introduced in this house by the present Prime Minister-"and we will provide deficiency payments". These characterize the observations made by hon. gentlemen opposite in the course of two election campaigns.
The recent delegation of farmers from western Canada which descended on Ottawa was one of the finest delegations that has ever come here. It was both orderly and constructive. If there was a reason for these farmers coming here it was because this government through its spokesmen gave the impression in two general election campaigns that this government was going to embark on a policy that would result in a better deal for the farmers. The delegation asked the government to pursue that policy.
When my hon. friend says that he found satisfaction in his constituency I suggest to him that he had better examine all parts of his constituency, as other hon. members from western Canada should, with a view to ascertaining whether or not the optimistic interpretation he has just given is in conformity with the facts. I was in western Canada quite recently, too, and I certainly did not find any indication of satisfaction such as the friendly and intelligent but misguided hon. member who has just spoken has described.
This government did not only promise western farmers deficiency payments; it promised the farmers of Canada generally that there would be a price support program the like of which Canadian farmers had never received, guaranteeing to those engaged in agriculture a basic and satisfactory income.

Supply-Agriculture
In my own constituency in the county of Essex we were told that there would be deficiency payments and floor prices not only for soya beans and sugar beets but for corn. We have not heard very much about whether or not we are going to have a floor price on corn, but from every indication arising out of statements made by the Minister of Agriculture as to the dangerous position that he sees gathering at the present time-


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: -not only is it not likely that we will receive a floor price on corn, but we are not likely to have a continuation of the existing floor prices on other commodities. Now, having completed that sentence I shall be glad to deal with my hon. friend's question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Since the party of
which my hon. friend is a member has not yet stated whether it is in full agreement with this brief, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would care to comment on it. I emphasize the words "full agreement".


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend
apparently has not seen the observations made by the leader of the Liberal party in the press-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I read those observations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: [DOT]-at the time he received this delegation. The Leader of the Opposition indicated what was the position of the federal Liberal party in this matter. He referred to the resolutions which were publicized-unlike at a recent convention of the Tory party, in which that party stated its policy with regard to deficiency payments- and as the hon. member will know the delegation that met with the Leader of the Opposition and members of this party in a publicized statement expressed their deepest satisfaction with the way in which they had been received and the way in which the Liberal party had stated its position.
I have in my hand the briefs to which my hon. friend is referring. One is the submission by the interprovincial farm union council on agricultural policy generally. What is the government's reaction to this brief? Does my hon. friend say that these briefs, presented by a powerful farm organization in western Canada, are not to be treated as reflecting the state of public opinion in western Canada? Do these briefs indicate that 95 per cent of the farmers of western Canada support the policy of this government in the matter of deficiency payments? I suggest to my young and amiable hon. friend that he would be wise to make a

careful assessment of public opinion among the farmers of his riding. As a result of such an inquiry he would be required to revise his position in order to return to this house as an effective voice representing the farmers of western Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was referring specifically to the submission of the western farm delegation to the Prime Minister presented at the Chateau Laurier. The hon. member has not answered my question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I made mention of the fact that the farmers of southwestern Ontario had been assured of a support price for corn. As the Minister of Agriculture knows, he was requested by the corn growers a few months ago to designate corn as a commodity under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. The support price suggested was approximately $1.45, which would be the average price for the last ten years for No. 2 dried corn delivered at elevators in the corn producing areas.
When the Minister of Agriculture replies I hope he will indicate what the policy of the government is in regard to this matter. I hope he will also indicate whether we are going to be confronted this year, with regard to the floor price on soya beans, with a situation comparable to that which has developed in the United States, where the floor price on soya beans is being reduced by 25 per cent. Is that going to be the situation in Canada?
The present floor price on soya beans is $2.10. This does not mean that every farmer who grows soya beans receives $2.10. Because of the method of averaging prices many farmers will receive well below $2.10, and many who are in the position of not requiring assistance will receive the floor price. This averaging is regarded by the soya bean growers generally as not being fully in conformity with the assurances given by this government that there would be a floor price on soya beans.


Mr. Harkness:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Has he asked the soya bean growers if they are willing to pool their returns? If they are willing to do this we can give them all exactly the same return, but up to date they have been unwilling to pool their returns. If they refuse to do so it is impossible to get away from the situation the hon. member describes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The farmers certainly are not willing to pool their returns. That is the very gist of my complaint. When hon. gentlemen opposite during the election campaign said they were going to grant a

support price they did not talk about averaging prices. They said every farmer would be guaranteed a minimum price.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minimum price was fixed at $2.10 by the hon. gentleman. I will say that he carried out his promise in one respect; that is, a floor price was designated, but it was never indicated that the assessment of the price the farmer would receive could mean that he would receive something less than the designated price. Then we were not told-


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is entirely in your opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that at the end
of the season these prices would be averaged so that some farmers, instead of receiving $2.10, would receive even as low as $1.80, which did happen in some cases that I know about. When the minister deals with this question 1 hope he will indicate particularly what is the government's intention for the future. Are we going to follow the example of the United States and lower the floor price by 25 per cent, or anything comparable; because the lowering of the floor price in the United States is going to add to the competitive position that now prevails in Canada as a result of the very heavy importations into southwestern Ontario, particularly of United States agricultural products. Soybeans are only one example. Other examples include corn, canned tomatoes, fresh tomatoes and other products.
In the very comprehensive statement the minister made on March 6 he put on record the statistics having to do with total cash income in Canada from the sale of farm products by provinces, the figures for 1940 to 1957 being taken, I think he will agree, from the bureau of statistics, and those for 1958 from his own department. I think I am right in that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The figure I gave at that time was an estimate. The dominion bureau of statistics figures have come out since. I think the hon. member will find that they are almost exactly the same.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad to have that confirmed. The total for 1958, as given by the minister, was $2,869,319,000. This figure includes some $61 million of supplementary benefits paid to farmers in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I think that is correct. But I suggest to the minister that the total farm cash income is a misleading yardstick to use, though undoubtedly it served the purpose of the minister in that he was able to show an increase of 66968-9-164
Supply-Agriculture
$276 million in 1958 over 1957. It seems to me the better course to follow would be to use farm net income, which would give a better indication, although as I say I did not know until this moment that the figures for 1958 were available.
A glance at the tables that are provided in the handbook of agricultural statistics for 1957, and those given by the minister on March 6, together with the number of farms according to the 1956 census as they appear in the Canada Year Book, gives one a very interesting picture of the state of agriculture generally in Canada which I think should be examined further at this time.
The hon. member for Timiskaming spoke of the condition of eastern agriculture, not in a way that prejudiced his view about the state of agriculture in other parts of Canada. He properly emphasized that in considering some of the developments in agriculture in Canada today one should take into consideration not sectional but national interests and present a national picture as well. It is in regard to this point that I want to say a few words, because I think an examination of the statistics taken from the various publications to which I have just referred will indicate that the average net income per farm in eastern Canada, that is to say in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, is substantially below the national average.
This suggests, without in any way failing to appreciate, as I indicated I do appreciate, the importance of agriculture in western Canada and the serious economic condition that confronts the farmers of western Canada, that we in this section of the country also have a great interest in this problem. I think hon. members generally will recognize that the problems of agriculture are not divisible, and that any depressed condition in one section of the country is of the greatest concern to all parts of the country. I know that hon. members from western Canada will understand and appreciate the situation in eastern Canada, just as over the years hon. members have appreciated the problems of western Canada. For instance, in 1957 the results in eastern Canada certainly were not very encouraging and, as I say, for the purpose of my notes I did not have the latest figures for 1958 which the Minister of Agriculture says are now available.
I think it is important that we recognize that what is significant is not the net return or the gross return, but the cost of goods and services used by the farmers which, of course, places a different interpretation on the picture. The attitude of the Minister of Agriculture, as expressed in the remarks he made in this house on March 6, seems to have
2568	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture
undergone a great and fundamental change. When he was in the opposition he was one of the most vigorous of those who took part in agricultural debates, speaking, as he often did, on what he called cost-price squeeze. The Minister of Agriculture spoke in the house in 1959, as reported at page 1680 of Hansard, as follows:
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.
Despite the fact that the minister said the big increase in farm costs took place in the years up to and including 1952, a little further on in his remarks, at page 1681, he said:
The farmer was in a severe cost-price squeeze for several years up to 1958.
He did not say this, of course, specifically, but he was obviously trying to give the impression that since he has become Minister of Agriculture the upward course of the cost of goods and services used by the farmers of Canada has been arrested.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to challenge the statement of my hon. friend, and I am going to prove that it is not correct. The index prices do not bear out this statement, or the last observation of the Minister of Agriculture. The figures are given for three months of each year, and for 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958 they are as follows. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to correct me if those-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where is the hon. member getting those figures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those figures come from the minister's own publications, the ones to which I have already made reference.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What publications are those figures from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, if the minister will look at the Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada for the various years he will find what he asks. If I am wrong I want to have it pointed out. I hope my hon. friend will point it out as I go along. In 1954-


Douglas Scott Harkness: What year's review is the hon. member on, and what page?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am dealing now with 1954.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We do not want any more from the Martin bureau of statistics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What you do want
is the truth.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You want an accurate statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have given you one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What you do want is an accurate statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have given you that. I am asking you what page you are referring to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You take my figures and see whether they are correct.


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt hon. members, but the present exchange and the way it is being conducted is not quite parliamentary. If the minister wishes to interrupt the hon. member for Essex East he must ask his permission to ask a question or he may raise a point of order or a question of privilege, but the Chair cannot permit the present exchange across the floor of the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is going to quote statistics purporting to be from an official publication, under the rules of the house he must give the name of that publication and the page from which he is quoting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your intervention, which obviously will be of great assistance as I pursue my argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I appreciate your intervention, Mr. Chairman. I think the Minister of Agriculture is not unfair in part of his request. Since we are in committee I shall continue to make my observations and will come back to this point, at which time I will give him the exact page numbers which I do not have at the moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will not destroy the basic argument. If my hon. friend wants to make my speech he is at liberty to do so, but I am going to tell him that it will not be exactly the same kind of speech I am now about to make.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, again I must insist that the rules of the house be followed. If the hon. member is going to quote statistics purporting to be from an official publication he must give the name of the publication, the year and the number of the page from which he is quoting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your request is perfectly fair and I propose to do so. I said

that I would postpone this part of my argument so that when I return to it I may be able to give the page as well as the authority.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is quite all right.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: But I am now
challenging the statement of the minister that since he took office he has been able to arrest a rise in the cost of production. By the way, talking about the increase in the cost of production, may I point out that the government has not yet given any answer to the request of the federation of agriculture and the interprovincial farm union council for the laying down of methods and instructions by which a more accurate assessment of the cost of production can be arrived at. With all this discussion of deficiency payments, all this business of a cost squeeze and the difficulties confronting the farmer with respect to the kind of market in which he sells his goods and the situation he is faced with when he has to buy, it seems to me that in the face of the persistent demands by these farm organizations the government should provide a basis for a more accurate assessment of the factors involved in production costs than exists at the present time.
It will be no answer for the minister to ask why the government of which I was a member did not do that. That is the stock answer of the present government to every conceivable question. Perhaps it should have been done a long time ago; in fact I will qualify that and say that it should have been done, not "perhaps". But hon. gentlemen are now sitting on the ministerial benches, the farmers are asking for this kind of assessment, and in my opinion the persistent delay on the part of the administration in meeting this demand reflects the growing gap between the kind of assurances given by the administration for the purpose of winning an election and the resulting policies once the government has a secure period of tenure, happily ensconced in the seats of the mighty.
I suggest to the minister that he significantly left out of his quotations from the Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada a very important paragraph. I should like to refer to the speech he made on January 23, 1959, particularly at page 255 of Hansard. The minister quoted from the Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada, January, 1959 issue, as follows:
Prices paid by farmers in 1958 for commodities and services used in production and for living were only slightly more than one per cent above those of 1957.
Having quoted this passage he went on to say:
66968-9-164i
Supply-Agriculture
Therefore I feel it is quite apparent that the cost-price squeeze which was a cause of hardship to the farmer under the Liberal administration ever since 1951-52 has been finally halted and reversed.
Significantly, the minister left out of his quotation from the Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada the remainder of the paragraph from which the cited phrase was taken. That paragraph continues:
Higher prices were recorded for all farm business items used in the index with the exception of building materials, feed and seed.
My hon. friend talks about my bureau of statistics. My statistics may be inadequate, but I do not leave out significant or relevant passages. The minister left out the following phrase:
The upward trend in the index is expected to continue during the coming year.
Contrast that statement with the statement of the minister in the house on March 6. I have quoted not from his speech but from one of the publications of his own department, which says that "the upward trend in the index is expected to continue during the coming year."


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was talking about facts. That is a prophecy for 1959. I was talking about 1958.


Peter Francis Martin: My hon. friend says he was talking about 1958, but I do not think that changes the situation at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It changes it a great deal.


Peter Francis Martin: A mere assertion is no argument. My hon. friend is only making his position untenable. I was going to say "ridiculous" but I will not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was talking about facts.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I have already mentioned that this chit-chat across the floor of the house will not be tolerated by the chair.


Hazen Robert Argue: Ask the minister to leave. Let him take a coffee break.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must ask hon. members to permit the hon. member for Essex East to carry on with his remarks. They will have ample time to make their own speeches. They cannot interrupt him in the most unparliamentary fashion they have been doing.


Peter Francis Martin: I thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, for coming to my assistance, but I must assure you that these interventions on the part of the Minister of Agriculture really do not destroy my imperturbability. They do indicate the very uncomfortable position in which the minister finds himself when his argument, which

Supply-Agriculture
heretofore has gone unchallenged, is challenged. He gave a picture to the country of economic prosperity that really suggested to many people that the real vision for the farmers had at last come to pass under the present government. I am challenging that Utopian vision, and I can understand why it is rather disconcerting and a little irritating to the minister to have to sit here and see his fine castle of achievement and that of the Prime Minister gradually being undermined and the foundations gradually being destroyed. But I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming to my assistance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Self-delusion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister's remarks on the cost of production can only be termed surprising in the light of what he said in his speech on March 6. As found on page 1683 of Hansard he said:
We have heard, Mr. 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.
Just examine the statement I have just quoted. Place that alongside what the hon. gentleman said this morning in his interventions, and alongside some of the other things he said in his statement in chief on March 6, and see if the minister has not put himself in a very difficult position, to put it in the mildest possible terms.
Then the minister devotes a lot of time in this speech to indicate the tremendous practical difficulties in arriving at cost of production figures. He says on page 1685 of Hansard for March 6, 1959:
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.
Compare this statement with the statement we have that as a result of this government's action, the increase in the cost of production has been arrested.
Then later on page 1685 the minister says:
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.
What I find extraordinary about this observation by the minister is that last year

when we were debating the Agricultural Stabilization Act, so much importance was attached by the hon. gentleman to the cost of production. This insistence led to section 7 of the bill as introduced being amended to include the words "cost of production". As enacted, section 7, subsection 1 of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, chapter 22, 1957-58 statutes, reads as follows:
The board shall from time to time in accordance with this act take such action as is necessary to stabilize the prices of agricultural commodities at their respective prescribed prices, and shall take such action and make such recommendations as are necessary to ensure that the prescribed prices for an agricultural commodity in effect from time to time shall bear a fair relationship to the cost of production of such commodity.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Speakman:: I wonder if the hon. member who has just taken his seat would permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to answer this question if you, Mr. Chairman, will regard that as an intervention which would enable me to conclude my argument afterward.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The course advocated by the hon. gentleman cannot be permitted by the Chair, because we have-


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I suggest that the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to conclude his remarks. When he is doing so may I ask the hon. member to read the next sentence after the one he read concerning what I said about the cost of production studies? In other words, the sentence I should like him to read is as follows:
We have been doing our best and producing the most reliable figures we can.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that the sentence that my hon. friend wanted?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad he added it. It only confirms what I have been saying. What my hon. friend has been arguing is that the cost of production rise has been arrested. I am not saying my hon. friend is not doing his best to minimize the mischief in the cost of production rise, but what I am saying is that my hon. friend has not arrested it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member has misunderstood what I was saying. He had been making the complaint that we were not using the cost of production figures in arriving at the support price, and that is not the case as indicated by the sentence I just read.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend want to ask his question now?


James Stanley Speakman: I shall wait until after you complete your remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just wanted to answer my friend's intervention, and after that I could complete my maiden speech on agriculture.


James Stanley Speakman: I did not interrupt during my hon. friend's speech, because I always follow him with very close attention.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The situation is becoming somewhat confused. The hon. member for Essex East had exhausted the time allotted to him to make his speech, and therefore it was the duty of the chair to tell him that his time had expired. Then there was an intervention which the hon. member for Essex East refused to permit. The Minister of Agriculture asked the committee to give permission to the hon. member to continue his remarks. I believe that to restore some order it would be preferable for the chair to ask the permission of hon. members for the hon. member for Essex East to continue his remarks. If this permission is granted, then possibly the hon. member could answer the various questions which members wish to ask and in addition perhaps satisfy the curiosity of the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the pleasure of the committee to permit the hon. member for Essex East to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the committee. I just wanted the hon. member for Wetaskiwin to understand that I was not complaining about the fact that he asked a question. When I used the word "intervention" I was not using that in any offensive sense, because the hon. gentleman is always very courteous.
I followed with interest this last interpolation by the Minister of Agriculture, and as I say I do not think it really adds anything one way or another either in support of his position or denying the main observation I have made. What I wanted to point out was that by the use of section 7, to which I have referred, in the stabilization act, and the words, "shall bear a fair relationship to the cost of production of such commodity", that in itself is an argument establishing the fact that the allegation of the administration that they arrested the rise of production costs is so fallacious as to not really warrant repetition in any statement by the minister on future occasions.
Now, the words used by the minister when introducing this amendment are worthy of
Supply-Agriculture
note. I refer to Hansard for 1957-58, page 3827, where the minister said:
There is an amendment to be moved to clause 7. It is as follows:
That subelause (1) of clause 7 be amended by striking out the words "base price for" in lines 42 and 43, on page 3, and substituting therefor the words "cost of production of".
The minister went on, and this is a very significant observation which I hope will put at rest this understandable but fallacious boast of the minister that his government, and he as Minister of Agriculture, have been able to arrest the rise in the cost of production that threatens the farmers of Canada:
The purpose of this amendment is to make it certain that the board, in setting prices, will take into full consideration the cost of production and relate it to the price prescribed for any commodity rather than the base price for such commodity. This is one of the amendments which was requested by the interprovincial farm unions. I am quite happy to change the words "base price for" to "cost of production of" so it will be abundantly clear that is the determining factor to be kept in mind in setting the prescribed support price for any commodity. I would ask my colleague the Minister of National Revenue to move that amendment.
These words of the minister ought to be repeated and compared with the assertion of the so-called achievement of the government in doing something that no other Minister of Agriculture and no other government in the world has ever done in the course of human history. I find it difficult to understand how the price fixed can bear a fair relationship to the cost of production. But as the minister says, and I quote again from his remarks from the same page:
It is almost impossible to arrive at anything which can be considered as scientifically accurate in these cost of production figures and studies.
Now, if it cannot be scientifically determined in that way, how can my hon. friend make the statement he did on March 6, as a member of the government, that the Minister of Agriculture has been able as a result of the policies of his administration to arrest the rising cost of production?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the hon. member where he finds my remarks. I think the hon. member is confused over the cost of production and the cost-price squeeze. Of course he is confused over a lot of other things as well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I notice that the minister says I am confused. All I can say is that if I am confused the minister certainly is more confused when one places these quotations alongside other quotations, especially in the same speech made by the minister. I will leave it to this house in the exercise of

Supply-Agriculture
its impartial judgment to determine whether or not the statement of my hon. friend is correct.
May I conclude by saying this to the Minister of Agriculture. His present attitude and that of this administration with regard to agriculture is different from the position taken by him and by all those who spoke on behalf of the Conservative party in the two election campaigns. There was going to be a new deal for agriculture. The Prime Minister, in the action he took as leader of the opposition in the amendments which had to do with parity prices, and in the speeches which were made about the fact that agriculture was not sharing in the economic prosperity of the nation, gave the farmers of this country cause to believe that they had, in hon. gentlemen opposite, the instrument by which they would see a new heaven and a new earth. Now that has not materialized.
My hon. friend pointed to an improvement in agricultural prices. He compared one year only with the current year. The way to test the prosperity of any group is not by comparing 1958 and 1957 but by comparing the present time with a period of years which will generally indicate the situation in Canadian agriculture. If that is done it will not support the contention made by the hon. gentleman or made last night by the Minister of Finance, who said that farm income in Canada had improved by a net of 24 per cent. My hon. friend nods approval of this statement. He confirms that statement, which we are now examining, as perhaps a demonstration of the exaggerated capacity of this government. The statement of the Minister of Finance last night in the budget speech that the agricultural position of the country had improved by a net of 24 per cent will not be supported by the facts, and in the course of these estimates we hope to be able to so show.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture, then, to take what I have said in the spirit of constructive criticism, as the kind of criticism which he himself so generously and wisely, and sometimes so vigorously, gave to us when he was sitting on this side. I ask him to bear in mind the farmers not only of eastern Canada and western Canada but to think as well of the farmers of southwestern Ontario, who right now are concerned about the implementation of certain promises made by hon. gentlemen opposite, and who in the face of the coming season are worried about the cut in acreage, for instance in tomato production. As the hon. member for Middlesex West indicated the other day, they are concerned about whether or not it is true that 
United States producers are shipping into Canada canned goods which are later designated as Canadian, thereby enjoying the advantage of the international freight rate as opposed to the domestic freight rate with its 17 per cent increase. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider that situation and indicate unequivocally, whether or not the government of which he is a member is now embarking upon a policy which will eventually mean withdrawal from the program of price supports.
The hon. member has indicated that exaggerated or dangerous surpluses will encourage that situation. He did not say that two years ago, and his statement is being interpreted by farmers all over Canada as meaning that the government proposes either to reduce the percentage of price supports or to abandon the policy altogether. I trust the Minister of Agriculture will be able some time in the course of this debate to address himself to these points.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think this is now the fourth day that item No. 1 of the agricultural estimates has been under debate, and perhaps I should say a few words in reply to some of the questions raised during the course of the debate. I believe this is a case in which the first shall be last and the last shall be first, because I want to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East to begin with. I would like to commend him for the research he has apparently done in connection with agriculture. I am sure it will be extremely valuable to him and will give him a better idea than he has had heretofore in connection with agricultural problems.
I regret, however, that apparently his research has not been put to better use, because whilst he said he was offering constructive criticism, I think the speech he has just made could be used as a model for a political speech, a tub-thumping speech on one of the back concessions. Of that kind it was exceptionally good and I must compliment the hon. member on the excellence of his oratory and of his tub-thumping; but from the point of view of a critical examination of agriculture the speech just will not stand up. As a matter of fact it indicates how essentially little the hon. member has gained from his research into these matters.
I doubt, of course, whether he has actually gained as little knowledge as his speech would indicate, because the hon. member's ability is well known. I have great respect for it, and I am sure the reading and research he has done into the speeches which I and other people have made, into statistics and

so forth regarding agriculture, has given him a much better picture than he has indicated to the house.
As far as some of the specific points which the hon. member for Essex East was talking about are concerned, he mentioned first of all the delegation which came down here from western Canada asking for deficiency payments on three past crops of grain. I would point out to him that two of the crops on which they were asking payment were grown and marketed during the period the Liberals were in power. The hon. member was implying that the government is responsible for that, but any deficiency they had was before the Liberals went out of office. What did the Liberals do? They did nothing in connection with that matter.
Mr. Martin (Essex East) Yes, we did.


Hazen Robert Argue: Both the same.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It speaks ill of the hon. member for Essex East to try to set himself up as a champion of the members of this delegation, because as I said, two of three of the crops for which they demanded payment were grown during the administration of the government to which the hon. member belonged and were their responsibility.
The next thing the hon. member mentioned was that we said the support plan we were going to put into effect would be much better than anything the Liberals had, and the hon. member was doubting that this was the case. The support plan we put into effect under the stabilization act is a great deal better than anything the Liberals had, and covers more products. For example, during the past year we had 23 products under price support. During the whole eleven years in which the Liberals operated the old agricultural prices support act they supported only 15 commodities, and never more than five or six at any one time. That is one sort of arithmetical measure of the great increase in the scope of the stabilization legislation compared with the legislation of the government to which the hon. member belonged.
In addition, the levels at which these commodities have been supported have been relatively high so far as a number of commodities are concerned, particularly dairy products which command the highest prices enjoyed by dairy farmers anywhere in the world. I think the hon. gentleman should be very happy that this has been the situation, instead of trying to condemn what has been done. He said something about the support price for corn, and was asking a support price of $1.45. I should like to point out to him how unrealistic this is, and apparently
Sup p ly-A gricu Iture
how little knowledge he has of the situation when he asks for a support price of $1.45 for corn grown in Canada, because the support price in the United States this year is $1.12.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring to the request made by the corn producers themselves, and I was asking the minister to tell us his reaction to their representations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have been in touch with the corn growers on this subject on numerous occasions, and we asked them to work out some definite basis on which a support price could be founded. The great difficulty arises because of varying degrees of dryness. If the corn is mechanically dried the value of the product for making corn flour and products of that sort is immediately decreased. It cannot be used for some of these purposes and, therefore, it is an extremely difficult thing to arrive at any basis on which a support price could be put into effect. That is the sole reason why there has been any difficulty or hold-up regarding the support price, and the farmers down there know* that quite well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They have a support price in the United States.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, the same situation prevails.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it does not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is the same moisture problem.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. The hon. member also asked a question in connection with the support price for soybeans. It is well known that we do not follow the policy of saying some considerable time in advance that we are going to set a certain price. The price will be set after we have obtained all the information necessary from the growers and after we have received the advice of the advisory committee of the stabilization board on the matter. I am certainly not in a position to state what the support price on soybeans will be.
The hon. member went on with great dialetic to try to paint a picture of distress and desperation in the agricultural industry in eastern Canada. He said the situation was very poor, and that he was extremely concerned about it. If the hon. gentleman will look at the table I gave on March 6, which he will find on page 1679 of Hansard, he will see that gross income in Ontario and in Quebec was in each case considerably higher than the farmers have ever earned.

Supply-Agriculture


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about net income?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman made great play on the subject of net income. Well, the net income, as indicated by the Minister of Finance last night, was just about 24 per cent better than it was in 1957. The net income has increased a great deal more, proportionately, than the gross income. Gross income was up by 10 per cent over 1957, but net income increased by almost 24 per cent.


William Arnold Peters: That is just a guess.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the way hon. members opposite treat statistics they do not want to believe. The hon. member who has just interrupted, when he spoke in this committee some weeks ago, quoted some statistics which I think he took entirely out of his head, because they bore no relationship whatever to any figures put out by the dominion bureau of statistics or by the Department of Agriculture. These particular figures-and I will give the committee the * figures for the previous years-were put out a few days ago by the research and development division of the dominion bureau of statistics for national accounts. They are contained in a very large book, and this compilation shows that the net income in 1958 was $1,202 million. In 1957 it was $968 million. This represents an increase in net income this year as compared with last year of 23.8 per cent.
If hon. members want to get this publication from the dominion bureau of statistics and look the figures up for themselves, they are quite able to do so. Any statistics I quote are reliable statistics, and I am glad to say where they come from, unlike some hon. members apposite. If people do not like these statistics, particularly members of the C.C.F. group, they immediately challenge them and say the statistics are wrong. There is no question but that the net income of farmers in 1958 was nearly 24 per cent higher than it was in 1957.
This brings me to the point which so concerned the hon. member for Essex East, namely that I have said that 1958 was a very much better year than 1957, and a better year than any of the preceding four years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that. I thought I would get myself into a trap if I said that. I said "an unlimited period of years before 1958."


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know. I said that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you said that, you were incorrect. What I said, as the hon. gentleman will see if he consults my speech, was that 1958 was a better year than any year since 1952-53. That is what I said, and I gave statistics which showed this was the case. At the time I spoke I did not have the net income in 1958 as compared with 1957, but those figures came out about three days ago, and they show that net income was increased by about 24 per cent.
That is the measure of how much better 1958 was than 1957. That was what I indicated in the speech I made, and instead of the hon. member for Essex East contending that I was completely wrong in saying that the cost-price squeeze had been halted, he might have acknowledged that I was absolutely right, as shown by the fact that the net income has increased to such an extent.
The hon. member for Essex East seemed to be badly confused, as I indicated in a brief interruption, between the cost of production and the cost-price squeeze. They are not the same thing, I should like to inform him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I clearly indicated that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I was talking about with regard to the improvement in 1958 as compared with 1957 was the fact that the cost-price squeeze had been halted. I said nothing about the rise in the cost of production having been halted. As a matter of fact I said that the cost of goods and services used by farmers had gone up in 1958 by a little more than 1 per cent. I read that from an official publication, and it is the case. It was manifestly impossible for me to say that and at the same time say that we had halted the increase in the cost of production. What we did succeed in halting in 1958 was the cost-price squeeze.
I am unable to prophecy as to whether we will be able to do so in 1959. In 1958, however, the farmer's net income increased by about 24 per cent while his gross income increased by about 10 per cent over the previous year. With respect to prophecy, or what will happen in 1959, I must say it has nothing to do with what happened in 1958. By reading from the year-end review published by the Department of Agriculture various statements with regard to their prophecies for 1959, the hon. member for Essex East attempted to show that what I had said about 1958 was incorrect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that the current review? Could you give us the page?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am referring to page 5 of the current review published in January. That is what the hon. member read from.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought the hon. gentleman said I did not read from government publications.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this particular instance the hon. gentleman did. As a matter of fact the hon. gentleman said he would give us a page reference, and this was the only instance in which he was able to give us a page number. He did that with respect to this publication.


Peter Francis Martin: The minister must remember that I am just a novice.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This, of course, was a great exception. I am sure the hon. member finds the Martin bureau of statistics much more favourable for his purposes than the publications of the Department of Agriculture.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sometimes it is much more accurate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That has yet to be demonstrated, Mr. Chairman. We have seen no evidence of that as yet.
With reference to the cost of production, the hon. member made a great to-do about reading extracts from speeches I made last year when the stabilization bill was put through, and so forth. We have carried on a considerable number of cost of production studies. As a result of these studies we have attempted to determine as accurately as possible what is the cost of production for various commodities, and then on the basis of that information we have set the floor prices in relation to the cost of production, which is exactly what we said we would do when the stabilization act was introduced last year.
The hon. member for Essex East also said that I only compared 1958 with the preceding year. That is not the case. I compared it with 1957, 1956, 1955 and 1954. I pointed out that the gross income in 1958 was 10 per cent greater than in 1957, 7J per cent greater than in 1956, 20 per cent greater than in 1955 and 20 per cent greater than in 1954. In other words the hon. member was guilty of making many inaccurate statements in referring to remarks made by me at various times in the past year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I said that I was wrong.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a result of this the conclusions he drew were equally fallacious. When he concluded his speech the hon. member was complaining, as far as I could make
Supply-Agriculture
out, about the fact that we were letting in a certain number of canned fruits and vegetables.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was wondering if that were a fact.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was somewhat surprised at the hon. member complaining about the fact that the tariffs and importation bans on these things were not higher or more stringent. I thought he was a low tariff or free trade advocate, but today he complained that the tariffs were not higher or that these commodities were not being excluded altogether.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member misunderstood me, and I am sure he would not want to deliberately misunderstand my reference. I was simply inquiring of the minister if as a result of the findings of his staff he was able to ascertain whether or not the question put the other day by the hon. member for one of the Middlesex constituencies to the Minister of Trade and Commerce was as that hon. gentleman alleged. In this instance I was simply asking the Minister of Agriculture for some information. I assure him I was not making an argument.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly the implication was that we should increase these tariffs or keep these goods out. As a matter of fact the hon. member in the past made that request of me in connection with soya beans.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, that is right, and I make it now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman wanted to have the tariff greatly increased, or he wanted an importation ban put on to keep them out altogether. In other words, I say he talks out of one side of his mouth when he is in certain localities, posing as a great exponent of free trade and low tariffs, but when it comes to talking to the farmers in his own part of the country he poses as an exponent of high tariffs, import controls, and so forth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Don't be too hard on me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So much for the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You spend too much time on me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the hon. gentleman says, perhaps I spend too much time on him, but he made so many completely inaccurate statements that I thought it worth while to set him on the right path in some of these matters since he is now going to be the chief agricultural critic of the official opposition.



HOUSE OF COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Supp ly-A griculture
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would give me permission to leave the house. I have a luncheon appointment with his colleague the Minister of Finance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the hon. member knows, he is at perfect liberty at all times as far as I am concerned.


Mr. Hodgson:: The hon. member can stay out as far as you are concerned, is that it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wish to deal now with the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, good.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Assiniboia complained about the fact that I did not comment on vertical integration and a considerable number of other things the details of which I have forgotten at the moment.


An hon. Member:: So has he.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As someone comments, possibly he has too. As it was, I spoke for something over an hour. It is impossible in one speech to deal with all matters concerning agriculture. It would be possible to devote a half hour to a discussion of vertical integration alone. When introducing one's estimates it is not usual to delay them by speaking for three or four hours in connection with the large number of subjects that could come up in a department such as this. For that reason I believe complaints of this nature are poorly founded.
Examination of the hon. member's speech indicates that it was chiefly characterized by the fact that he made a great deal of noise and had very little sound material at hand. That is typical of a considerable number of the speeches made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, I am afraid.


Frank Howard: If that is so, he is not the only one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman complained, as did the hon. member for Essex East, that this government did not fulfil its election program for agriculture. I believe we have done so, and the results of the actions taken by this government are reflected in the increased returns which farmers received in 1958 through improvement in their net income position as well as their gross income position.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I had been making some comments on the speech made by the hon. member for Assiniboia about a month ago, I think, when those estimates first came up for discussion. I must say I do not like to make any invidious comparisons but I found the maiden speech of the hon. member for Essex East on agriculture much more interesting. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Essex East is back in his seat and we shall expect even better things from him now that he has got his maiden speech on this subject out of the way.
The hon. member for Assiniboia as well as the hon. member for Essex East and several other members have attempted to paint a picture that agriculture in Canada is in a much worse situation than it has ever been, and things along that line. The numerous statistics which I gave in introducing those estimates on March 6, and what I have already said today, I think prove conclusively that these statements are completely inaccurate and that actually in 1958 agriculture had a reasonably good year, certainly a much better year than it had for at least four of five years previously.
Several members who have spoken here, in addition to the two hon. members I have just mentioned, have said something about the delegation of western farmers which came down here, and have attempted to indicate that this delegation established the fact that the western farmers were all in absolutely desperate circumstances, the grain growers particularly. There are several of those people at least who have written in who are not in those circumstances. Just as an example of that 1 have a letter written by a man in Govan, Saskatchewan. He writes as follows:
I have enclosed a copy of my net worth statements for 1955 and 1958-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is his name and address?


Douglas Scott Harkness: His name is Sid Maber. I gave his address as Govan. The letter reads:
I have enclosed a copy of my net worth statements for 1955 and 1958 which I hope may be of some use in pricking the big balloon for deficiency payments. I believe if the minister demanded such a statement from all those farmers visiting him next week, that there would be considerable squirming.
From this statement you will see that I am a farmer, farming one section of average land, have no other enterprise but grain growing so

work at my occupation only about six months of the year, have an annual net worth gain of approximately $6,700, or almost twice the annual income of the average pool elevator agent, or many other members of the community who are on salary, have gathered assets to the value of approximately $60,000 in 18 years, and lastly am eligible for most of the full amount of the proposed deficiency payments.
Now sir, this is no isolated case in this district, at least, as I can look around the neighbourhood and see dozens who are doing just as well and quite a few considerably better. In fact I am of the firm opinion that any farmer operating a section or more of land reasonably efficiently should be in no need of assistance of any kind, excepting crop failure. On the other hand, there are many smaller farmers on uneconomic units who are having difficulties.
And that is only too true. I continue:
But it would seem to me an absurdity to hand farmers such as myself the price of a new automobile from the public treasury.
Also any payments made as an increase on the price of wheat will most certainly have the effect of increasing the acreage sown. Now it has taken us five years to reduce our supplies to the point where we can see a chance of emptying our bins, and this has been done through increased sales, and acreage reduction through substitution of other crops as flax, rape, barley, oats, etc. Now an increase of 30 cents a bushel in the price of wheat will make an unfavourable ratio of about 60 cents a bushel for flax, and also rape, which simply means that considerably more wheat will be seeded, and up will go our carry-over again.
It seems to me. sir, that the government's agricultural program of crop insurance and more credit is a sound and sensible program which should put the assistance in the hands of those who do need it, and not in the hands of those like myself who are well able to buy their own cars.
Now, sir, it seems to me that it may be possible to keep the wheat surplus problem within reasonable proportions with a vigorous sales policy and by not stimulating wheat production by such acts as adding 30 cents a bushel to the price.
Also in closing may I state that I fully expect to have a substantial net worth gain over the next three years, barring natural disasters, even without deficiency payments.


Murdo William Martin: Will the minister permit a question? Has the minister by any chance had those figures checked with the figures that are on file with the Minister of national Revenue to see whether this man reported those figures last year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I did not. I am not in the habit of doubting those people's words in connection with those matters.


Hazen Robert Argue: What about the 30,000 who *disagree with him?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In any event, Mr. Chairman, I read the letter in order to indicate, particularly to members who came from other parts of the country, that there is a considerable number of farmers in western Canada who are not at starvation's door, as some members in this house would have one believe-
Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: Based on one letter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -from the statements they have made. I do not base it on one letter. I have received a very large amount of mail in connection with this matter and I should like to tell my hon. friend that during the entire time that this campaign for so-called deficiency payments for western grain was on I was getting quite a few letters every day and about three out of four were against deficiency payments. That is about the way the proportion went. As a result, I knew there was a very large body of opinion in western Canada who did not support the contentions.
To continue, Mr. Chairman, I have a note here to thank the late Omer Gour, who was the member for Russell, for the very pleasant remarks he made concerning myself. I should like to take this opportunity and pay my respects to him and to his memory. Mr. Gour and I had been friendly ever since I came into the house, now nearly 15 years ago, and I always found him an exceptionally fine gentleman from every point of view. I regret very much that I was not able to be here the day following his death so that I might have paid my respects to him in the house at that time and have been able to attend his funeral. I was always very happy to get his remarks and his opinions on agricultural matters. The remarks that he made on agriculture in his last speech here were sound as usual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to point out to the minister that we on this side of the house were all very grateful for the solicitous manner in which the minister expressed his regrets on the night of Mr. Gour's death.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you. I might say that in this speech Mr. Gour expressed some very sound ideas on vertical integration, amongst other matters.
The hon. member for Fort William spoke about the loan policy and its benefit to small farmers, as several other members have done. Since the hon. member for Timiskaming spoke on that subject this morning, all that I can say is, as all hon. members know, we have a ^arm credit bill which will be coming before the house fairly soon and which I think will greatly improve the credit facilities as far as our farm population is concerned.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Mr. Habel:: Go ahead.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the minister be permitted to continue?

Supply-Agriculture


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort spoke particularly about rape-seed. The fact that the freight rate on rape-seed is as high as it is and thus precludes its use as widely as might otherwise be the case has been a matter of concern to me, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Transport. We have been taking what steps we can to try to secure a cheaper freight rate for rapeseed. I believe there was a small reduction in. the rate not very long ago and we are still attempting to get an agreed charge which will put rapeseed in a more favourable position.
The hon. member for Beauce spoke about the increase in the number of loans made by the farm loan board since the present government came into power. Of course there has been an increase and a considerable one in the number of loans made. The hon. member took this as indicating that the farm situation was worse. Actually it is an indication that it is better. If hon. members will look at the record of loans made they will find that they always increase when times are good and decrease when times are bad. However, the main reason for the increase in the number of loans made by the board and in the amounts of such loans lies in the fact that we greatly improved the situation with respect to the amount that a man could borrow and the difficulty he had in getting a loan. We reduced those difficulties considerably and the result of the liberalization of the lending policy which we put into effect is that a considerable increase in the number of loans made has taken place.
The hon. member for Beauce and one or two others said something about imports of chickens from the United States and attempted to make out that this had caused a great decrease in the price of chickens in Canada and was largely responsible for the quite serious decline in the price of poultry during the past six to eight months particularly. Actually the reason for the fall in the price of poultry in Canada has been the extraordinarily rapid increase in the amount of poultry produced in this country. I have here a small table showing the production of chickens under four pounds, chickens over four pounds and fowl and turkeys in the years 1956, 1957 and 1958. As far as chickens under four pounds are concerned there were 103 million pounds produced in 1956 and 175 million pounds produced in 1958. With respect to chickens over four pounds there were
29.200.000	pounds produced in 1956 and
28.200.000	in 1958, or not much change. There were 49 million pounds of fowl produced in 1958 compared with 51 million pounds in 1956.
[The Chairman.]
Production of turkeys amounted to 60 million pounds in 1956 and 86 million pounds in 1958, quite a marked increase. As a matter of fact, the over-all increase in production from 1957 to 1958 was 67 million pounds, from 279 million to 346 million.
Imports actually have declined very considerably since 1956. In 1956, 22 million pounds of poultry of all kinds were imported into the country; 12,270,000 pounds in 1957; and 12,045,000 pounds in 1958. From these figures I think it is quite evident that the decrease in the price of poultry has been due not to imports from the United States, which in amount were very small compared with total Canadian production last year-12 million pounds compared with 346 million pounds-but to the very rapid increase in the production of poultry in this country.
I might say that ever since I have been Minister of Agriculture I have been warning the poultry producers that if they continue to increase their production at the rate they have been in the past two to three years they will produce themselves into a condition of bankruptcy. Unfortunately that is what has happened to some of them during the past few months. They are producing far more poultry than the country possibly can consume because, as I think people realize, the market for poultry is strictly limited. The hon. member for Timiskaming said that most of the people he sees coming out of supermarkets are taking out poultry and not red meat but actually the situation is that while we consumed 358 million pounds of poultry all told in 1958-I think that is the figure but it is given from memory and it may be wrong -we consumed over a billion pounds of beef alone and a larger quantity of pork-I would have to check the figure-to say nothing of lamb and so on.
In other words, there is only a certain market for poultry. People will not eat poultry every day. In fact, on the basis of experience they will not eat nearly as much of it as they will beef even though beef is three times the price at the present time.
Several members, including the hon. member for Charlevoix and the hon. member for Bellechasse, brought up the matter of maple sugar. I think the member for Beauce also referred to maple sugar. We have been quite prepared to put a support price under maple sugar if the producers want it. There are two main companies, really co-operative organizations, that deal in maple products in the province of Quebec. Their officials came to see us and after a full discussion concerning a support price for maple sugar and maple syrup they came to the conclusion that they would be much better off to take advantage of the provisions of the Agricultural

Products Co-operative Marketing Act, and that is what they have done. They are using that act to finance their operations.
The member for Charlevoix and the member for Bellechasse both brought up the question of pulpwood. I regret very much the situation in which the farmers have found themselves with regard to the prices they receive for pulpwood. There is no doubt that the situation has been very unfair and wrong. I trust that the combines investigation which showed that there had been a combine on the part of some of the paper companies to buy this pulpwood at much lower prices than should have been paid for it will have the effect of improving materially the prices that the farmers will get and that there will be no more combining in order to hold prices down.
In addition, the pulpwood producers are forming a co-operative in the province of Quebec. In fact, I think it has already been formed. I believe that they will be able to bargain much more effectively through that agency and improve prices for pulpwood. The putting of pulpwood under price support is not a very practical proposition. To begin with, if you did put it under price support you would in effect be giving a subsidy to the big paper companies that do not need it. That would be the situation if you paid a straight subsidy or deficiency payment and if you attempted to buy it it would be a hopeless proposition. The government could not possibly be buying five cords of pulpwood here and three cords somewhere else all over the eastern part of Canada. We would have no way to bring it to a central location and no way of looking after it. It is just not a practical proposition to attempt to do that. That is why we have not been able to go ahead with a support price for pulpwood.
I might say that so far as this co-operative is concerned we are quite willing to make available to it the resources of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act in order to assist in financing its operations.
I have made quite a number of notes on the various members' speeches but I believe that, in most cases, I have said something which would cover all the points. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont was painting a terrible picture of the misery of the farmers which I think I have effectively dispelled as a myth, so far as a lot of the farmers are concerned. In connection with that, I should like to say that in the 1951 census, I think it was, the figures showed about 38 per cent of our farmers in Canada had a cash income of less than $1,200. The farm survey which the dominion bureau of
Supply-Agriculture
statistics has just finished in western Canada, and has practically finished in other parts of Canada, will, we hope, give us accurate figures on the situation in regard to the income of farmers on the basis of the different groups and territorial locations. We will then have accurate information with which to work to put into effect a rural redevelopment or rural assistance scheme.
The point I want to make is that if you take out this 38 per cent, if that is still the figure as it was in 1951, and then you take the income of the remaining farmers, that is the farmers who have farms of sufficient size to be economic units, you will find a very different picture than the one you get by taking the total number of farmers in the census return and the total income and dividing one into the other. In other words, all the statistics relating to the average income of farmers are badly distorted because of the fact 38 per cent of these farmers had such a low cash income.
The hon. member for Jasper-Edson made particular reference to the research program and the necessity for research. We fully appreciate this fact and that is one of the reasons for the completion of the reorganization in the department, to enable us to streamline to some extent the research facilities and thus do a better job. I should like to voice my appreciation of the work that the hon. member for Jasper-Edson has done, and the interest he has taken in Johne's disease. It was, to a very large extent, due to his efforts and the information he brought to my attention, that we put a Johne's disease eradication program into effect on much the same basis as the tuberculosis and brucellosis programs. I say that without doubt the hon. member for Jasper-Edson has performed a very great service to agriculture in this regard by insisting that a Johne's disease eradication program be put into effect.
I believe these are the chief points I have to make with regard to what has been said by hon. members opposite. There is one other thing about which I should like to say something before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, and that is the misconception which appears to exist with regard to what deficiency payments are and particularly as they relate to the new hog program which I announced a short time ago. I do not know whether or not the hon. member for Assiniboia correctly understood how these deficiency payments work. At page 2133 of Hansard for March 23, 1959, just after I had announced that as soon as we could get the machinery devised we would support hog prices by a system of

Supply-A griculture
deficiency payments instead of by purchase, the hon. member said:
Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to hog prices is most disappointing.
He went on to give quite a blast about this. Here, I have a few clippings from the newspapers which relate to this program. Here is one from the Moose Jaw Times-Herald which says, "Gleave Happy About Change". He is the president of the farmers' union of Saskatchewan. The report goes on to say that he commends the government for putting this program into effect. Here is another one from the Star-Phoenix which says, "Deficiency Payments for Hogs Good Step". The article is written by Professor Van Vliet, the head of the department of farm management at the University of Saskatchewan. Here is one from the Star-Phoenix of March 24 which says, "SFU Lauds Hog Price Decision". This shows how much the hon. member for Assini-boia appreciated what was being done.


Mr.   Mc@: Perhaps the announcement was not very clear.


Hazen Robert Argue: It was a grave mistake. I wonder if I might ask the minister a question? Has he seen the comment of J. H. Wesson on this question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I saw the comment made by Mr. Wesson and he is labouring under the same lack of knowledge as to just what deficiency payments are and just what they do as some other hon. members seem to be, as well as two or three editorial writers whom I shall mention.
At page 2133 of Hansard again the Leader of the Opposition said with reference to this program:
They have now taken steps, in their wisdom, to correct that situation by introducing a new principle in respect of this product, that of deficiency payments. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, we on this side get some satisfaction out of the fact that the government has adopted the policy put forward in our national convention resolution, where we advocated deficiency payments when required.
The Leader of the Opposition is under the delusion that this is a new policy, and it is not a policy at all. Deficiency payments are one method, they are not a policy, of maintaining floor prices; that is what deficiency payments are. The so-called deficiency payments for which the western farmers asked are not deficiency payments, they are retroactive flat payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: To maintain a floor.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But they are not, properly speaking, deficiency payments. One of the

reasons I refer to this is because people continually refer to these as deficiency payments and because there is confusion as to how they work.


Hazen Robert Argue: Only on the government side of the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I say, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about this as though it were a new policy. I should like to point out that so far as we are concerned we have been using deficiency payments practically ever since we have been in power. We have been using deficiency payments to support the price of wool. We have just completed the sending out of the cheques to take care of a deficiency payment of 28 cents a pound on all the wool purchased in this country. We have been using deficiency payments to support the price of soybeans and, last year, to support the price of peaches. We will use them, if necessary, to support the price of Ontario wheat. In other words, deficiency payments are not a new thing, as the Leader of the Opposition seemed to think. We have been using them ever since we have been carrying on a support price program.
I should like to make it clear that deficiency payments, properly speaking, are one method only, just a method, of maintaining a predetermined floor price. When the stabilization act was under discussion I went over this time after time and I thought I made the thing very clear. I said there were three general methods, and they are provided for in the act, by which support prices for agricultural commodities could be provided. One method is by purchase, one by deficiency payments, and the third is flat payments, or any other method of that kind, which may be determined. We used these flat payments for British Columbia tomatoes last year.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Might I be permitted to
ask the hon. minister a question at this point in his remarks? In referring to the statement of the Leader of the Opposition which he has just quoted from page 2133 of Hansard, does he not attach any importance to the words "in respect of this product"?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The only importance I
attach to that is that the Leader of the Opposition is making it clear he is referring to hogs.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; he is making it clear
he is referring to hogs.


George James McIlraith: But what is the principle
in relation to hogs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I read indicates the
fact that he did not understand what deficiency payments are.


George James McIlraith: I think it proves the
opposite.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And he did not understand
that we had used them for the last year and a half quite freely.


George James McIlraith: In respect to hogs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I might say that this misconception is shared by quite a number of editorial writers. There is an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen for April 6 talking about the floor on hogs, and so forth, and it says, amongst other things:
Under a support price, farmers know in advance the minimum return they can expect and can plan their program accordingly. If the floors are attractive, they become a powerful incentive to production. Under the deficiency payments scheme they don't know where they stand until after the product has been marketed-
Well, this is completely incorrect as regards deficiency payment for hogs. We have announced a definite floor price and we are going to use the method of deficiency payments to maintain that price rather than the method of purchase. As I said, the writer of this editorial just does not understand the situation and what is meant by a deficiency payment, as properly used in this sense.
We have the same thing in the Financial Post of April 4, 1959. In an editorial dealing with the change in the method of supporting the price of hogs, the writer complains bitterly over the Minister of Agriculture practising discrimination and cutting out the big farmer and integrated operator, thus making them first and second class farmers. But it is clear that the situation is not understood. The article ends up by saying:
Surplus pork stocks in storage, already nearly 200 per cent higher than a year ago, are bound to increase and so will the marketing headache for the government.
The whole idea of this change in operation is that the government will not buy pork, and will not therefore have any marketing headaches. The marketing will be in the hands of the normal trade, where I presume the editor of the Financial Post would like to see it, because they are always saying that the free play of the market should determine the price. That is what the situation will be when the new plan goes into effect. We will not be doing any marketing of pork at all We will pay the farmer the difference between what he gets in the market place and the price support announced.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the Minister of Agriculture permit a question to clarify the policy of the government? Has the department yet decided the number of hogs per farm on which a deficiency payment could be made?
Supply-Agriculture
In other words, what will be the ceiling in a year, or whatever the period might be?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. As I said when I made this announcement, I anticipated it would take a few months for us to gather the data necessary to make the determination in regard to that matter and also to be able to devise a system which would be effective in bringing about the result which we have in mind.


Hazen Robert Argue: The ceiling is very important.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must apologize to members of the committee for having taken so much of their time. My excuse is that after some four days of comments by other members there has really been quite a lot to reply to.


Mr. Milligan:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of making a few remarks in connection with agriculture and to express my thoughts as a farmer myself. What I have to say today will be in connection with agriculture as I see the problem facing us right across Canada. I do not think we can divide agricultural problems between east and west or any other way, because I feel that anything which is done for anyone in western Canada, in the maritimes or in Ontario assists everyone connected with agriculture. I think we all realize today that farming always has been a low income, high cost, high risk industry. I think the Minister of Agriculture has a very difficult task particularly at this time, because he has accepted the position as Minister of Agriculture at a period when agricultural incomes are at a relatively low level.
I am certainly very proud to hear the minister say that 1958 was the highest income year for agriculture since 1953. I feel that it is due to the efforts he has put forth in that connection. I do not want to leave any misinterpretation in hon. members' minds or lead anybody to think that agriculture has no problems and we are really in a very prosperous position in saying that 1958 was a very high income year. But it certainly is an indication of the efforts of the minister and the government and shows us what they are trying to do to bring agriculture back into its proper position as compared with other industries. It is going to take a number of years to do this.
We have had a lot of criticism from other groups, particularly the consumer groups, who do not realize the position agriculture is in and feel that we are increasing the cost of living. Those engaged in industry realize the picture of the manufacturing industry, which is producing through 500,000 manufacturing plants without any control over them as to their output related to the ability of the market to absorb, and I think urban

Supply-Agriculture
people should better realize the position that the farmer, the minister and the government are in in order to stabilize this particular industry. Some time ago I made a few remarks at a meeting within my own constituency, and I mentioned the position that agriculture was in. I gave some credit to the support price program we had and the stabilization bill, and in the very next issue of our home paper I was very strongly criticized for the remarks I had made, particularly with regard to the stabilization program. The editorial went on to say:
The prices of agricultural products, like the prices of any other products, should be based on the consumers' needs-
Then it added:
Thus taxpayers get it coming and going. They pay for the cost of price stabilization programs and then they have to pay artificially-inflated prices for the foods they need and which are being produced in over-abundance.
That is the kind of misconception you can find in the press of those people not connected with agriculture. Therefore I hope we can in some way point out to other people that we have a terrific problem.
I wonder if we could just consider the position of agriculture at the present time and the trend we are facing. In the long term, the prospects for agriculture appear to be very good due to the fact that the domestic demand for food is increasing from year to year because of the increase in population. That is all to the good. A second encouraging factor is the high general level of consumer purchasing power which promises to continue for a long while. I should like in this connection to refer to an editorial which appeared in one of the newspapers some time ago. In connection with the purchasing power of the consumer's dollar, that article said that in 1929 an hour's take-home pay of a factory worker would buy five and a half loaves of bread, or three and a half quarts of milk. Today, one hour's pay will buy ten loaves of bread, or seven and a half quarts of milk. This is true in respect of almost all our foods-an hour's work does buy twice as much food as it did a generation ago.
A second point I should like to make is that we have been very fortunate in experiencing such a strong demand for some farm products from the United States, notably for beef. We are very pleased to have had a good export market for beef cattle in the United States on account of some shortages experienced south of the border, and this has placed the beef cattle section of the industry in a prosperous position. The same is true with regard to hogs, due to the splendid quality of the hogs we

are producing in this country. Then, again, there are the 22 products which have been placed under the support program, and this has certainly improved the stability of the prices of those particular products. In addition, there has been an expansion of the home market on account of the controls that have been placed by this government on the imports of certain food products which had been coming in from other countries. I think that everyone engaged in farming and in agriculture appreciates the action which the government has taken in this direction.
Now let us take a look at what we are up against, and the trend of agriculture in general. I think we must realize that the grain economy of western Canada is in an unsatisfactory position and that the purchasing power of the western farmer is unduly depressed. It seems to me that grain is a basic and major factor in the whole Canadian agricultural economy, and that the prospects for agricuture generally cannot be good unless measures are taken to provide for a substantial improvement in the income and status of the grain growers in western Canada. Otherwise, the western grain grower will be forced to diversify his production by raising livestock and so on, and we will find ourselves in more serious trouble than we are at the present time. However, I think that in years to come there will be room for increased livestock production in western Canada without the risk of flooding our markets.
I want to say a word about the western delegation that came down to Ottawa recently. I was very happy to be a farmer when I saw that delegation come into the city. Much criticism has been expressed about farmers marching to Ottawa, but I feel that farmers should be in the same position as any other group and that if they wish to come to governments and present a case they have every right to do so. I am sure that the western growers, regardless of any decision the minister might make, will accept that decision gracefully; just as gracefully as they came to Ottawa and presented their brief.
There seems to be some difference of opinion among a number of hon. members regarding the type of support which should be given to western grain growers, and there has been some opposition to deficiency payments. I, myself, do not think the western farmer is much concerned how the price of grain is brought up to a level which will enable him to meet his cost of production as long as he gets some kind of support. It is my impression that acreage payments were well received last year. The fact that they were considered insufficiently large was one of the

reasons why they came to Ottawa and asked for deficiency payments. I am sure that some method other than deficiency payments would be well received.
We are faced, in the agricultural industry, with some surpluses. If we obtain our floor prices and incentive prices we are certainly faced with a prospect of an accumulation of stocks which would result in the lowering of the general price level and, in consequence, the lowering of price support. I think the time has come when we must do some serious thinking along these lines, because the lowering of the prices of some of these farm products will lead to inability to control production. A farmer's expenses are set. He is bound to meet his expenses, and if he cannot meet them by producing on a farm stocked with ten cows and 50 hogs, say, he is certainly going to buy more livestock and increase his production in order to increase his income to enable him to cover his cost of production.
I should like to say a word about the announcement made by the minister in connection with the floor price on hogs. I think his statement was very sound and I was very glad to hear him say that he intended to have a study made of deficiency payments to bona fide producers.
One of the facts we must face today is the increase of vertical integration and contract feeding. Unless something is done to control this trend a great many farmers will be put out of business, especially the small farmers, those who own a family farm of 200 or 250 acres. I think this kind of competition is most unfair, because there are a great many feed dealers and feed companies which are now feeding hogs and which are able to obtain their grain and concentrates at wholesale prices. I say this is most unfair competition, because the difference between the wholesale price and the price which the farmer has to pay for his feed provides enough profit in itself for anyone engaged in agriculture.
Some people have tried to tell us that agriculture is in a very prosperous condition, but a good indication of the trend is the fact that so many people are leaving the farms and moving into industry. During the past 10 years between 1948 and 1958 the farm labour force dropped from 1,227,000 to 774,000, a decline of 37 per cent. It may be that some of this decline is due to mechanization and to the inability of agriculture to match the wage levels offered by industry.
There has been a lot of criticism about the inefficiency of farmers, but I think that has been merely an excuse by those far away from agriculture who want to imply that the industry can improve its own position. I do not think that any industry has improved its
Supply-Agriculture
efficiency so greatly or has made so many changes in the last ten years as has agriculture. We are probably still lagging behind as compared with some branches of industry, but to my way of thinking agriculture has now become a very efficient undertaking.
As far as farm units are concerned, I think we have lost as many as we should lose at the present time. Certainly, there were some units which were too small to be efficient. Today, however, the people who worked on those units might be better off than those engaged in farming some of the medium-sized units, because they, at least, have been able to get jobs in industry and still have their families running the farms.
I noticed in the newspapers sometime ago an account of some remarks made by Professor Donnelly in connection with the farmers marching on Ottawa. He is reported as having said that they might better do more thinking than marching.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member have reference to Professor S. Donnelly of Manitoba?


Clarence Adam Milligan: Yes. I do not think there is a group in this country that does more serious thinking before making demands than the group engaged in agriculture. It has been my experience in connection with farm organizations over the years that in their thinking every consideration was given to the consumer, the effect of their requests on industry and other sectors of the economy before any request was stated or any action taken to improve the condition of agriculture. If other groups would give the same kind of consideration before making their demands our economy would be in a much different position today. Perhaps the farmers have gone too far in taking into consideration the position of other people before seeking to improve their own lot.
Recently an increase in the price of wheat was announced. A few days later it was announced that the price of bread would be increased by 1 cent. That is a good indication of what happens in industry when the costs of production go up. Although the costs of production of those engaged in agriculture have been increasing over the years the farmers are ridiculed and told that they must be more efficient in order to produce at the same level as before. The following comment was taken from the Co-Operative News, issue No. 5:
If Canadian farmers gave their wheat away free of charge, a loaf of bread that normally sells for about 19 cents would still cost 15.6 cents. A breakdown on the cost of a loaf of bread in Canada shows the farmer got 3.2 cents, the miller, .6 cents, baker and wholesaler 10.5 cents, retailer 3.1 cents, and others 1.4 cents.

Supply-Agriculture
There are many parts of the agricultural industry in need of support and assistance. I was happy to hear the Minister of Finance announce last night that some consideration would be given to protection for the fruit and vegetable industry which certainly needs protection. In my own riding seven canning factories have closed their doors in the last two years. This has meant that the people in the area have had to go into some other line of production. These factories did not close down because of inefficient operation or because there were too many canning factories. They were closed because of the importation of products from abroad that can be sold in Canada at prices cheaper than those for which they can be produced in this country. This occurred in various parts of Ontario and caused a serious problem in many areas. We heartily welcomed the announcement that some consideration would be given to this matter.
The dairy farmers are facing problems as well. They have experienced some surpluses but I believe the surplus position in the dairy industry is only about two per cent which is not alarming in my opinion and it will probably right itself. I believe the dairy people themselves should give further study and thought to their position. They should work toward a pooling program through which they could assist themselves to a greater extent than has been the case to date. I have been talking about this in farm organizations for the past ten years and my ideas have received the support of many people. If we had a pooling of all our dairy products at this time there would be no problem in the industry. The dairy farmers could produce for a market capable of absorbing the produce.
I do not think that any farmer in Canada today wants assistance from any government. What the farmer wants is an opportunity to compete and place himself in the same position as those engaged in other industries in our economy. We have heard much criticism of the subsidies given to agriculture. I would point out that industry has been protected through protective tariffs for years. I endorse that because I feel that if industries did not have some protection many plants would close down because of competition from other countries. Our standard of living is such that we cannot effectively compete with countries that have a considerably lower standard. I do not think anyone in Canada would wish to see our standard lowered. Those engaged in agriculture are deserving of the same opportunities and protection given to other segments of our economy.

We should be very concerned about the family farm. To my way of thinking it is one of the most important aspects of our rural communities. A United States congressman, Clifford Hope, was recently reported in the press as saying:
The strength of our rural communities will always depend upon the strength of our farm families. Thus all of our efforts, government or private, should be directed toward building up the family-type of farm. I believe that the strength of this country rests more than any other place on the economic, moral and spiritual condition of the people on our farms. If this is true, it imposes a tremendous responsibility on all of us.
I agree that each of us, regardless of where we sit in this house and regardless of the position we hold, must acknowledge that agriculture has its rightful place in the economy of this country and accept the responsibilities attendant on this knowledge.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I
was very pleased that the Minister of Agriculture today was followed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox. It provided an excellent contrast. I enjoyed hearing the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox who both in this house and in the committee on agriculture and colonization has demonstrated on many occasions his complete and comprehensive knowledge of farm problems, particularly as they apply in the province of Ontario. It was gratifying to note that some of the opinions expressed by the Minister of Agriculture were not fully shared by all hon. members on the government side of the house.
The picture painted by the minister and by certain other spokesmen on the government side gives cause for considerable concern. Within the period of the last two months various delegations representing farm organizations have visited Ottawa including the interprovincial farm union council, the federation of agriculture, the Ontario farmers union, representatives of the milk producers, and others. Most of the briefs they have presented have been well documented and certainly they tended to depict a situation somewhat different from that depicted today by the minister. Invariably these briefs were supported by an impressive array of statistics and figures and were presented by extremely capable men. The farm unions have been most fortunate over the years in being able to develop leaders who can present their cases with great clarity and sincerity.
If we were to believe what the minister said today in describing the position of agriculture we could only assume that the presentations made by the various organizations to which I have referred were deliberate attempts to mislead all hon. members of this house. There is no other assumption

that we can draw if we are to believe the minister, and various speakers backed up his arguments. If we are to believe one we must disbelieve the other.
Another thing that seems very strange, Mr. Chairman-and again the minister produced some material to back it up-is the letters that the western members have been receiving from people in their constituencies. I have spoken to numerous Conservative members from western Canada and they have said approximately the same thing as the minister said today, namely the letters which they have received from their constituents against this idea of deficiency payments have outnumbered the ones in favour by anywhere from four to one which the minister used today, to as high as 10 to one, which was mentioned by one hon. member.
When the delegation was down from western Canada many of its members stopped by my office, introduced themselves, discussed the problems and answered questions and so forth. To numerous members of the delegation I put this very question, how can a delegation have such unanimous support apparently across the three provinces and yet the letters which have been received by the members of parliament from those provinces have run as high as 10 to one against the very thing that the delegation is down here to support? They were quite concerned about that and some of them raised something to which some credence could be given. Some of them suspected that there was an active organization busy to ensure that western members would receive letters along those lines. I do not know whether that is so or not, but it is certainly the only solution we can offer to this apparently insoluble problem, where we have almost a complete slate of government members from western Canada saying one thing and a well conducted delegation of 1,100 western farmers saying something different altogether. They said they possibly had neglected their own duties and had not kept their own members properly informed.
With reference to the remarks made by the minister when he rightly pointed out to the members of the official opposition that of the three years deficiency payments for which it is suggested that the farmers should receive some consideration, two of them belong completely to the former Liberal government. That may be quite true, but like the Stanley Cup hockey game which we watched last night, the score may be two to one for the Liberals now but it may be tied up very shortly because time is passing very swiftly and if nothing more is done, and apparently nothing more is contemplated than has been
Supply-Agriculture
done in the past, the score will soon be tied at two-two and this government will have two more years in office and the score may be four to two before there is any hope of anything being done about this matter. I would suggest that the government forget about those two years which belong to the former Liberal government. If they do not want to take any responsibility for them, surely they should be able to take the responsibility for the one year for which they are responsible in regard to this problem.
This whole thing, Mr. Chairman, points to only one conclusion, namely the very severe state of confusion which is so apparent both in this house and in the minds of the Canadian people as to just what is the situation in the agriculture industry today. There are possibly many reasons for this confusion. Certainly, one of the most important factors leading to the confusion is the sad discrepancy between the performance of this government and its promises which were made during the last two election campaigns. Another thing which is almost equally bad has already been mentioned, namely the differences in the remarks made by members particularly from the prairie provinces and the farm delegations from those same areas. But there is possibly another reason for this confusion and it may be contained within the minister himself. It may be explained possibly by a little story which has been making the rounds of the various Legion halls in this country in the last while. This goes back to the early days of the last war, at which time the minister was the commanding officer of an artillery unit, according to the story, down in the famous potato-growing province of New Brunswick. This was about the time when the very popular and patriotic thing to do in this country was for everybody to "grow for Britain." The units of the army were encouraged to set a good example to the public and this particular battery of artillery undertook to do so.
Now, sir, the people of New Brunswick, of all people in Canada, should know how to grow potatoes; but apparently that was not good enough for the commanding officer. He insisted on the potatoes being planted western style. Unfortunately, it turned out that they were not planted; they were buried. Through the process of evolution that commanding officer is now our Minister of Agriculture. It is to be hoped, Mr. Chairman, that when the new secretaries are appointed the first one will be a good potato grower from New Brunswick so that we can get that particular aspect of agriculture straightened out. Then, we might suggest that he be rotated with experts in other fields.

Supply-Agriculture
One thing that has bothered me quite considerably about some of the remarks made in regard to the delegation from the west is that there has been a tendency to make attacks on the person of the head of the wheat pool, Mr. Wesson; in fact, attacks on the wheat pool itself. The inference is that through the efforts of Mr. Wesson and the wheat pool as a whole something has been put over the western farmers and they have been enticed into doing something which was very foolish, and so forth and so on.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Do you really believe that?


Murdo William Martin: Do I believe that? Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to know just what to believe, owing to the welter of evidence which has been produced on both sides of this particular argument. But the important point, Mr. Chairman, is the inherent danger in this particular aspect of the problem. It smacks entirely too much of the attack we have seen on labour throughout this country in the last few years. An attempt has been made to make the Canadian people believe that every union leader is a Hoffa. It is always by implication, it is always about somebody else but it is always the same thing. I am a bit concerned that we are seeing slight elements of the same type of campaign with regard to the wheat pool and its leader, Mr. Wesson. What we should remember is that 1,100 very able western delegates came to Ottawa, many of whom proved on different occasions that they were very capable speakers, and they chose Mr. Wesson as their spokesman. Consequently we can only asume that he had their confidence.
There is only one other matter with which I should like to deal today in my few remarks at this stage and that is the figure of 24 per cent increase in net earnings mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture. I do not think he did it intentionally but the minister threw out this 24 per cent figure at the same time as he was giving some statistics. The 24 per cent certainly was not a statistic. I think "guesstimate" is a much better way to describe it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member wants to make an incorrect statement. This statistic is a statistic and I gave the source of it. It was put out by the dominion bureau of statistics only a few days ago. I also gave the same statistic for last year as contained in the same document. It is a D.B.S. figure.


Murdo William Martin: In any event, Mr. Chairman, before we can swallow the 24 per


cent completely I think it should be related a little more clearly to just what the situation is in the farming industry in Ontario. Various speakers who have dealt with farm problems have pointed out how big a factor vertical integration is coming to be in the province of Ontario and in other provinces as well, particularly with regard to the broiler industry, the poultry industry, and it is also spreading into other sectors of the economy. There was one thing I did not notice at the time and possibly I should have asked a question then. Does the 24 per cent apply to the farmers' net income or to the net income of the industry as a whole?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Net income of farm operators.


Murdo William Martin: I would assume that the category, "farm operator" would also include some of the large corporations which have gone into the contract farming business. Before we can get a clear picture, before we can assume that the farmers did indeed improve their position as much last year as the minister seemed to indicate, I think we have to have a breakdown of the 24 per cent, if that is the exact figure, to see how much actually accrued to farmers and how much accrued to corporations which have gone into the farming business.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The exact figure is 23.8.


Murdo William Martin: Twenty-four is a good, approximate figure to use. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox and other members as well dealt with the situation of the family farm. I think family farms go a little deeper than the name suggests. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it has been a way of life in this country, and if we are to believe the briefs presented by various farm organizations there is very little time left for the government to decide whether or not that way of life is worth preserving. If less time were spent in trying to blame whatever problems respecting agriculture facing the government on the previous administration and more time and honest effort were spent in trying to face up to the present problems and do something about them, the government might be worthy of the confidence placed in it in March of last year.


Mr. Campbell (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to have this opportunity to rise and speak on a number of problems which I am very pleased to say are not problems of surplus production. I have listened with great concern at a number of meetings held in this city recently in connection with the problems of agriculture and most of the problems have centered around the surplus production of various things. Suggestions have been made at these meetings as

to what would be the best cure for these problems. Most of the suggestions had to do with the cutting of prices and it was also felt that surpluses should be curtailed to some extent at least in order to remedy the situation.
I should like to emphasize particularly that where there is a possibility that the government may want to curtail the prices of certain commodities I feel that the government should consider increasing the prices of other commodities that are not in surplus production as a means of balancing and offering some special incentive to the farmers to curtail the production of those things that are in surplus and go into the production of things that are not in surplus and be compensated fairly for the change. I believe that is necessary in order to keep the farm economy in fair balance and also to provide incentives, as I have suggested, for the farmers to change to the production of other things.
In this connection I appreciate very much the privilege of being able to take advantage of the opportunity at this stage in the discussion of these estimates to speak on a matter that I have brought to the attention of the house on a number of other occasions. I refer particularly to the production of corn, soya beans and sugar beets because these products are needed and are not in surplus production. In my opinion, indirectly it will be to the advantage of a number of other phases of agriculture to give consideration to these crops even though the whole of the country is not directly concerned with their production because if more land is devoted to the production of things that are needed it will take land out of the production of other things that are not needed. In that way all parts of the country will benefit indirectly, if not directly.
I should like to review for a few moments the benefit from the progress that has been made in the last year and also to try to point out where it would be to the mutual interest of other branches of agriculture to lend support to this idea. In speaking on this matter when the stabilization act was passed in this house I did state that I did not expect it to cure all the ills of agriculture. I also stated that I felt it would require men with sympathetic understanding and sound judgment, as well as a sense of fairness, in the administration of the act in order to make it succeed. The act has been in operation for some time now and I feel that much good has come out of it, as revealed by the report the minister recently made to this house on farm income.
Supply-Agriculture
I have here a press report of comments made recently by the minister and it is headed, "Grow What Public Wants, Harkness Warns". It reads:
Hon. Douglas Harkness, federal agriculture minister, speaking in the commons, points out: First, the need of development of new outlets; second, a warning to farmers to tailor their production to meet Canadian and known export requirements.
I feel that that comment has some merit. I find myself in a position where I must agree that it is only fair to encourage the production of things that are needed, and if this means the curtailment of things that are not needed then encouragement should be given to the things that are needed to compensate the farmer for the drop in the price of the things that are curtailed.
I should like to deal specifically for a few moments with the matter of the production of corn. In this connection, I should like to read an extract from a letter from Mr. Thomas Green, secretary of the commercial corn growers. In part it says:
Since corn is a commodity that is in deficiency production in Canada, in order to fill our domestic requirements, we must import from the United States around twelve million bushels. There is no reason why, with a little help from the government, that the price of corn could not be more favourable to the Ontario corn grower.
It is true that the corn growers are not organized. It is true also that there is an effort being made to organize them so that they will be in a position to present a more comprehensive report of their activities and, as has been suggested earlier by the minister, put themselves in a position where they can produce a more uniform product from the standpoint of moisture, grade and so on. However, I do hope the government will encourage them, not only to get themselves into that position but also to assist them in bringing their product to the point where it will supply the needs of the country.
I should like to say a few words especially on the production of soybeans. I have in my hand a copy of a news article concerning a meeting which was held in Chatham, Ontario, and at which Mr. K. A. Standing, secretary of the Ontario soybean producers' marketing board told the farmers that soybean oil and meal consumption in Canada was twice the production of these by-products. The article states:
Mr. Standing said that the soybean industry in Canada can handle double the amount now produced.
The soybean industry in Canada is confined mostly to the province of Ontario because of the closeness of markets for their by-products and also their source of supply.
Beans produced in the United States come into Canada on a duty-free basis causing considerable competition with Canadian soybean by-products.

Supply-Agriculture
I should like to quote from another article which appeared in the press. This says:
Fears that western Ontario soybean growers may switch to corn and other cash crops unless deficiency payments on beans are raised were expressed at the annual meeting of the Lambton county soybean growers' association here today.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from an address by the Minister of Agriculture in which he says:
I believe there has to be a much more general realization on the part of consumers generally, and that of city dwellers particularly, that the farmer is entitled to increased returns to the same extent as workers in other industries. At the present time an hour's labour secures more food than, I believe, at any other time in our history, and several times as much as an hour's labour in most other countries. Unfortunately this comparatively low cost of food has been, to some extent at least, at the expense of the Canadian farmer.
I should like to say a few words also in support of the suggestion that the government should continue, and if possible increase, the encouragement that has been given to the production of sugar beets. I believe sugar beet production was raised last year as a result of this encouragement. I may not be exactly correct in this, but I believe that in 1957 there were some 14,000-odd acres grown in southwestern Ontario, and as a result of the encouragement given that acreage was raised to over 30,000. I believe that it is quite possible that the acreage could be raised to over 40,000 acres. In fact, I believe the sugar companies are willing and are out now negotiating contracts in the hope that they will get 40,000 acres. I believe the incentive that was given by the action of the government in guaranteeing $13 a ton for sugar beets had a very beneficial effect, not only in connection with the production of sugar beets but also in helping to relieve the overproduction of other things which would have been grown had that acreage not gone into the production of sugar beets. I do feel, therefore, that the government can take some credit for what they did in that connection.
I should like at this time to refer to a statement I made, and which is recorded on page 959 of Hansard for November 11, 1957. It reads:
I should like to say a few words in connection with soybeans. I understand there is a tariff or duty of $1.20 per bushel against Canadian soybeans entering the United States while United States soybeans enter Canada duty free. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian regulations were balanced so as to provide the same protection for the Canadian producer as has been maintained for the United States producer it would change the position of the soybean producers of this country from that of a poorly paid business to one which would pay well. At the same time it would encourage the production of more soybeans which the figures show are needed in Canada.
[Mr. Campbell (Lambton-Kent) .1
At the same time I feel quite sure this would draw land out of the production of other things which it would seem are being overproduced at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, my opinion is still the same on that matter. To sum up, may I suggest that I feel it is not only possible but desirable to give encouragement by way of price supports to these things, namely corn, soybeans and sugar beets. If we do this it will tend to bring about a change on the part of those farmers who are producing other things in excess of the needs of the people of this country. I believe that the sugar beet growers of western Ontario, if given a bit more support, would increase their acreage by 10,000 acres. This would be of mutual benefit to both producers and manufacturers, yet would come far short of supplying the Canadian need for sugar. I also believe that if sufficient protection and remuneration were assured the producers of soybeans, a probable
200.000	acres would be required to produce sufficient of this crop to fill our domestic need. In addition I believe that if sufficient protection and remuneration were provided for the corn producers to encourage them to produce the requirements of our country for corn, as outlined by Mr. Green, the secretary of the commercial corn growers in the letter I have just read, another possible
200.000	acres could be devoted to the production of corn.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you will readily recognize the effect that this would have by diverting approximately 410,000 acres of the highest producing land we have in southwestern Ontario from the production of cattle, grain, hogs, poultry and other things which are now in direct competition with other farmers in other parts of Canada. The effect this would have on those other parts I am sure you will agree would be beneficial. I suggest that if this land were producing other things which are admittedly needed in Canada, it would benefit by many millions of dollars those other parts of Canada that are apparently producing in excess of the people's needs.
For the reasons I have outlined I would request the government, and the minister in particular, to give the most sympathetic consideration to these proposals: First, that corn be declared a designated product under the stabilization act and made eligible for price support; second, that corn, soybeans and sugar beets be given a continuing assurance of help such as would encourage and justify things which are in surplus to our needs, and tend to bring the production of these three crops up to the place where they will fill the needs of the people. This policy, I suggest, would be of mutual benefit to many

branches of agriculture, and whatever contribution, if any, was made by the people as a whole would be for something for which there was a proven need.


Mr. Best:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk briefly today on these agricultural estimates about the subject of hogs. This is, and has been, a traditional industry in Canada and of great importance, as all hon. members know. It is one which today, to my mind, is in a state of considerable flux, and there are many problems and many directions in which it is possible to travel, and we are seeking solutions. I might say that the figures for the industry as a whole have indicated in past years, in 1958 for example, that this is a very significant proportion of our total agricultural industry, and it has of course, particularly in past years, played an important part in our agricultural export market.
The matters which I want to bring up today specifically are those which have been brought to my attention by various associations and individuals across Canada. First, they involve the government premium system as it now exists and the possibility, and indeed the strong desire of many people, that a greater differentiation should be made between the A and B-l grades of hogs. In addition, as a hog producer I realize that our record of performance or advanced registry stations are to a certain extent crowded in Canada. My own specific knowledge concerns mainly the one at Waterloo, Ontario, which has experienced very severe crowding, particularly in the last few years. Third, I would like to emphasize the point that our traditional British markets may be beckoning again, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and his department are examining this possibility with considerable interest. It may fall as well, partially at least, to the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and possibly the Department of Finance with regard to currency problems, but it is a very enticing market at certain times, depending of course on price and quantity conditions in Canada.
Fourth, I am interested, as are all hon. members, in the government support policy with regard to hogs. I must say that the minister's comments and proposals this afternoon were helpful. As a matter of fact, on March 23 the minister said in this house that the support price of hogs would be lowered, and that there would be a different method of approach toward government assistance to hog farmers. I had some worries about these matters, not with regard to lowered floor, but with regard to quotas and deficiency payments, as possibly also did
Supply-Agriculture
other hon. members, and I feel the explanation which was given this afternoon has assisted us to a very considerable extent.
I would like to go back and talk briefly about the importance of this industry. One can examine various tables of figures and look, for instance, at the current review of agricultural conditions in Canada for January, 1959, and examine the hog population and markets as they existed in 1957 and 1958. One sees that the population of hogs on farms as of June 1, 1957 was 4,857,000, and one year later it was 6,164,000. This total increase percentage-wise for the whole of Canada was some 26.9 per cent, a very considerable figure and one which has brought us some problems which, though I do not think they are drastic, are unfortunate problems which we are facing today.
It might be said, Mr. Chairman, that one of the saving graces at this time and during 1958 was the domestic consumption of pork and pork products. This was, I believe, at a record high for that year. The estimated figure which I have for the moment for 1958 was 750 million pounds, and for 1957 the figure was 85 million pounds less, or 665 million pounds. So we did have high domestic consumption in 1958 of pork and pork products, which was perhaps, comparatively speaking, made possible by the high prices paid to farmers for beef, and the large export beef market. In addition we had a near record year, I think it might be said, for exports of bacon, ham and pork to the United States.
The figure for exports to the United States of Canadian bacon and ham in 1958 was 4.5 million pounds to a total value of very nearly $4.5 million, and Canadian pork exports for 1958 were at a record high level to a value of over $20 million, the largest proportion of which went to the United States. So that while we had a vast increase in hog population and production in Canada, the domestic consumption, combined with a large volume of exports, helped us very considerably.
The value of this industry is difficult to estimate and I have no exact figures on it, but one would gauge it each year at several hundreds of millions of dollars when we are talking in terms of an output figure of some six million pigs per year. Thus, we are dealing here with an industry of considerable importance. We all know-and this is familiar to those who have travelled in the United States- that Canada's reputation in the hog business is high. We have been famed for many years as a producer of quality hog products and it is this quality which I wish to emphasize today, because it is something which I feel to be of considerable importance.

Supply-Agriculture
We must ask ourselves how we can maintain and even increase the quality of our production in the face of possible future competition and, probably, of improved quality standards in the United States.
Hog improvement in Canada has taken place particularly over the last 40 years. After the first world war we began to lose to a considerable extent the traditional British market which had been built up by Canada over a number of years. We can go back and look at the figures since confederation and see that in the year 1900, for instance, we exported some 134 million pounds of bacon and ham to the United Kingdom-a very significant figure. And we can go from the period of the first world war when these exports were at a very high level most of the time-in two years they ran to over 200 million pounds-to the 1920's when the figure was declining largely due to increased competition from the Danish market and because of the efficiency and quality standards and closeness of control that Danish producers were putting into effect at that time. This, incidentally, is a position we still face, since the standards of the industry in Denmark, possibly by means or methods of control which we would not advocate in Canada, have inevitably resulted in a product which is uniform and which has a very high efficiency in arriving at market state. The average feed efficiency for Denmark has been quoted at a figure below three pounds of ration to a pound of gain, a figure which is most extraordinary. This has been brought about by constant selection and improvement of the Landrace breed of pig, which is most largely used in that country.
After the first world war we were dealing in Canada with hogs of a variety of types, some of which yielded good bacon or meat, but most of which were of the fat or lardy type, and these were not generally wanted by our export markets although there was, of course, a large domestic consumption. The hogs were bought and sold on a fiat basis, regardless of quality, so the incentive to the farmer for supplying the consumer, either here or abroad, with a quality product did not exist. It was in these circumstances that in 1921 a conference of producers, packers, officials of the government and others interested was held in Ottawa, and in 1922 the grading of live hogs was initiated by the Department of Agriculture.
In 1927, the packers undertook to make all hog purchases on a grade basis, paying premiums for top quality hogs, a significant step along the road to uniformity and an incentive to producing a quality product in this country. In 1928, live hog grading was

made compulsory in Ontario, followed in the early thirties by other provinces, and so the movement grew across Canada. In 1934 provision was made for optional carcass grading and we were coming then, to a period of gradual transition from the grading of hogs on a live weight basis to optional grading on a carcass basis, and by 1940 most hogs were being graded on a carcass basis, though under optional conditions. In that year, however, carcass grading was designated as the only system of government grading in Canada, though not necessarily of market purchase.
Thus we have seen a transition which is of great interest to those engaged in the industry and it has had a very significant effect on hog quality as one can see if one examines the various figures which are available. For instance, statistics provided by the Department of Agriculture show that in 1929 the original top live grade, called select live hogs, and judged on the hoof, comprised about 16 per cent of the hogs marketed; and that by 1940, the year that carcass grading was made the only system of government grading, this figure had increased to almost 28 per cent, almost twice the proportion of hogs in that category during the earlier period.
If one looks at the reverse side-the so called butcher live or fat hogs-one would see that the number fell from a figure of 35 per cent in 1929 to a figure of approximately 8 per cent in 1940, so that under this live and optional carcass grading system there was a very definite increase in the quality of hogs produced in Canada. This has to a certain extent been the situation, too, under the mandatory carcass grading system although the figures do not always appear to indicate it.
This is one of the problems which producers and government officials must ponder, namely the fact that grade A carcass figures in 1940 comprised virtually 28 per cent of the hogs marketed in that year and that this has shifted during the late forties and early fifties to somewhat over 30 per cent, though it has now gone down again to just under 30 per cent. It is a fluctuating figure. However, one can add the fact that the live weight of hogs has increased rather markedly during this period. Thus, these figures may indicate a considerably greater rate of improvement than they may show on the surface.
It is interesting to note that Canada's share of the British market came back during that period as well; a tribute to this system, I think one might say. In Great Britain, during the early thirties our exports of bacon and ham, for instance, were down in the year

1929 to 25 million pounds; remaining at this level for the next two or three years, hovering around 10 to 30 million pounds, but during the latter years of the thirties the level had gone up to well over 100 million pounds.
Of course, during the second world war we supplied a very large percentage of the British market, a significant contribution which all Canadian hog producers had the opportunity of making during that period. For instance, during 1944, Canada supplied 79 per cent of all Britain's bacon imports, and in 1943, 83 per cent. During the war years Britain's imports from Canada were running at over 50 per cent of the total virtually each season.
This was done through the method of annual agreements or contracts through the meat board of Canada and the British ministry of food. The figures during some of these years and particularly for 1943 and 1944 were very large indeed. One could examine the figures for 1944, for example, and see that our total exports of bacon and ham amounted to $148 million, virtually all of which went to the United Kingdom. I would submit that this is a very large export figure, although of course British dollar restrictions have reduced it to almost negligible proportions since 1951. Thus we have had a most interesting and active export market, one that could bear looking into again.
In addition to the grading system which changed very much our quality of hog production, we have had the system of record of performance or advanced registry as well. This system has provided incentive, knowledge, and information to hog breeders, the people with seed stock upon whom the commercial producers would depend. It has indicated how the breeders could improve their stock in the best fashion. In 1929 the advanced registry system for hogs was started on an experimental basis. In 1934 the advanced registry board recommended the setting up of central stations for testing hogs. All of this produced effects which benefited the commercial producers in terms of improving the quality of pork produced and it served in the long run to assist in maintaining some of our export markets.
I have here the figures for the record of performance or advanced registry stations across Canada as of March 31, 1959. There were some 418 pens or units in use in the seven stations, each taking four hogs at a time. On this basis there has been a considerable turnover of testing groups under this system. I will not go into the figures of turnover in detail but it may interest hon.
66968-9-165
Supply-Agriculture
members to know that in the season 1958-59 over 1,000 groups were tested in these seven stations.
In the last few years we have had a problem in Ontario. While government officials may point out that these stations are sometimes not running at full capacity, there is a definite trend toward overcrowding of these stations, particularly in Ontario. The figures I have obtained for 1956-57, for instance, indicate that in Ontario some 50 tests had to be turned down for lack of accommodation. In 1957-58, 52 tests were turned down, and in 1958-59, 70 tests were turned down. I should like to have more information on that subject. I believe this was at the last stage where breeders were turned down on these animals before they were sent to the station. It might be added that further discouragement came simply because of overcrowding and prevented a considerable number of breeders from entering their stock at the station in Waterloo, and having it tested.
The Canadian hog industry faces many definite problems, as does the advanced registry system. There is, for instance, the question of whether or not we should continue extensively testing purebred lines, or whether crossbreeding will become more widespread. To my mind, this question alone makes it essential that increased facilities be provided for record of performance and advanced registry, since pure breeds will continue to play a large part. I would suggest to the minister, and I hope he will view my request favourably, that the facilities be increased at Waterloo, or that a new station be built to accommodate the ever-increasing number of units going through each season. As advanced registry breeders in Ontario, we feel this is an important point in development, and dissemination of information for purebred hog breeders in that province.
As I mentioned before, the industry today appears to be in a considerable state of flux. This situation is brought about by many causes. One of these is the increased knowledge we have with regard to diseases and nutrition. Increased research on this subject has made it possible for much more efficient production, for greater savings in litter numbers, and greater enlargement of the whole physiological and nutritional aspects of hog production.
Production methods themselves have tended toward greater volume and efficiency. We have here what is probably an inescapable fact in that unit volume production of hogs will continue to increase. Hogs lend themselves to a pyramidal form of population growth. While one would not expect to see the same increase one finds in broilers, one

Supply-Agriculture
would detect a definite trend toward greater efficiency. This will lead to new problems but also to increased potential.
We have in Canada two main new breeds of hogs. I wish to make particular reference to the Landrace breed which has come in during the last four or five years and which is making a distinguished mark on the Canadian hog scene. I need only point out that in 1956, the first year in which the Canadian national livestock records registered this new breed, there were some 1,172 animals registered. By 1958 the number had jumped to 14,268 compared with some 21,751 for the long established Yorkshires. In other words, last year the Landrace breed registered virtually two-thirds the total of Yorkshires registered, the latter being the traditional Canadian breed. These were the figures registered with the Canadian national livestock record office.
In addition, we have the new Lacombe breed, developed at the Lacombe station in Alberta, a breed that promises to give considerable impetus to the production of purebred animals. It will have a considerable potential in high efficiency hog production, and will also be applied in the increasing trend toward cross breeding in this country. Thus, it seems to me, we face many challenges at this time. I feel we must expand our record of performance and advanced registry station facilities. This would serve as an incentive to hog producers, in the improvement of their stock.
Another incentive would come if the present one dollar premium on grade B-l hogs were removed and added to the two dollar premium on grade A hogs. I do not think we should encourage a second grade of hog. The encouragement offered to grade A production is not sufficient today even with the price differential which the packers are paying, plus the premium. It is often found that producers through different methods of production receive a greater net return by producing grade B hogs. I would suggest that the premium be raised on grade A hogs to provide a greater incentive in Canada for production of hogs of this grade.
This is important for various reasons., We have seen the increase in our United States markets and exports. From my personal knowledge and experience in the United States I am able to state that the producers in that country are making considerable progress in raising the quality of their hogs. We know their experience on the quality level is considerably below ours. As a matter of fact, I find it rather interesting to note that one of the main reference books on our Canadian system of hog production is one produced by the research division of the United States department of agriculture, published in April

of 1958. A year or so before that, they sent a commission or group to Canada to study the methods of grading, breeding and selection we had introduced into our hog business during the previous 30 years.
While United States marketings are still done on a live basis and their quality of pork products is far below ours, they are taking significant and important steps to improve their position. Progress is being made particularly in the midwest in the states of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and others. Experimental stations such as the United States department of agriculture's station at Beltsville, Maryland, are examining this matter very closely as well. Thus, to maintain and improve our markets in the United States and to be in a competitive position, I might add, in the future years as well, since imports again may come in from that country, it is of the utmost importance for us to improve the quality of our hogs.
I would add that the British markets are of great importance as well, Mr. Chairman. In addition the methods mentioned this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to government supports for hogs are probably very healthy indeed. We would be getting out of the pork buying field if we follow the suggestion that he mentioned, this coming autumn. We would be probably setting a quota system on which deficiency payments would be paid only on a certain number of hogs, and it would not control-and I think this is very important-the total number of hogs which any producer could put on the market. It would control the deficiency payments which he could receive, but not the actual number of hogs which he could produce.
This is of great importance, and it is part of the feeling which I and many producers have. While we need assistance, the more government assistance we receive beyond a certain point means that we lose our own independence and the right to do our own programming. These are some points I wanted to make and I feel they are of great importance to the Canadian hog industry.


Hazen Robert Argue: My first words are to say to the Minister of Agriculture I appreciate very much the fact that he made such a comprehensive reply this morning and this afternoon to statements that have been made in this debate today and on previous occasions. I hope I shall be pardoned if I say I think that some of his colleagues in the cabinet might take a leaf out of his book because I think it adds greatly to the type of debate we can have in parliament if we can get an adequate and a comprehensive reply from the minister responsible for the department and the items under discussion.

I am not going to attempt to quarrel with the statistics that were placed on the record last night by the Minister of Finance that there was a 24 per cent increase in net income or any other official statistics that are produced by the minister or by the departments of the government. I would think that they would have to examine those statistics most carefully before they would really dare bring them into the House of Commons as authentic statistics. I think, however, the main reason, or one of the main reasons certainly, for the change in the net income position is the general explosion of production that has taken place in the agricultural industry. The Minister of Agriculture emphasizes different points at different times. At different times he rises in his place and tells us that all is well with agriculture, or all is better with agriculture than it has been since 1951. At other times in other speeches he points out that production is very high; that unless producers are careful to refrain from further increases in production, or in fact to cut back production, the government's policy would have to be one of reducing prices or reducing support.
We have had a tremendous increase in production. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture gave us some statistics. I took them down hurriedly and they may not be entirely accurate as I have them in my hand, but as I have them he said that in 1957 the total of poultry meat produced in the country was 279 million pounds. In 1958 the production was 346 million pounds.
I have some other statistics in my hand which were taken from the Quarterly Bulletin, Agricultural Statistics, June 1. I trust the hon. member for Essex East will be satisfied that I have made an accurate reference to the statement I have in my hand, following the admonition of the Minister of Agriculture this morning when the hon. gentleman from Essex East was wading through a mass of statistics. These statistics are as follows: cattle on farms in Canada as of June 1, 1951, numbered 8,353,000 head. The year 1958 was slightly down from 1957 because of the relatively good markets; in that year they numbered just over 11 million head. The statistics for hogs show that from 1951 to 1958 there was an increase in production from 4.9 million to 6.2 million, in round figures. The production of hogs has been extensive since 1951. The increase in production of numbers on farms was from 4.9 million in 1951 to 6.2 million in 1958. This demonstrates the great expansion that has taken place in the production of certain agricultural commodities. This would suggest to me that unless the government develops a new policy, or new aspects of its policy, we 66968-9-165i
Supply-Agriculture
may be faced with such a tremendous production that under the government's policy prices will fall so low as to threaten the very existence of the agricultural industry as we know it in this country. There is reason to be alarmed when one relates the tremendous increase in production to what I believe to be the government's trend in policy.
Sometimes we may be criticized for not advancing alternatives, but I believe it is absolutely essential to the orderly marketing of agricultural products in this country at reasonable prices for a central organization of some type to have control of the buying, assembling, grading, processing and selling of those commodities. By that I do not mean that a central organization should handle all of the business, but I believe we must have some central regulatory body. I would suggest that there should be established in this country immediately a national livestock marketing board. Perhaps one might extend it to a national agricultural products marketing board.
The grain producers on the prairies are criticized from time to time because it has been said they have produced too much, or because they have asked the government for too much, but for this they cannot be criticized. They have accepted control; they have supported control. As a matter of fact, a few years ago when a vote was taken in the province of Manitoba as to whether the farmers in that province wished oats and barley to come under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the Canadian wheat board, they voted overwhelmingly in favour of this method of marketing their grain in the order of some 90 per cent. No matter who may criticize the Canadian wheat board, and there are many who do, whether they do it in the newspapers of this country, at times there is a concerted attack against orderly marketing when it comes to the agricultural producers by the great champions of monopolies in this country when it is a matter of control by big business of the means of production.
The wheat board controls in a very real sense the buying, assembling, storage and marketing of grain. This is the type of central control, democratic control, I suggest, that must be applied to other important segments of the agricultural industry. I should like to see the producers themselves take the initiative. I should like to see them do it with their own co-operative organizations set up on a national basis and I should like to see federal legislation with support prices in it which will enable provincial governments to pass similar legislation in order that this kind of necessary control may be obtained.

Supply-Agriculture


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


Hazen Robert Argue: Certainly.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is he aware of the fact that the Alberta farmers and the Saskatchewan farmers both voted separately on the question of livestock marketing boards and in both provinces the proposal was defeated? I would say that is the democratic method.


Hazen Robert Argue: My reactionary young friend, who is very quick to point out any move affecting the free enterprise system that he favours so much, should know that a great many of the producers who did not support the legislation did so not because they do not believe in that type of legislation but because they felt that within the confines of a province it could not be made effective. What I am advocating today is national legislation.
The second type of national legislation that I put forward to the minister as something that is needed for the welfare of the agricultural industry is a board of livestock commissioners to establish fair grades and to police and enforce those grades, or better still a board to a board of agricultural products commissioners that would be able to control in a real way the grading of agricultural products so as to ensure that producers are given fair and proper grades. I do not think that the legislation in effect today is operating as effectively as it should.
The criticism has been prevalent for many years-it is not new-that the established floor prices for eggs are not passed on to the producers. There has been evidence this year that there is a combine in the buying of eggs and the establishment of prices for various grades. I think that the agricultural prices stabilization board and therefore the government have some responsibility in this regard because, as I understand the situation, the board buys eggs only in carload lots comprising some 300 cases of eggs in one purchase.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Surely.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If he has any evidence of a monopoly in the buying of eggs, has he given it to the Department of Justice or to any other government department where the matter can be investigated?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is yes. I have brought it to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I think the Minister of Agriculture knows what I am talking about. If he wants to say he does not, it is his right to do so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member will permit me, I should like to point out that most of this was done by co-operatives in western Canada. In other words, they got together in order to set a price for eggs. He says that there is a monopoly. As he knows, most of the eggs in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are handled by farmer co-operatives.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister is shifting his ground a little-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Oh, no.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and almost but not quite admitting that it has been brought to his attention.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have mentioned it myself.


Hazen Robert Argue: All right. Then he knows what I am talking about. He asks if I have brought it to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I have in the house on the orders of the day. I know and the minister knows that this situation was brought to his attention and to the attention of the board and in the particular case I have in mind corrective action was taken as I am certain the minister is aware.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I took it myself right away.


Hazen Robert Argue: All right. Then why did the minister question my initial statement as though it was something new out of the sky and I had not brought it to the attention of the proper authorities?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member will permit me, in view of the fact that this was chiefly done by the farmers' co-operatives I thought he was referring to something else altogether. I think I should also say in fairness to these people that I think they did it entirely in ignorance of the fact that they were contravening any law.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know who the members are of the western produce association and I would be very grateful if the minister would give me that information. I have been endeavouring to find out from the departments of government and that information, so I am told, is not available. Mind you, I think the minister has it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know.


Hazen Robert Argue: First he tells me that it is mainly the co-operatives and now he has not got the information. I do not know which it is, but I am not talking about cooperatives. I am talking about the members, whoever they may be and I do not know who they are, of the western produce association which it is alleged in certain instances formed a combine in the purchase of eggs. The suggestion I wish to make is

that the agricultural prices stabilization board could make certain that no combine could exist if it would buy in smaller lots from independent dealers and not buy apparently only from the members of this association who are the large purchasers and therefore able to assemble eggs in large quantities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We buy mostly from the co-operatives in western Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: If a co-operative is in an association that is taking action detrimental to the producers in any given area I would no more come to the defence of the cooperative than I would of any other organization. I repeat what I have said, namely that there has been evidence that this was being done. It was brought to the attention of the minister and I am suggesting a method by which this kind of thing could be prevented in the future. If we had some real teeth in the legislation, if we had the type of national marketing boards of which I have spoken, this situation could not obtain.
The producers of eggs are thoroughly dissatisfied with the grades and prices they receive. Other members can speak for the constituencies they represent but when I was home at Easter I found that farmers throughout southern Saskatchewan were getting 18 to 20 cents a dozen for their eggs when they took them to local stores and purchasers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What grade?


Hazen Robert Argue: Average grade. Do you
remember seeing an article in the Western Producer not long ago where a farmer bought a case of grade A eggs and then resold them to the company and obtained a very small percentage of grade A eggs? In my opinion the farmers are greatly underpaid for the eggs they are producing at the present time. This is not a new situation but has prevailed for many years.
I should like to make some reference to the mass delegation that came to Ottawa. I agree wholeheartedly with those who said that it was an excellent delegation composed of people of high calibre, that they presented their brief to the cabinet in a very able manner and that they were a delegation with which any member might be proud to be associated. They arrived in Ottawa, I believe, a month ago to this very day. I am still hopeful that the government will act on the request that they have made, and I am hopeful that the government will react in a favourable way. I am not one of those who think their demands have been excessive.
Supply-Agriculture
The western farm delegation, in the presentation they made to the government, asked for deficiency payments which would amount to something in the neighbourhood of $100 million a year. This may sound like, and it is, a great deal of money. However, when it is related to the government's total budget, it is only about two per cent. If you relate it to the defence budget it is equal to only some six per cent or seven per cent of the national defence budget. I think it will be a small sum to pay for a real measure of agricultural stability and for some assurance that the grain producers in the prairie provinces will not turn their tremendous production potential for grain into the production of larger quantities of other agricultural products.
If that is done, what has been a prairie problem will become a national problem. If there is a continued increase in the production of cattle and hogs as well as the production of other agricultural products because farmers feel that on the basis of the low prices they are receiving for grain they can make a somewhat larger income by marketing their grain through livestock, we will have a collapse of present markets across this country. As a matter of fact, if the government does not act in this regard, and taking into account the statement the minister made the other day about the changed policy for the hog industry, I see a great danger that this, in fact, will happen.
I have no brief whatever for the great corporations that may be engaged in the production of hogs. I believe that under a national marketing act there could be established a system whereby the products of these great companies might not be purchased at all, but that purchases would be made from legitimate agriculture producers, if we are in fact in favour of maintaining the family farm as the basic unit of agriculture production. What the minister has said is that beginning October 1, it is his intention to remove the floor price-


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, no.


Hazen Robert Argue: -as an effective price when the farmer takes his hogs to market.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I correct the hon. member? I do not think he wants to have a wrong impression go out. On October 1, the floor price will be reduced to $23.65 from $25. The change in the method of supporting that floor price will come into effect just as soon as we can get the machinery ready, which might be six weeks or two months.


Hazen Robert Argue: The new system will allow the market to find its own level; that is the point I wish to make. Whatever floor price the minister may set for the individual producer,

Supply-Agriculture
there will be no effective floor price under the market. The hogs will be dumped on the market as they come in, and the market will find its own level. Whatever production there may be in the hands of these great producers, plus the production in the hands of the ordinary farmer, all of it will go on the market, and the effective floor will be reduced through this technique from $25 to $23.65.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not by this technique, excuse me. For the next six months the floor will remain at $25 and I would think at least for two months of the period when the floor is at $25 the deficiency method of maintaining that floor will be in effect.


Hazen Robert Argue: The floor will be removed from the market and the price will be allowed to go any place it wishes. In so far as the individual producer is concerned, he can pick up the difference by way of cheques from the minister.
The great danger in this policy, and I hope the minister has considered this carefully, is that a glut of hogs on the market will so force down the price for pork that it will tumble the price for beef; that is the danger that is in the mind of the agriculture producer in this country. How low does the price of pork have to go before thousands of housewives instead of buying higher priced beef will buy a cheaper cut of pork? One result may be a reduction in beef prices, and perhaps a reduction even in broiler prices- although I do not know how they could go much lower-and a general reduction in the prices of meat products.
This is a great danger in the minister's policy, and I think he should have another look at it because this is the kind of policy which may result in a deterioration in the cattle industry and the livestock industry generally. I hope that the government is still considering the request of farm organizations for deficiency payments. I was most disappointed in the statement the minister made on the radio before the delegation came to Ottawa. I hope he now does not believe what he then said; I hope he still does not stand by what he said in that broadcast because I think he was in error. I hope his reply today, by reading a letter from one farmer, is not a method by which the government is saying no to deficiency payments.
If the minister would stand up now and say the government is reconsidering the position the minister took in his radio speech, I would be most pleased. 1 am very sorry to say that a full month has gone by without any indication whatever of which I know that the government is giving serious consideration to the question of deficiency payments.
[Mr. Argued
The minister went out of his way, before the delegation came, to damn their case. In view of his statement today, I regret to say that apparently the presentation of this brief by the delegation has not been successful in any way in changing the minister's mind. The delegation, in my opinion, was an excellent one. It had an excellent brief and I trust that the government may yet take action on this very important matter so that the agriculture industry across Canada will not suffer great deterioration in the coming year. I see it is five o'clock.


Mr. McIntosh:: Before the house leaves the business of this department-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I had the floor and called it five o'clock.


John (Jack) McIntosh: This is a question of privilege; before the house leaves the business of this department may I have permission to ask the minister a question which concerns only my constituency?


The Deputy Chairman:: Does the committee agree to allow the hon. member to ask the minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Order in council P.C. 1958-2/1358 was approved on October 2, 1958 and provided for the construction of what is known as the Altawan reservoir in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan. Would the minister make a statement concerning when tenders will be called for this project? If they are called at an early date, could construction be commenced as soon as possible so that the project may be completed this year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Tenders for this project were called last fall, but the conditions were such that the respective contractors could not get out to examine the ground and therefore tenders had to be withdrawn. They will be reissued again in a few weeks' time and I expect as a result we will be able to get construction started fairly rapidly this spring.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill S-16, to incorporate Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd.-Mr. Rynard.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam) moved: the second reading of Bill C-7, to

provide for pay for statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy on this occasion to send to the house for endorsement in principle a bill which I am very pleased to note has been endorsed not only by the C.C.F. section of the house but also, on December 13, 1957, by the Liberal and Conservative parties. I therefore aim to be very brief indeed, so that we might have a vote at an early hour of the day.
The aim of the bill, if I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to read the explanatory note, is:
-to provide that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall receive their regular pay for at least eight statutory holidays each year, without having to work on those holidays. It also provides that when any such employee is required to work on any statutory holiday, as defined in the bill, he shall receive pay for such work at double time in addition to his regular pay for such holiday.
Nothing in this bill affects any provision for statutory holidays with pay enjoyed by any employees where such provisions are more favourable than those enjoyed herein, but this bill does suspersede any provisions which are less favourable than those set out in this bill.
My reason for taking an interest in this matter, goes back several years when I noticed the resentment of federal civil servants at being forced to work on December 26, commonly known as Boxing Day, a day on which most other employees in Canada receive a holiday. I know the bill has nothing to do with December 26 in that it is not one of the eight days mentioned in the bill. However, I welcome the bill because it will at least give some measure of assurance to such section of the labour force as comes under federal jurisdiction that they will not be ignored in the matter of holidays which most Canadians are able to observe. The house will note that 90 per cent of the labour force of Canada comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. Many of them have not yet made any arrangements in their labour laws in this regard. However, we feel this federal government ought to be an example by way of being an exemplary employer in the Dominion of Canada, and if this house would adopt the bill now before us, we feel it would not be very long until each of the provincial governments also made provisions of like measure in their local labour laws.
The argument has often been used before that this is a matter which should be left to the normal process of collective bargaining. Mr. Speaker, we realize that many employers in Canada who come under national labour laws have already recognized this obvious need of employees to have the same national holidays as the rest of us. There
Industrial Relations
are agreements which have been reached with employers which even exceed what is contained in this bill. However, Mr. Speaker, we have to be realistic and recognize that there are always a number of employers, fortunately only a limited number, who in the absence of legislation will take advantage of existing situations and will not recognize the need for adequate concessions in handling their employees.
I was looking over what happened the last time the bill was before the house, when it was at that time introduced by the former member for Winnipeg North Centre. Alter his introduction of the bill I was very pleased to note that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small), who I see is not yet in the house, said:
I do not think there will be much disagreement with the principle of this bill as outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to the granting of eight statutory holidays a year with pay to those who come under federal labour jurisdiction.
And then, later, he says this as recorded on page 2344 of Hansard of December 13, 1957:
I would propose that we endeavour to arrange to have one statutory holiday occur in each month of the year.
In other words, he thought Mr. Knowles was being over modest and that we should enact legislation which would enable workers to have one statutory holiday each month rather than only eight over the period of one year. Later on, the hon. member expressed some hope about the inevitability of this proposed law or act when he said, as reported on the same page: "If we work toward this end, we shall obtain it".
On page 2347 of Hansard of the same day we find the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) expressing his opinion in the same debate. He said:
I too should like to speak on the excellent bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
We also had a speech from a representative of the Liberal section in this house, the then member for Kootenay East, Mr. Byrne, who said as reported on page 2346:
The hon. member has left me just about enough time to say that I am in favour of the principle of the bill, and if it should pass I should certainly like to see it go to the committee on industrial relations for further study.
The bill is necessarily a lengthy one. It is involved, and I do not mind the industrial relations committee of this house making amendments to it. I should be very happy, upon the adoption of the principle of the bill on second reading, to move that it be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations and I plead with hon. members to not

Industrial Relations
take too much exception to some of the details which are offered in the measure, because on second reading we are asked to deal with one matter only, and that is whether or not we are prepared to endorse the purpose of the bill in which case the house, as on many other occasions, then passes the matter to a committee to consider all the details and to make any amendments which it might think necessary.
The whole purpose of the bill is that all in Canada who are subject to the legislation of this House of Commons in labour matters shall be paid a day's pay for each of eight statutory holidays a year and that those who are being asked by their employers to perform work on such days shall receive in addition to their regular pay which all employees receive, double pay for such work. As I pointed out earlier, this is now current practice in most of the better industrial enterprises which have agreements with unions in Canada. It would be specially applicable to federal civil servants. It does not include those workers who already have more favourable agreements with their employers than the details here would indicate. I feel that if New Year's day, Good Friday, Victoria day, July first, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day and Christmas day are worthy to be named as national holidays by the government of Canada, we should give serious consideration to enacting legislation which will enable as many Canadians as possible to take the day off and share the holiday with the rest of us.
(Translation):


Mr. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words with regard to Bill No. C-7 which has just been introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). First of all, I want to commend my hon. friend for his sincerely wanting our workers to benefit from paid holidays. Yet, I believe it is my duty to draw the attention of this house to some specific points.
In order completely to realize the extent of the legislation before us, we must, first of all, know the reason for which paid holidays have been introduced. At first, paid holidays were granted in order to assure the worker that he would suffer no loss of money because of a holiday coming up during the working week. That was the main reason for which that policy was agreed upon. It has never been the intention, when instituting that custom of paid holidays, that they should become bonuses.
For nearly a quarter of a century, I worked for a company where my duties were such that I served as a spokesman for the em-

ployees in our dealings with the employer, and each time the matter of paid holidays was raised, it was in that spirit that we considered it.
The economic effect on a given industry of paid holidays should not be overlooked either. I agree that large industries could easily face their obligations and pay their employees who work on statutory holidays three times the regular salary. It is precisely what is being asked under this legislation, since we are being asked to add to regular salary a sum equal to twice the regular salary rate. As I said, large industries could very well face their obligations; however, we must also protect smaller industries. In fact, many small industries, of the family type, industries which are just beginning, would certainly be ruined if they were subjected to such legislation.
I therefore think, before approving such a measure, that we should necessarily give thorough consideration to all aspects of the matter, even to those which appear to be of secondary importance.
I said earlier that no one proposes to make bonus days out of leave days. A reasonable worker expects to receive good wages for a good day's work. As a rule he does not expect to receive money he has not earned. I think it is on the basis of that principle that the matter should be considered.
The proposal should also be considered with reference to provincial statutes. In some provinces, including Quebec, a provincial statute provides for seven or eight paid statutory holidays, I believe. I am not too sure about this but I think the number is at least seven. That is why I urge the house to make a thorough study of all aspects of this bill before they support it.
The hon. member who just spoke pointed out, and others before him have often mentioned, that the matter must be left for the labour unions to deal with. I agree with them because I believe that in certain circumstances in certain industries employees or their representatives, the labour unions, would be willing to accept only five or six paid holidays, in exchange for other privileges which would seem more important, not only for themselves, but also for those they represent.
Here again I must say that this measure must be examined in the light of all those facts.
Then there are the cases of emergency. It is recognized for example that union contracts provide that, under certain circumstances, double the regular pay shall be paid for work done on Sundays and statutory holidays. However, some categories of workers, such as guards, boiler tenders and others who by

reason of their duties, belong in some way to the maintenance personnel, agree that they cannot qualify under this clause.
Therefore smaller industries that need all their capital, should not be compelled to make this extraordinary expenditure which might lead them to bankruptcy.
Referring to statistics, we find that this legislation is not as important as the previous speaker would have us believe. In fact, we find that paid statutory holidays are granted to the majority of employees under federal jurisdiction. For example, as far as air transportation is concerned, 81.7 per cent of employees already enjoy at least eight paid holidays per annum. As for road transportation, 79.1 per cent out of 10,593 workers who are not office employees have at least eight holidays with pay. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific employees also are sure to have at least seven holidays with pay per annum. Among public service employees, 94 per cent who are not office employees also have eight or more holidays with pay per annum.
In the light of all these facts, Mr. Speaker, although I am in full agreement with the principle of the bill, I feel obliged to urge my colleagues in this house to consider the measure carefully before passing it.


Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few remarks to the words just spoken by my good friend, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ri-card). I support what he just stated and I must say that I too support the principle of this bill. However, I am not quite certain that this legislation provides adequate remuneration for employees who are called upon to work on statutory holidays. I am in favour of at least double time being paid to employees who have to work on statutory holidays, but I also believe that we should remain within reasonable limits.
If we want to be realistic, as the mover of this bill said a few moments ago, we should also consider what might happen to the owner of a small business-and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot also stressed the fact-as well as to the employees throughout this country, if such legislation were immediately passed without being more fully considered or without some amendments thereto, or at least one change, which I believe, is absolutely necessary.
Mr. Speaker, if we abide by the principle outlined in the statement which has been made on this bill, what will happen to persons who have to work on Sundays and statutory holidays, like doctors, hospital employees, male and female nurses, technicians, 66968-9-166
Industrial Relations
employees of public utilities, of municipal waterworks, fire departments and snow removal services in the winter time?
Would not people assigned to those various services be also entitled to claim three times their regular fees, salaries or wages? I feel we must, all the same, stay within the limits of common sense and be reasonable.
I also know that most people who are required to work on religious holidays and on statutory holidays can exchange those days with fellow-workers, with the consent of their employers, as is the practice in most cases.
I have no doubt that at the present time, an employee who is called upon to work on a holiday or Sunday should be paid double time, since such statutory holidays as Sundays and ordinary holidays are above all days of rest. Furthermore, it is agreed that if a man is called upon to work at an essential service, he is entitled to increased remuneration.
However, if I correctly understood the statement made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) concerning his bill, he suggests, in other words, that any person who has to work on statutory holidays should get a salary equivalent to double the salary rate, in addition to his regular salary, which would triple his salary.
There is no doubt that a double remuneration should be paid for any work performed on certain such days, but as I pointed out a moment ago, what would the public say if workers employed at essential public services, or again doctors, nurses, druggists or hospital employees should demand, in addition to their regular salaries or fees, a double remuneration? I am convinced that this idea would hardly be received with favour by the public in general and, besides, I do not believe that it is the objective contemplated by the hon. member's bill. I suppose he rather meant to say that double time should be granted to employees having to work on statutory holidays.
I now come to the question touched upon a moment ago by the mover of the bill, and that is the matter of increasing the number of statutory holidays to an average of one a month or twelve a year. With regard to this question, in the province of Quebec, as was pointed out a while ago by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, a provincial statute provides for the payment of a salary to provincial employees on certain holidays which are not necessarily statutory holidays throughout the country. On that score, moreover, many will no doubt recall the judgment handed down by the Supreme

Industrial Relations
Court of Canada in the case of Henry Birks & Sons (Montreal) Limited and other plaintiffs vs. the city of Montreal and the attorney general of the province of Quebec. The judgment was handed down in 1955 and dealt with by-law 2048 of the city of Montreal concerning the closing of stores and business establishments on the following holidays: New Year's day, Epiphany, Ascension, All Saints' day, the Immaculate Conception and Christmas. Of those various holidays New Year's day and Christmas are already recognized as statutory holidays; the others are mainly religious holidays especially observed in the province of Quebec.
I do not want to labour the point but I think it is my duty to emphasize, since the opportunity is provided, the regrettable fact that storekeepers operating in a province with a French and Catholic majority, have decided to appeal from a municipal bylaw and tried to have it declared ultra vires, or in other words to have it quashed.
I hope we will eventually be able to come back to that question and that it will then be possible to make those religious holidays, which are still observed in many villages and cities in the province of Quebec, indeed in the great majority of our communities, as obligatory not only in the fine province of Quebec, but also throughout the country.
I could deal at greater length with this question because I am aware that those holidays which are considered as being religious holidays only in the province of Quebec have already been considered for a long time as statutory holidays in England because a law was passed there to that effect.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to place on record an editorial which appeared in the December 1955 issue of the magazine Relations on this matter, following a judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada. I quote:
In its ruling in the case of the Montreal departments stores, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal filed by the stores against the ruling of the second circuit court; the latter ruling had reversed that of the first circuit court, which had ruled that the provincial act of 1949 and by-law 2048, passed by the city of Montreal on November 2 1951, were both ultra vires. The provincial act of 1949 amended section 2 of the "Early closing act" by adding section 2a which reads as follows:
The city council may, through a by-law, order that such stores remain closed all day on the first day of the year, on the day of the Epiphany, on

Ascension day, on All Saints day, on the day of the Immaculate Conception, and on Christmas day.
By-law 2048, patterned after this section, also added section 2a to by-law 695 established under the early closing act:
In the city of Montreal, stores shall be closed all day on the following holidays: New Year's day, Epiphany, Ascension, All Saints' day, Immaculate Conception and Christmas.
The Supreme Court agrees with the judge of first instance that the legislation regarding religious holidays, like Lord's day act, comes under the Criminal Code and therefore is not subjected to the Legislature. The Supreme Court judgment makes considerations that are not easily brushed aside. It would not be serious to say that the Court has been hostile to the province of Quebec. But an admission of the consistency of the legal argument is, by no means, a recognition that the problem is definitely settled. Legality does not always coincide with moral and psychological reality. That is precisely what happens in the matter of store closing on religious holidays.
While we leave to jurists the responsibility of deciding whether an indisputable legal basis can be found, we do say that, even if none is found, the desired goal may be achieved.
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the hon. member, I do not believe the matter he is discussing now has anything to do with the bill. He is referring to other holidays and that sort of thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I would ask the hon. member to stick to the principle of the bill we are discussing, namely Bill C-7.


Jean-Jacques Martel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks and give a full account of what I was referring to because I feel that the holidays referred to may eventually become statutory holidays, and as a result can be discussed here. I have only a few more sentences to read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The principle of this bill is whether or not there should be eight statutory holidays each year with pay, and if employees work on those days they should get double pay. The holidays are all named in the bill and that is all we can refer to. On second reading we cannot refer to anything else because it is not in the bill.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is within the subject because some of the holidays mentioned in what he is reading are also in the hon. member's bill. I think he is quite correct in what he is doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member can mention the holidays referred to in the bill but he cannot mention others because they are not in the bill and we are discussing the bill.


Jean-Jacques Martel: I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to mention that the bill introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is not very clear on that point, at least when it suggests that according to the definition in the explanatory note, which reads:
-any such employee is required to work on any statutory holiday, as defined in the bill, he shall receive pay for such work at double time in addition to his regular pay for such holiday.
We should always keep within the bounds of reason. Personally, I feel that double time is enough. Therefore, if the hon. member would amend his bill accordingly, it might perhaps receive general approval. (Text):


Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who introduced this bill. I think it is a very laudable one. I am in favour of as many holidays as it is possible to give to human beings who are the only animals who work. I think we should shorten the hours and increase holidays for everybody, including ourselves. There is only one danger about working less and getting double pay for our work. The fact is that in other countries in the world there are many more unemployed than we find in Canada and we might price our goods out of the markets of the world. I think a greater effort should be made in the United Nations to enforce a certain number of holidays in all countries of the world so that the working people of the world will be on an equal basis. Then we would not have to use tariffs to protect our home markets. If wages and working days were the same in all countries in the world we could trade freely and have much more prosperity.
I think the principle in the bill is already in force in Canada. I know that in Manitoba workers get double pay when they work on a statutory holiday and I believe they have all the holidays enumerated in the bill. I suppose there may be exceptions in some provinces such as the province of Quebec. They have twice the number of statutory 66968-9-166J
Industrial Relations
holidays that other provinces in Canada have and, as explained by the last speaker, the difficulty in that province is that the merchants will not comply with the provincial and municipal laws in that province. They insist on keeping their stores open. In fact, they have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada to dispute a local law on the matter.
Perhaps the federal government should pass a law to enforce all holidays in effect in the province of Quebec as well as those in effect under federal statute. In this way there will be more rest for the workers. With the machines we have now and with unemployment I think that the hours of work could be reduced so that people could enjoy the good things of life instead of being busy all the time working. As we say, it is existing, not living, if you have to work long hours every day. Of course, some people have to work on holidays. Mention was made of nurses and other hospital employees and probably it would involve too much to have them receive double pay on holidays. However, I do not think this legislation is intended to cover that situation.
As I said before, it is a difficult situation if one country has too many holidays when other countries have none or very few. Take countries like China, Japan, India or even Russia where people have to work 10 or 12 hours a day. In Russia women have to work sweeping the streets and really lead a life of slavery. It is too bad that communist doctrine, which is supposed to benefit human beings, results in the worst conditions in the world. They have made slaves of their women and other workers. I understand they have very few holidays and have even been deprived of the right to strike in order to try to benefit the lot of their own people. I think that might be one of the things that might be taken up at the next meeting with Khrushchev, an effort to improve the conditions of the working people of the world beginning with Russia so that we can live more peacefully and agreeably. I do not believe there is much more I can say on the matter and I again congratulate the mover of the motion.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in complimenting the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) upon his introductory remarks. They were brief, clear and to the point. I only wish that in the little time at my disposal I could point out with the same

Industrial Relations
clarity certain points about the bill which disturb me although I would not say that they constitute objections.
The purpose of the bill is quite clear. It provides that the employee is to receive eight statutory holidays with pay. He is to have these holidays without loss of income. But the bill also provides that if the employer forces the employee to work on a statutory holiday the employee shall get triple pay. It is the matter of triple pay that disturbs me. We represent 17 million people and I know millions who do not get any pay even on working days, those engaged in agriculture and perhaps in other industries. But that is beside the point. Labour is entitled to holidays with pay.
The bill applies to employees of the federal government, but I see a hidden purpose in the bill, that purpose being to deter the employer from making an employee work on statutory holidays by providing for triple pay for work on such days. The federal government is a large employer. I do not have time to go into the statistics but most of the industries in which the dominion government employs men and women call for continuous service and involve operation day in and day out every day of the year including all holidays. Examples are the railways and ferries, including the ferry service between Vancouver and Vancouver island, with which my hon. friend is greatly concerned. It would also apply to air transport, telegraph and telephone industries giving continuous service without which Canadians cannot get along. If the Canadian people must pay triple wages on holidays in order to continue these services, what alternative has the employer?
The employer has the alternative of curtailing the service, which would be very unpopular. There would be quite a bit of objection to that course. Otherwise, he has to increase the rate for these services. This course would affect the pocketbook of everyone who looked forward to travelling during the holidays or receiving these services during the holidays.
I feel that this bill is patterned on the Saskatchewan legislation. However, the Saskatchewan legislation does not go quite so far. It provides for 2J times the regular wage for work on statutory holidays. Manitoba's law provides-


Murdo William Martin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Certainly.


Murdo William Martin: Does the hon. member feel that federal legislation should be

patterned on provincial legislation or that it should be even better than provincial legislation?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The hon. gentleman knows very well that if federal legislation of this type were adopted private industry would follow suit. We would have restaurants and hotels closed on holidays because they could not afford to pay triple wages to employees working on holidays. We would have a lot of other services, such as hospital services, curtailed.


Murdo William Martin: Is this the case in Saskatchewan now?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I do not think it is, but triple wages are not paid there and that is what I am trying to bring out. I am trying to compare the Saskatchewan legislation with this proposal and show that this measure would go farther.
The Manitoba legislation provides for seven holidays with pay and for time and a half for work on statutory holidays. This proposal is not in accord with the prevailing practice in private industry. I have not the statistics here, but I think they would bear me out, indicating that only six per cent of the labour contracts in force contain provisions for triple pay for employees working during holidays and 94 per cent provide for double pay or less. This was revealed by a survey made a year ago by the Department of Labour.
We have for example, collective agreements in the railroad industry for the nonoperating groups. These agreements provide for six or seven holidays with double pay. The train and engine service employees receive no statutory holidays because continuous service has to be provided. Anyone going into this service fully realizes that it is an everyday service all year which the country needs and without which we cannot get along.
The dominion government provides many services which are continuous services and therefore while I could go along with double pay for statutory holidays I cannot go along with triple pay for statutory holidays. It would immediately set an example for private industry. In spite of the fact we have a labour force which runs into the millions, there would still be a great number who would be affected by this proposal. Then, too, there would be those who would be affected by the lack of service there might be on statutory holidays at our airports, on our trains and in government-owned hotels. I feel, therefore, that this bill requires a few amendments and I would urge my colleagues to vote against it if it comes to a vote.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the sponsor of this bill because of his many kind references to me. There is one aspect of the bill to which I do not believe the sponsor has given full consideration, and that is the implication that there would be increased government control of union activities and interference with the collective bargaining process as a result of this legislation. I would have thought that after the recent experience in Newfoundland, about which the hon. member did have many pointed remarks to make as did his colleagues, he would wish to shy away from any implication of interference, except to the extent that is required to protect the unorganized workers through minimum wage laws.
The transport workers are not unorganized. For many years the backbone of the American federation of labour was the running trades of the railroads as well as the non-operating brotherhoods. I happen to know a bit about this because my own father was for many
Business of the House
years a conductor on Canadian National Railways. I do know that these men went into their jobs with the full knowledge of the disadvantages as well as the advantages. Let us never forget that in these operations there are advantages which are not given to the ordinary worker in a factory.
I must hurry, because I have not too much time. However, one of the clauses of the bill, which is a punitive clause, is the one providing for triple time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order; I am sorry but I must advise the hon. member it is now six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask the leader of the house what is on the agenda for Monday?


Howard Charles Green: On Monday we shall commence the budget debate and go right through as I indicated.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 13, 1959