1959-04-24

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on marine and fisheries-Mr. English.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the announcement yesterday of the increase in the Bank of Canada rediscount rate to an unprecedented 4.9 per cent, an increase of more than 300 per cent in eight months, and the consequent further disturbing announcement of the increase in the prime lending rate of the chartered banks which raises for Canadians the spectre of higher interest rates generally, as has already been made apparent by other announcements by finance companies, and the need for immediate action by government to roll back interest rates and remove this threat to economic recovery.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Assiniboia has moved under standing order 26 for leave to present a motion for the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. I note that subsection 6 of the rule provides:
The right to move the adjournment of the house for the above purposes is subject to the following restrictions:
(c) the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session:
Although there has been no separate debate on this specific subject, we have just completed the eight-day budget debate in which this matter was raised and when there was full opportunity to discuss a financial issue of this kind. It seems to me that as the problem which the hon. member desires to debate, the question of high interest rates, is one that has not risen suddenly but has been a phenomenon of the past few months, and a widespread phenomenon, there has been ample opportunity for discussion during the course of the budget debate. My disposition
would be to say that this is not a matter for which we should interrupt our proceedings at the present time.


Hazen Robert Argue: So far as your intimation is concerned that this would be out of order because the matter had been discussed previously, I would suggest that is something that cannot be applied to this proceeding. It is a well known rule that if the house makes a decision on a given matter, it is impossible then to raise the same matter again in the same session. However, the mere discussion of any particular subject does not rule out its subsequent discussion at a later time during the session.
So far as the statement that this phenomenon has been going on for a number of months is concerned, of course that is a statement of fact. But it would seem to me that it is particularly urgent at this time because certain finance companies, certain mortgage companies, are announcing that they will take steps now, in the light of a number of previous rises in interest rates, to increase the interest charges they now make. We feel it is extremely urgent at this time to deal with this question because the rate is the highest in history and because it is now affecting interest rates to the ordinary Canadian citizen all across our country.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there is one further point I should like to draw to your attention, and it is this. Last night in announcing the business of the house for next week I indicated that we would be discussing the budget resolutions, so there will be ample opportunity when these resolutions come up for a discussion of this nature to take place.
Surely this rule was never intended to enable an hon. member of the house to get up whenever there happened to be a change -for example in the interest rate-and move to adjourn the house. There may be many other similar types of changes that are made from time to time in the course of the administration of public affairs and, as Your Honour said, there have been other changes in the rates. The rates will probably be lowered one of these days, and of course we will not see my hon. friend jumping up to move to adjourn the house on that occasion bceause there would be no political hay to be made in such an event.

Finance
I suggest that if it is to be the practice in this house that whenever a change is made motions are moved to adjourn the house, the business of parliament would be made simply impossible. This would seem to be a matter of propaganda, and I suggest the motion should not be allowed.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly disagree with the leader of the house that this is a matter of propaganda. On the contrary, it is a very serious matter that will affect the rights of everyone in this country. As the hon. member for Assiniboia has just said, this is an occasion on which the interest rate has reached the highest point ever in the history of this country, and that surely is a serious matter.
I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the answer given by the leader of the house does not at all meet the position which has been laid before you. It is not a fact that the budget resolutions will dispose of this matter. It is true that the house leader announced the discussion of the budget resolutions, but as the business of the house is proceeded with the house knows full well that the budget resolutions may not be reached until Wednesday or Thursday or even until the end of next week. And then again, I might ask, when the budget resolutions are reached, which of them deals with the matter that is now before Your Honour for discussion?


Some hon. Members:: None.


Lionel Chevrier: It is one thing for the leader of the house to say that the budget resolutions will take care of this matter, but it is another for him to point out the particular matter which will be dealt with when the budget resolutions are brought before the house.
This matter is not only of tremendous importance to the house but it is of equal importance to the people of this country. It is a matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) prior to the orders of the day yesterday, and certainly it should receive the proper discussion to which a matter of this importance is entitled, and that discussion would be carried on under the motion which has been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this matter was dealt with within the last few days, in general, in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) as reported at page 2623 of Hansard of April 13, in these words:
"and this house further regrets that the government has failed to present to parliament a

planned financial and economic program designed to develop the economic health of the nation by, among other things-
And these are almost the words spoken by the hon. member for Assiniboia today:
- (a) reversing the trend of rising interest rates
(b) establishing a capital gains tax".
This question of the rising rate of interest has already been dealt with; and in addition it was our intention on Monday next to move to go into supply. We were prepared to move on Monday in that direction. We were prepared to go ahead, and move to go into supply. The suggestion was made by the opposition that in view of the fact that internal arrangements made it necessary for the Leader of the Opposition to be in another part of the country on that date, the opposition would sooner not have the motion made on Monday. However, in view of the argument which has been advanced I suggest that every opportunity will be given on Monday. We will certainly provide a motion to go into supply, so the argument advanced by the hon. member for Laurier is met. We are not going to have to wait until Wednesday or even Thursday of next week; on Monday we can move to go into supply. I suggest first that the motion made is out of order in that it contravenes the rule that discussion on a matter cannot be brought up twice in the same session, particularly when it is embodied in an amendment, and second that we will give all hon. members every opportunity on Monday to do that which they desire to do.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Prime Minister has said perhaps I might be permitted to add a word or two. So far as the amendment he mentioned is concerned, that has nothing to do with the matter, because since it was proposed there has been a change in the interest rate. Only yesterday it reached the highest point in our history, and that was not the situation at the time of the amendment. Therefore that argument means nothing.
So far as the Prime Minister's statement that we would have been given an opportunity on Monday to go into supply to discuss this matter, the Prime Minister is quite correct. I asked the leader of the house whether it would be convenient for the government to put the supply motion off until a week from Monday. I made that request, which I thought was a proper one, also before the announcement made yesterday about interest rates. But in view of that announcement and the anxiety displayed by the Prime Minister that this matter should be discussed at once, I would

be glad now to withdraw that request and perhaps we could have a supply motion on Monday.
If the motion by the hon. member for Assiniboia is ruled out of order by you, sir, perhaps we could have a supply motion on Monday, because I would not like a request which I made in all good faith and which had nothing to do with the situation which developed yesterday to prevent the house from discussing such an important matter as a tight money policy which has resulted in the high interest rates reached yesterday.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of high interest rates affects all members. I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for saying to the Prime Minister in this house that he would be quite prepared to have a supply motion on Monday so this matter might be dicussed. I believe the Prime Minister's suggestion was a good one, and I think it explodes his argument that a motion along this line is not in order since he has suggested that we have a supply motion on Monday with this very kind of amendment under discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: No, not at all. There was no such suggestion. I said the opportunity would come on Monday, but as far as the rules are concerned the question still remains as to the propriety or regularity of such a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank hon. members for their assistance in this discussion. I have no doubt as to what is the correct disposition of the motion, or the request for leave to adjourn the house. My view is not based on any lack of appreciation of the importance of the issue, but rather on the question of urgency of debate, which is the key to the interpretation of standing order 26. This question of high interest rates has been before the house from time to time. It is true the rate has gone higher in the last week than it was before, but the rate has been the subject of discussion and there has been full opportunity for debate. As was indicated, there will be further opportunity for discussion on this important problem.
1 need say nothing more than that in my view this is clearly not something we should undertake at this particular moment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the government proposes to intervene in an effort to prevent the strike of Canadian National Railways firemen and enginemen which has been set for May 1; that is, next week.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the question would be more properly directed to the Minister of Labour.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: We have been watching the situation very closely, and in the light of the announcement made yesterday we are contemplating some meetings in the next few days.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Will the minister give consideration to the fact that the head of the union is in Ottawa today conferring with the president of the congress of labour? Would it not be desirable if the Minister of Labour, instead of waiting a few days, acted at once while this official is in Ottawa seeing the head of the congress?


Michael Starr: I recognize the seriousness of the situation, but I do wish to give the fullest opportunity to the meetings which are being held today.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Because the key to the success or failure of the strike from either the company's point of view or labour's point of view is the attitude of the brotherhood of locomotive engineers, would the minister consider having conversations with officials of that organization at this time to determine their views on the matter?


Michael Starr: That is being considered.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the very comprehensive and exhaustive report of the Bracken royal commission on the distribution of box cars. I wonder if the minister could say what action he is taking on the recommendations contained in that report, whether he is in the process of discussing this question with the Canadian wheat board, and whether the changes suggested to remove rank discrimination in the distribution of box cars will be implemented?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am very glad to receive the approval of the hon. member for Assiniboia with regard to this report, which is an exhaustive study of the box car situation in western Canada. I thought it would be wise to give ample time to all members of the
3014	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry house, including the hon. member for Assini-boia and the other farmer members of his group, to study this report in full before we enter upon a discussion of the problems involved therein. The wheat board has the report before it now, and in due course the matter will be given consideration.
I might at this stage express my thanks to Mr. Bracken for the exhaustive, comprehensive and useful report which he has produced.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister any information in connection with the discussions which I understand have recently taken place in Wellington between the Canadian and New Zealand civil aviation authorities?
Hen. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. On Monday, April 20, as reported at page 2859 of Hansard, I made an announcement regarding the Canada-Australia air agreement of 1946, the possible revision of which was considered during the course of meetings between a Canadian delegation and Australian officials held in Melbourne earlier this month. Subsequently the Canadian delegation went to Wellington where they held similar discussions with the New Zealand civil aviation authorities.
The delegation has reported that their talks, which concluded yesterday, covered a wide range of aviation problems, with particular reference to present and future operations into New Zealand by Canadian Pacific Air Lines. These talks were most beneficial in producing better understanding of the approach to civil aviation problems of the two countries. It has been recognized that further exchanges of views would be in the common interests of both Canada and New Zealand.
In the meantime the New Zealand government has agreed to renew for a further period, that is up to the end of 1959, permission for the operation by Canadian Pacific Air Lines of their weekly service with DC-6B aircraft between Canada and New Zealand, in conjunction with their weekly service to Australia which I mentioned last Monday.
[Later :]


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
the Minister of Transport a question arising out of the original statement he made in


connection with the air agreement with Australia. Is C.P.A. now operating under the old agreement? What will happen to C.P.A.'s regular service pending the present discussions that apparently have not yet come to a final conclusion?


Mr. Hees:: C.P.A.'s regular weekly service will carry on in the meantime, until those talks have been concluded.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It arises out of the very extensive press coverage which a recent statement of his has had from coast to coast in the last few days. Would the minister enlarge on the statement he made recently to the Ottawa Citizen in Montreal that increases in veterans disability pensions can be expected?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive notice of this question; however, I saw the article in the paper. I might say that the report is much in line with general remarks I have made not only in the house but in the veterans committee to the effect that we were reviewing or intending to review practically all veterans legislation. Hon. members will recall that last year we reviewed three of the acts of the veterans charter, and this year we are reviewing three more. I stated that probably next year we would review the Pension Act and I was asked, of course, what the increase in pensions would be and in reply I said I hoped there might be some increases when we made the review. That is the statement.
As a matter of fact, I am not claiming that I was misquoted, but the article says:
Mr. Brooks said all 23 acts relating to veterans were being studied and changes would be made to meet current needs.
Changes in legislation governing disability pensions, with probable increases, were expected to be made before long.
I stated in the committee and I stated in the house, I think at the beginning of this session, that we hope next year to study the pension legislation and there may be a possibility of increasing basic pensions.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice to the Minister of Justice

of two questions which I intended to pose to him. Perhaps because of his unavoidable absence I may be allowed to put them on the record and he can answer them probably next week.
My first question is, is the minister able to give the house any information regarding the reported stabbing of a Kingston penitentiary guard by an inmate who was a patient in the psychiatric ward, or in so far as the condition of the guard is concerned and the disciplinary treatment, if any, given to this inmate?



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my second question is this. Following the statement of the minister, given in answer to a question of mine on February 24, which was that the director of research and investigation of the combines investigation branch expected to be able to transmit a statement of evidence regarding the investigation into the production, purchase and sale of fish in British Columbia to the restrictive trade practices commission within two months, can the minister tell the house whether this statement has been so forwarded and when the restrictive trades practices commission expects to commence the holding of hearings?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Now that she has clarified her position concerning the immigration order in council of March 19, will she make a statement reassuring the house as to her position concerning the unwarranted press attacks on the civil servants in her department in connection with that matter?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask the minister from
66968-9-192
Inquiries of the Ministry Newfoundland whether he can bring the house up to date on the efforts he is making to avert the lay-offs in the iron mines on Bell island?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is another of these picayune questions the hon. member comes up with from time to time. If he has any questions he can direct them to the minister who has administrative responsibility. It may be humorous; it may indeed be productive of the humour that he intends to create as a result but, sir, it is not in keeping with the traditions of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, some weeks ago Your Honour will recall I asked the minister a similar question and he made a reply without any objection from the Prime Minister, and I was merely asking him to bring the report up to date.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine.


George James McIlraith: Unemployment is picayune to the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a typical observation from the hon. member for Ottawa West.
ILater]:
On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Minister of Labour's well-known concern for the maintenance of employment in the country, I wonder whether I might ask him if any member of the government is taking any steps to attempt to avert lay-offs at Bell island?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, every consideration in that regard has been given by members of the government and by the department particularly charged with that responsibility. I want to assure the hon. member that every step has been taken. Consultations have been in progress regarding this matter. We are not in a position yet to see the results of these consultations and approaches, but I want to assure the hon. member also that every possible effort will be made to see that all hardships that may result will be alleviated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister any hope that the lay-offs can be averted?
Mr. Siam I must admit frankly that I have not much hope that the lay-offs will be averted, simply because we are told that it is the intention of the company to terminate operations at No. 6 mine, and in any event the ore would have run out by the end of the year. That is the information given us.
3016	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Artha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, with the unanimous consent of the house, to withdraw Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act. I do so in order to give hon. members on the government side, who tabled an identical bill which was ruled out of order, an opportunity to discuss such bill. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure this is a matter which should be dealt with at this time, but the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is asking for the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw from the order paper an item which stands under public bills and orders as No. 44:
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Boulanger for the second reading of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Howard Charles Green: Certainly not. The hon. member brought this bill in with a great flourish of trumpets. Now just let him carry it through.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader. In view of the fact that we shall now have a supply motion on Monday and probably Tuesday, and not be able to follow the business indicated last night in respect to the establishment of committees, and particularly a joint committee of this house and the other place to deal with Indian affairs, can the minister indicate now when it is expected that this motion will be considered?


Howard Charles Green: The business listed last evening for Monday will be the order of business for next Wednesday.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving or would give consideration to


the suggestion first put forward I believe by Miss Anne Francis, distinguished broadcaster and commentator, that the government's gift to the Queen on the occasion of her forthcoming visit here might take the form of federal scholarships?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to take away from anyone the kudos which naturally appertains to a suggestion such as that, but my recollection is that the representative group of the council of women advanced the idea, and all I can say is that the nature of the gift to be given to Her Majesty the Queen is receiving the fullest consideration by my colleagues and myself.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the statement made the day before yesterday by the president of the Chrysler corporation regarding the manufacture in Canada of small cars, he is now in position to particularize as to the government's decision in answer to representations made on Monday last by the united automobile workers, asking the government to arrange for consultations with management at the earliest possible moment to facilitate the manufacture of small cars in Canada so as to provide employment for thousands of people in that industry who are now out of work?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in that position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When will you be?



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which is very minor, but which involves something that is current. Are there any restraints open to the national capital commission with regard to the placing of large neon signs such as the new one of the E. B. Eddy Company which, according to some protests I have received, detract from a proper capital atmosphere?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper, as it is not really a matter of urgency which

should be answered on the orders of the day. In any event, it asks for legal opinion.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is he yet in a position to say if any agreement has been reached with the government of Ontario concerning the development of the port of Moosonee?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Ottawa West asked me a question with regard to an international conference on lead and zinc and I promised to reply, which I am now prepared to do.
A meeting of the United Nations lead and zinc committee will commence on April 28 in New York. It is expected to last three days and to concentrate its attention upon developments since the previous conference, which was held in Geneva last November. In the first days of the following week there will be an inaugural meeting of a continuing lead and zinc study group which it may be decided shall supersede the existing committee.
The first object of these meetings will be to assess the demand and supply situation in these metals, to endeavour to reach a common understanding regarding present trends, to establish what may be the cause of any difficulties confronting the world industry and to discuss various governments' viewpoints on the necessity and possibility of any remedial action. It would also be appropriate for the conference to give its attention to the possibility of improving the extent and currency of statistical information and to the factors which affect levels of consumption.
The existing surplus situation in these metals was complicated by the action of the United States government in October of last year to restrict imports of lead and zinc in metal and concentrate forms to 80 per cent of the average United States imports during the five years ending in 1957. At the Geneva conference last November this action on the part of the United States was the object of 66968-9-192}
Inquiries of the Ministry criticism by many members of the conference. The Canadian government's views regarding the United States import quotas are well known to the house. Canadian objections have been expressed in a formal exchange of notes. Canadian rights to compensation for impairment of important tariff concessions by the United States under GATT have been reserved. This matter was also examined in January in the joint United States-Canada committee on trade and economic problems, as reported in the communique issued at the end of those meetings. Our position is unchanged.
The Canadian delegation will again make it clear that Canada is willing to explore the necessity for and possibility of an international agreement, but that to be acceptable to Canada any such agreement must find wide support with all major importing and exporting countries playing their full part.
I have received a number of representations from Canadian industry and I have noted the position taken by the Canadian metal mining association endorsing the stand taken by the Canadian delegation at the Geneva meetings. A strong delegation will attend from Canada comprised of senior official experts and accompanied by leading businessmen from the Canadian industry as advisers.


George James McIlraith: I thank the minister for the answer he has given to the question. I wonder whether he can tell us the personnel who will comprise the Canadian delegation, at least in so far as the government is concerned?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I regret that I do not have the names in front of me, but I can announce them on Monday.


George James McIlraith: Thank you.



REFERENCE TO REMARK IN DEBATE ON APRIL 23

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make a correction in yesterday's Hansard? I can understand the difficulty because there were a number of interjections. On page 2986 near the top, following two or three other interjections, there is the following:


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Did the hon. member for Assiniboia write your speech?
Because of the difficulty at the time I did not hear that remark but I would point out that, unlike the Tories, we are not accustomed to having other people write our speeches.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is taking advantage of the Chair by purporting to make a correction when it is not a correction.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration branch-
1.	Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $747,531.
(Translation):
Mr. Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, representing as I do a largely rural constituency, I could not let the Department of Agriculture estimates go by without saying a few words on the problems of a very important sector of our national economy.
In my first speech here, last year, I outlined the history of colonization in the Saguenay district and, if I remember well, I mentioned that our economy was based largely on agricultural production. With the industrialization which came later on, the surplus of our population found a ready market and formed the elements of a working class still imbued with rural spirit, and which is therefore different from the ordinary working class found in large cities. Agricultural production in the constituency of Chicoutimi is based on the dairy industry, and that is why farmers in my area are particularly affected by surplus production in that field.
Like the hon. member for Kent (N.B.) (Mr. Michaud), I am very grateful to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for disregarding certain advice that support prices on all dairy products be removed. The considerable surplus of milk powder now glutting the market is precisely a result of a support price fixed at too high a level. That is why I feel that the decision to lower that support price is wise, since it will allow us to dispose of those surpluses, while increasing cheese production for which the market is now excellent.
I am glad to point out here the initiative taken by the Agricultural Co-operative Society of Chicoutimi which, even before being informed of the ministerial decision, had taken steps to cut down its milk powder production and increase its cheese production. Initiatives of that type on the part of private enterprise will no doubt help the government re-establish a fair balance in the production of dairy products.

The Minister of Agriculture must also be congratulated for having granted a subsidy of 25 cents per hundred pounds on all milk delivered to processing plants. To a certain extent, this subsidy will help narrow the gap between the price paid to suppliers for whole milk and the price paid to suppliers at processing plants.
Mr. Chairman, the study of these estimates gives me an opportunity to register a protest, on behalf of Quebec cheese producers who, under the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act, are being paid one half cent less per pound than Ontario producers. I realize that such an injustice is not intentional, but that it is the accidental result of statistics compiled for the last ten years. However, I think the minister should introduce the necessary legislation to rectify this abnormal situation where producers living closer to distribution and export outlets are receiving less than those living farther.
Mr. Chairman, a good many farmers in my constituency have to do some woodcutting to earn enough to meet their family's needs. The main demand is for pulpwood, which is bought by the large paper mills. It is known that there is a certain slowdown in the production and sales of pulpwood, but the fact remains that our larger mills could easily absorb the ten thousand odd cords of pulpwood that are cut by our settlers and farmers. Due to certain misunderstandings, sales have slowed down; moreover, a Department of Justice investigation has revealed the existence of a vast conspiration, among the big corporations, to cheat farmers out of this important part of their income. I therefore hope that the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act will also be made applicable to wood that is cut by settlers and farmers, so that in the future, they will be assured of a minimum return for their efforts.
Before closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, may I also, on behalf of my constituents, urge that soil classification and analysis be carried out as soon as possible, as this would enable us to draw up an overall plan for maximum land use. At the present time, because no such plan exists, certain settlers are living on marginal lands that should have remained part of the forest industry, and these people merely eke out a living because their income is comparable to the land prevailing in underdeveloped countries, and they are a problem for all the public and private charity groups.
Then, in order to protect our cattle which represent a major part of our rural inheritance, I wish that necessary steps be taken to fight brucellosis, which is responsible for great losses.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, having expressed my opinion concerning agriculture a few weeks ago, it was certainly not my intention to take part again in the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). However, following the statement he made yesterday, I can't help making a few comments.
First of all, I must say to the minister that we sympathize with him because he seems to be going through a critical period. We wish nevertheless to show him our good will and to put the best of our knowledge at his disposal in order to help him settle the problems which face the farm industry and whose consequences have been felt for some time.
Following the minister's statement, I was most surprised by the speeches made by government members from the province of Quebec. They made certain comments on the minister's statement, and their remarks were mostly congratulatory.
The minister was praised for having granted a 25 cent subsidy for every hundredweight of milk intended to be used for the production of cheese or skim-milk. That is all that was said. No comment was made on the price of milk powder and I think I can even state that not a single member on the government side understood the minister's statement, particularly as far as the price of milk powder is concerned.
As a matter of fact, the minister's statement, of which I am giving only a summary and not a literal translation, is to the effect that the price of milk powder has been reduced from 15 cents to 10 cents per pound, no mention whatever being made of the quality of the product. Only skim milk powder is mentioned in the minister's statement.
However, we know there are two types of milk powder: one produced by the spray process and the other by the roller process. We are just being told that milk powder will be reduced from 15 cents to 10 cents per pound, with no mention of what the price will be for roller processed milk powder. However, Conservative members have praised the minister, without making out what his statement meant. What will be the results of such a policy? I think that the lower price for milk powder will immediately result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars for industrialists and manufacturers, since we are told about this lower price for milk powder only six days before the first of May.
Supply-Agriculture
Manufacturers have large stocks in their warehouses and tomorrow, that is on May 1, at what price will milk powder be sold? Maybe 5 cents, maybe 6 cents, maybe 8 cents, I hope. The blunt fact is that manufacturers are going to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. And what about the losses the farmers will sustain?
The minister says that the price of milk powder will be reduced from 15 cents to 10 cents a pound. That does not seem, to be serious. He made that statement with disconcerting assurance in about the same frame of mind as the Minister of Finance when he announced his tax boosts.
This policy will have the following effect on farmers: a reduction of 15 cents per hundred pounds of milk powder will be tantamount to a reduction of 40 to 50 cents per hundred pounds of milk.
Last night I got in touch with manufacturers so as to find out what they thought of this policy. It is true that there will be a subsidy of 25 cents per hundredweight, so that, officially, the price of milk powder will be 15 cents. But what happens then to the manufacturer? He will have to take whatever price he can get for his milk powder. Then, he will reduce the price he pays per hundredweight to make up for the lower price he gets for his milk powder.
Manufacturers told me last night that they would lower their purchase price by 40 to 50 cents. This is in addition to last year's price reduction.
Everybody wants to rescue the farmers, to save the Quebec dairy industry! Last year, in our area, milk was selling at $2.90 per hundredweight in the summer and $3 in the winter. Officially, the price should come down to $2.90 on May 1 next. We do hope it is not going to fall below that level.
Now if we examine the purport of the minister's statement and if we try to determine the economic impact of that price change, we find that the government will have to spend from $15 million to $17 million to pay that 25 cent premium per hundred pounds of milk. The spending of $15 to $17 million to protect an economic sector such as agriculture is not too important. What is more serious is what the farmers will be losing. The production of milk in Canada for industrial use is estimated at approximately 7 billion pounds, and we will have to pay 25 cents per hundredweight of milk, which means that the government will have to spend from $15 to $17 million.
On the other hand, if manufacturers of milk powder cut the price by 40 cents to 50 cents per hundredweight of milk, what will be the cost to farmers? Let us take the

Supply-Agriculture
same quantity of milk and let us reduce its price to 40 cents per hundredweight, and we arrive at an amount of $30 to $32 million; such is the loss farmers will suffer as a consequence of the announcement just made by the Minister of Agriculture. Farmers will thus lose 30 million while getting 17 million dollars. Then the Conservative members will come and say in the house: "We are saving the dairy industry: we are giving farmers 17 million dollars."
The manufacturer is then asked to report to the Minister of Agriculture on the quantity of milk he receives for the production of milk powder or cheese. This is another inconvenience which the manufacturer does not like too much but he will supply those reports willingly because he is quite as interested as the minister, and even more so, in saving the farming class.
Yet, the Catholic Farmers' Union (Union catholique des cultivateurs) had made some suggestions and I am surprised to find that hon. members from the province of Quebec who rose yesterday did not mention those suggestions of the professional farmers association in the province of Quebec. None of them mentioned the wishes of our farming population. That is why I am pleased to inform the house of proposals made in this respect.
I shall quote an item by Mr. Guy Hamel, published in L'Action Catholique. The author reports the words of Mr. Lemoine during a meeting of the joint committee of the U.C.C. and the federated co-operatives with the Minister of Agriculture here in Ottawa. Mr. Lemoine said:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is Mr. Lemoine their president?


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Lemoine is the general president of U.C.C. and he said:
Mr. Lemoine has pointed out that prices asked in Quebec are not based on western grain prices or on the inefficiency of some producers, but on the average Quebec farm unit.
"It is not a premium on inefficiency and routine that we want; we merely want the serious farmer to be able to make a living." He added that the dairy producer was the one who, up to now, had cost the least money to the government of Canada and that he should not have to be penalized or forgotten simply because he might have failed to state his case forcibly enough.
The program suggested to the government was something like this. It is outlined in an article by the same writer, published in L'Action Catholique, stating that the con-

tract which the government should sign was a contract with milk powder producers, whereby the government would agree-
... to buy unsold production at a floor price if, at the end of each month, the producer can show that he has produced 10 per cent less than the corresponding month of the previous year. Thus the surplus production of milk powder would decrease by 10 per cent and the industry would be forced to diversify its production.
2.	The government would pay a subsidy to the producers to make up for any loss on the floor price.
Earlier there had been a reference to a subsidy of 40 cents a hundred pounds instead of 25 cents.
3.	The government would get the industry to sign an agreement to decrease their production of milk powder by 10 per cent a year.
Thus, the industry would be assured of a reasonable profit margin, and production would be directed towards other sectors at the rate of 10 per cent a year.
That was a wise suggestion, and it would not have complicated the useful production control procedures which are being planned, according to minister's statement of yesterday.
Mr. Chairman, I could comment on many other subjects, but I will only deal with the price support policy in regard to hogs and poultry.
The suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture to change the support price for hogs shows that the price support policy has not achieved the purpose for which that act was passed. After being in effect for two years, that law is already obsolete, and yesterday, the minister broke the very law he proposed himself barely two years ago.
A few months from now, he will be amending the price support legislation on pork so as to lower the price from $25 to $23.65. What, again, will be the result of such a policy? First, the price of pork will drop below the present level, because the government intends to stop buying and storing pork; instead, it will pay compensation to restore the difference between the free market price and the price that will be in force next October, that is $23.65.
The other result will be to destroy the balance between the price of fowl and beef in relation to pork. This will cause a general drop in the price of other products.
However, there is one advantage to this plan: it will protect the professional farmer. The present government's price support policy

has caused great harm to the farmers while helping the integrators. And the Minister of Agriculture has shown a serious lack of foresight in enacting this legislation without providing a means of preventing integrators from sharing in the support price policy. I therefore urge him to consider the matter further, with a view to protecting farmers and family farms by ensuring that price supports work not against them, but to their advantage.
We can see what is happening in the agricultural industry. Between 90 and 95 per cent of the production of broilers is dependent on feed manufacturers and operators of meat packing plants. Today, a farmer cannot produce on his own, because production is controlled. I ask the minister to consider the act and to put forth an amendment to give better protection to professional farmers. Last year, the price of broilers was from 16 to 17 cents a pound and in January of this year, from 14 to 16 cents a pound, while the price of turkey varied from 22 to 28 cents a pound, according to grade and weight.
Why should the government not make compensation payments for poultry products like broilers, chickens and turkey? Why does it not prohibit poultry meat imports from the United States?
Last year, we imported $5,408,000 worth of turkey meat or poultry parts; in fact, since 1957, the government has issued 89 import permits for various poultry meats.
I do not know the total quantity of poultry meat that was imported last year, but I have here that of various poultry meats imported under the 89 permits issued between July 1957 to May 30, 1958; we then imported
1,576,000	pounds of poultry meat, apart from the poultry imported since May 1958, when import permits were revoked.
The same goes for broiler chickens. I do not know the quantities of broilers that have been imported, because this kind of imports does not require any permit.
As far as the prospects of the poultry industry are concerned, I must say they are not very promising, since, according to the March edition of L'Actualite economique, the production of broilers would increase by 62 per cent over the same period last year. As far as the production of heavy turkeys is concerned, it will increase by 100 per cent, while that of light turkeys will increase by 4 per cent; it means that during the coming year, the price of poultry will be lower than last year. Besides the price of milk is being reduced as well as the price of pork, etc.
Supply-Agriculture
In the last few months the Minister of Agriculture also made statements to the effect that unless farmers curtailed their production, this government would have to take severe steps either by lowering support prices or, if necessary, by controlling production. How could he induce farmers to reduce production at a time when they are forced to increase it in order to lessen production costs which are already too high? When the government asks farmers to reduce their production, does it mean the big farmer or the small farmer, or does it mean the contract farmer?
Has anything been done to dispose of dairy products surpluses, or hog surpluses and especially of milk powder surpluses? Nothing is left undone to solve the problems of western farmers, who are granted subsidies for their wheat production. Recently they received a $40 million grant from the government, to make up for the low prices they get for their grain, and we congratulate the government for doing so.
And yet western farmers are not satisfied, because a number of them will have to quit the farm, as will one third of Quebec farmers a year or two hence, unless farming conditions are improved in this country.
This year, the intention seems to be to have eastern farmers pay certain premiums or grants which we will be required to pay to some industries, coal or gold mining, in particular.
According to Mr. Mel Andal, who appeared before the Senate committee on soil utilization, one third of the 575,000 Canadian farms are uneconomic units, inhabited by 2,746,000 persons. Of that total number, 55,000 farms located in the prairies are made up of less than 130 acres, and their operation cannot provide a decent standard of living for their owners. In addition, there are in the eastern part of this country 187,000 farms comprising less than 70 acres of improved land. The farmers who operate those farms cannot get a return which would enable them to meet the needs of their families.
The best proof of that statement was given the other day at a sitting of the committee on agriculture where the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked for detailed information concerning the percentage of western farmers and eastern farmers who pay income tax.

Supply-Agriculture
At this stage, I should like to read an article published in La Presse, on April 8, 1959, and I quote:
Statistics show that more than 60 per cent of farmers who pay income tax live in Alberta and Saskatchewan, he said.
Of course, the reference here was to the hon. member for Port Arthur.
Western farmers are rather resentful about it. They can hardly account for the fact that only recently 20,000 Saskatchewan farmers paid this tax while only 780 in Quebec did so.
Mr. J. Gear McEntyre, deputy minister of the Taxation Division in the Department of National Revenue, replied that agriculture in the province of Quebec is just sufficient to provide a livelihood for those engaged in it. Returns were checked, but investigations have borne out that most of the incomes in question were not taxable. According to a survey conducted ten years ago, the average farmer's income in eastern Canada is well below the level of taxable income.
That did not prevent Mr. Fisher from saying that Quebec farmers were making good money cutting pulpwood.
Mr. Chairman, if Quebec farmers do not pay any income tax it is simply because they do not earn enough.
On the other hand, if the hon. member for Port Arthur thinks that our farmers are getting rich cutting wood in the forest in the winter months, I would suggest that he go out to the Abitibi area in Quebec, as well as the maritimes, and see how much those people are getting for their pulpwood.
Mr. Chairman, it will be remembered that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated in Rimouski that a support price would be placed under pulpwood. However, we never hear anything about it any more, and members on the government side who consider themselves economists never say a word about it either.
The farm policy of the Conservative government is a complete wash-out that will lead thousands of farmers into bankruptcy, because of the price reduction affecting all farm products, especially in eastern Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that the present surplus is embarrassing to the Minister of Agriculture. However, that situation is the result of the fine promises made by Conservative candidates during last elections. Farmers had then been promised their share of the national income, and a refund to each family of the excess $120 that the Liberal government was taking out of their pockets each year.
While the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) forecasts a general recovery in

every economic and industrial sector, the Conservative government, through its farm policy, is taking the bread out of the mouth of farmers and their families.
On April 14 last, L'Action Catholique published an editorial which sums up my position perfectly, and which says:
The problem of the dairy industry cannot be considered by itself, outside the economic and social context of which it is the key. If there is a depression in that sector, the whole of Quebec's agriculture will be hit by that depression at a time when, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), a general recovery is starting in other sectors of our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I ask all hon. members from the province of Quebec, and others from eastern Canada, to mark the following paragraph:
That present surpluses are a matter of embarrassment for the government is easy to understand. But has any effort been made to dispose of them, that is an effort even remotely comparable to those made on behalf of wheat producers?
(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Mr. Harkness:: I think I should say something now to dispel the complete misconception which the hon. member who has just spoken evidently has with regard to the new stabilization program for dairy products and with regard to the stabilization program generally.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska indicated clearly that he has not understood the import of the announcement I made yesterday; and in addition, of course, the figures he produced are complete nonsense. They are worse than those produced by the Martin bureau of statistics. They are complete nonsense and bear no relationship to the facts, and for that reason I think I should set the record straight.
The 25 cents per hundred pounds mentioned in the statement yesterday is not being paid to the manufacturers, as the hon. member seems to think. It is being paid to the producers. It will be paid directly to the farmers; therefore as far as people sending milk to the cheese factories are concerned, they will get more money for their milk than they were receiving formerly, instead of taking a loss on it. As far as people delivering milk for general manufacture are concerned, rather than a loss of 40 or 50 cents a hundred pounds the biggest reduction they

should get in any circumstances should he 15 cents per hundred pounds, and in many cases there should be no reduction at all. The hon. member evidently does not understand the complexities of the milk business, in addition to failing to understand, perhaps deliberately, the statement I made yesterday.
The hon. member also said that the prices of all agricultural products in Quebec had gone down, apparently in an effort to convey the impression that they had gone down since this government took office. Actually the price of nearly every agricultural product has gone up since this government came to power. If the hon. member will look at the statistics with regard to the prices of agricultural products during the past year as compared to those received when the Liberal government was in power he will find that there has been a very material improvement. He will also find that last year the farmers of Quebec received a larger cash income than they had ever received in any previous year in history. In addition, as I said, the prices they received for most of their products were considerably better than they had been when the Liberals were in power.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
I fully understand the statement he made yesterday and I know full well that 25 cents per hundred pounds of milk will be paid to the farmers. I would like to know whether the manufacturer will have to pay the minimum price for milk or if he will be free to set his own price. I know very well that the farmer will get 25 cents and that the price is not supposed to go down by more than 5 cents a hundred pounds for the manufacture of milk powder. But the manufacturer will not be in a position to sell milk powder at a lower price; consequently he will set the price of milk according to the price of milk powder. That is the way I understand the situation.
Now, the Minister of Agriculture says that the farmer got more cash in 1958 than he ever did in previous years. I admit that the income from the sale of agricultural products has increased in 1958.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Samuel Boulanger: Very well, I accept the
cheers of the hon. members on the government side. However, I must add that it is not the farmers, but the integrators who got the most money, both in Quebec province and in Ontario.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed the pleasure of asking a question of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger)?
Supply-Agriculture


Samuel Boulanger: Please do.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What action does he suggest to dispose of the overproduction of milk powder that now exists in Canada, and what does he think of milk powder companies who were aware of the present overproduction situation? Were such companies helping the farmers, or were they considering their own interests. I should very much appreciate an answer to that.


Samuel Boulanger: If there had been time, I would have answered the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). If he insists on getting an answer, I shall give him one: let him begin by studying the speech made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) who made some suggestions with regard to the matter, for which I want to commend him.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What are your suggestions? You did not answer me. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska did not answer my question; this is no answer.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: I cannot allow this to develop into an argument. A question was asked, and it was answered. (Translation):


Mr. Rompre:: Mr. Chairman, may I-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, to get an answer to the question I have asked of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska?
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member cannot enforce an answer. (Translation):


Aristide Stanislas Joseph Rompré: Mr. Chairman, as the representative of a mostly rural constituency, may I take a few minutes of the time of this committee at this point in the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) to submit a few requests that have been made by farm organizations of my constituency, and, at the same time, to express to the minister my satisfaction for the statements he made yesterday about the support price for the products of the dairy industry.
I believe I am right, Mr. Chairman, in saying this, because the price that will be guaranteed for the next twelve months in this regard meets the wish expressed by the heads of the province of Quebec farm association, and the U.C.C. who recently came to the committee on agriculture to submit their brief, and acknowledged that the government should check the powdered milk production because of the rather heavy stocks of that product.

Supp ly-A griculture
I also want to express, on behalf of those people in my riding who follow that profession, all my appreciation to the hon. Minister of Agriculture for the generous manner in which he, as well as hon. members of this house and the farmers' unions concerned, co-operated in the study of the suggestions submitted and the brief presented to him, in view of obtaining a stable and proper price level.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Chairman, if other classes in society realize the considerable work which must be done on a farm in order to make it yield enough to allow a family to live in reasonable comfort.
I am myself a farmer's son, living in a parish which is essentially a farming district. I know that, unlike a good many city people who work only five days a week, these people have to toil seven days a week and, in many cases, require the help of other members of the family, even school children, in order to get things done.
For a good many farmers the revenue obtained from the sale of dairy products is not enough; they have to make up for it by seeking work outside the additional revenue they need to survive. Some of them take jobs in logging camps, others earn extra money by raising hogs, poultry or from a maple bush, sometimes also by very carefully making use of their wood lots. Let us stop and consider for a moment the degree of insecurity the farmer has to face, because of possible losses, which quite frequently occur.
Many farmers in my riding were affected this year by the loss of some of their cattle in the outbreak of rabies. I wish to express my appreciation to the minister for the work done to check this disease by having dogs vaccinated. But there is still an enemy that causes great concern: the fox. A great many of my constituents have told me about that animal which remains in the vicinity of farm buildings, even refusing to run away from man, a behaviour which is certainly contrary to its normal wild instincts and denotes symptoms of the disease in its latent form.
While I was in my riding last week-end,
I got a phone call from the mayor of St. Gilbert who told me that a farmer had lost an animal which, according to the veterinary, had probably been bitten by a fox that had caused great damage a few days before in the hen-house of that farmer.

I received another letter this week from a St. Augustin farmer who according to the veterinary's report, suffered a similar loss.
I mention those cases, Mr. Chairman, to acquaint the government with this situation and enable it to study the problem which could be solved perhaps by providing a bounty to promote fox hunting.
I made those few remarks so that everyone may realize the plight of this class of workers referred to yesterday by my deskmate in this house, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Rogers) when he said:
(Text):
As a matter of fact, it seems to be an established fact that farm prices are the first to go down and the last to go up.
(Translation):
Well, it really makes you think.
Recently, I received from the secretary of the Quebec district association of Ayrshire cattle breeders, a resolution passed at a general meeting asking the government to give effect to the latest requests for herd "control". According to information given to this house by the minister, this temporary delay has been caused by a shortage of staff. I have no doubt that even if this means increasing the staff, there will be no difficulty involved in giving effect to these requests from the farmers, who are anxious to follow the instructions given by their technical advisors, namely the agronomists, so as to improve their herds. In closing, I wish to express my great appreciation to the government for the attention it has been giving to the farmers, so as to enable them to take their rightful place in Canada's economy.


Mr. Belzile:: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to take up a few minutes of the committee's time to make my humble contribution to this discussion. I should like to make it known to the committee at the outset that I have no intention, in my brief remarks, to indulge in what is commonly known as petty politics.
It is my aim to be as realistic as possible and to examine briefly the various aspects of the difficult problems facing the Minister of Agriculture and the government in the management of the country.
Since my election to this house last May, I have been listening closely to most of the speeches made by hon. members. As far as I am concerned, this is the third time I have had the opportunity to speak.

I listened to the criticism of the opposition; I listened to members from all the provinces of our country who did their utmost to draw attention to their respective problems and those that are common to the whole nation.
Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago, I listened to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) who tried to draw a gloomy picture of agriculture under the Conservative government. And I wish to repeat once more-and I do not want to indulge in politics but only make sure that the fact is recorded that economic crises have not always been the outcome of Conservative governments-that, if at the present time, we have an economic recession which, fortunately, is about to disappear, the Conservatives are not responsible.
Mr. Chairman, a few days before the 1930 election, perhaps some members now sitting in this house were not old enough to realize the economic situation of the time, but the one who is talking to you was then head of a family and was operating a farm.
Prior to the 1930 election-and the Conservatives were not in power at the time, it was the Liberal party, and it had been in power, I believe, since 1921-butter was selling for 18 to 20 cents a pound; eggs, 12 to 15 cents a dozen; pork, 10 to 12 cents a pound; beef, 8 to 10 cents a pound. The worker earned an average salary of $1.50 to $2 a day to provide for the needs of his family.
I do not think the figures I have just quoted are indicative of a fruitful administration, and the legacy it left, after the 1930 election, was not a very enviable economic situation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not like to hand out compliments indiscriminately, but I believe it is worth noting, even briefly, that the hon. Minister of Agriculture deserves congratulations for the ability, the tact and the practical leadership he has shown a few days ago, when he decided to lower the support prices for certain agricultural products, a decision he announced to the house yesterday.
Starting October 1 the price of hogs will be reduced by one dollar and some cents a hundredweight; however, a subsidy equal to the former price will be paid to the average farmer. That is where, Mr. Chairman, we see the value of the system that the Minister of Agriculture is using to discourage
Supply-A griculture
and destroy vertical integration, i.e. by discouraging those who make a large business of hog raising and production. Of course, these are private undertakings on which the government has no direct control, because the government cannot stop a large feed manufacturer from setting up hog raising farms able to market an unusual number of pigs each year. But, in a general way, the former system, with fixed support prices far from discouraging integration, favoured it because, no matter how many hogs each producer put on the market, he received a uniform price on the whole, for his product; he received the same support price as the smaller producer.
Not very long ago, Mr. Chairman, I received a letter from a farmer in my riding who hinted in rather broad and uncertain terms, that the farm group, the average producer, who has a family living and makes a living out of farming, that the Minister of Agriculture should adopt a policy that would establish a distinction between the professional producer and the man who takes to hog raising on an integrated basis.
In La Terre de chez nous, on April 8, 1959, there was an editorial by Mr. Louis-Philippe Poulin, entitled "Hog prices policy". Mr. Poulin said in this editorial among other things:
The application of deficiency payments to a specific number of hogs per farm seems to us to be much more effective, even though such a system gives rise to some problems.
At the outset of his article, the author says:
The average farmer must derive advantages from it.
In brief, the article of Mr. Poulin is in favour of the policy and of the prices which were announced to us yesterday by the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
With regard to the support price of butter, we all know that this price is maintained at 64 cents a pound. It is my conviction that on account of his wisdom and competence the hon. Minister of Agriculture has not been maintaining the support price of butter at such a level to please those who produce this product. Indeed, he has shown realism, since statistics show that, as of January 1, 1955, we had in stock 91,151,000 pounds of butter, compared with 69,899,000 pounds as of January 1, 1958. If you take into account the fact that our population was
15,803,000	inhabitants in 1955, when our stocks of butter reached 91,151,000 pounds and the fact that our population has now increased to 17,000,000, we can reach the conclusion that present stocks of butter, proportionately and on the basis of the individual

Supply-Agriculture
average, are much less substantial than they were in 1954 and 1955. In my opinion, the Minister of Agriculture has shown wisdom in continuing to encourage the manufacturers of butter to continue their production. Undoubtedly, neither the farmers nor the producers of butter will get rich on 64 cents a pound. Nevertheless, this price will enable the average farmer to have from his dairy herd, a reasonable if not a big return.
Mr. Chairman, I suppose my hon. friend, the member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) expects me to talk about milk powder. The hon. member's wish will be fulfilled, as I intend to speak on this matter. However, before I undertake a detailed analysis of the matter, I would like to stress the fact that I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say that the policy of the hon. Minister of Agriculture as far as powdered milk is concerned, answered a need and showed that he has a good deal of practical common sense when it comes to implementing his price support policy.
Powdered milk is not used very much in Canada. It is also a product for which there is little demand on the export markets and which is perishable. After a few months, it loses much of its value and taste and it would certainly not be wise to maintain its present level of production in Quebec and Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, it is a known fact that in everything we reap as we sow, and the complication now arising in relation to the price of milk powder is the result of the fact that in 1957, the government then in power, without being even requested to set a minimum price for milk powder, introduced a 17 cent a pound support price. What happened then? In the province of Quebec alone, we saw a score of new industries develop and we saw the work of many cooperative members being sabotaged by people who had set their minds to make money through the processing of milk into powder. We have also farm organizations, butter and cheese co-operatives, being crushed or blotted out. We have seen them disappear and replaced by milk powder producers who had one purpose, that of making money with their plants. That brings me, Mr. Chairman, to what I said a moment ago. We are reaping what we have sown. In 1957, we adopted a policy which did not correspond to a need and, unfortunately, we are reaping today the nefarious effects of

that policy which was devoid of practical common sense.
That reminds me, Mr. Chairman, of the story of a fellow going out for a walk on a fine day; caught in a storm and having no umbrella, be must at least partially suffer the nefarious effects of the weather.
Mr. Chairman, there was fair sailing when the Canadian government established a support price for milk powder at 17 cents a pound. Our farmers went ahead producing milk powder at that time, but today, the storm had to come down, because no government with any sense of responsibility can continue to favour production of a commodity which being perishable, is hardly fit for export, and whose output is far in excess of domestic consumption.


Samuel Boulanger: That does not justify the government giving away milk powder.


Alfred Belzile: Mr. Chairman, I must commend the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Michaud) for the speech he made yesterday in this house. The hon. gentleman showed a lot of common sense; he is a professional farmer like myself, and a credit to his calling. The hon. member was frank enough not to commend the Minister of Agriculture, but to formally state his approval of the healthy policy of the Minister of Agriculture. As recorded on page 2 of the English appendix to Hansard of April 23, 1959, the hon. member said:
And I am sure that dairy farmers will be pleased to hear that the government intends to maintain at 64 cents a pound the support price on butter production.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, probably in good faith, claims that Conservative members do not understand a thing about agriculture nor about the acute problems which now face the farming industry.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did not say that government members do not understand the problems of the agricultural industry. I said Conservative members had not understood the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture about milk powder.


Alfred Belzile: Mr. Chairman, until I have proof of the contrary, and until I have read in Hansard the speech of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, I accept his correction.

Mr. Chairman ...


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Belzile), but it being one o'clock I must leave the chair.
(Text):
It being one o'clock, the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Alfred Belzile: Mr. Chairman, before recess, I dealt only with the latest statement of the Minister of Agriculture on support prices for agricultural products. I now wish to discuss, as briefly as possible, some problems relating to agriculture in Canada. Before doing so, however, may I once again urge the Minister of Agriculture to maintain his price support policy, which gives encouragement to the agricultural class, to average producers and to heads of families. I also ask the minister to use the strictest methods to curb those who have been practising integration, whether in hog raising, poultry raising or milk powder production. May the minister's policy be such as to deter people who, in the past, have pushed integration too far and have caused untold harm to farmers across Canada.
I think I mentioned, at the beginning of my remarks, that I listened closely to most speeches made in this house since my election to parliament in Ottawa, in May 1958. This has made me realize that the agricultural problem is not the least problem facing the federal government; indeed, it is the government's responsibility to give special consideration to a great many problems.
I have been hearing hon. members from other provinces in western Canada setting forth the demands of their constituents, and I realize, Mr. Chairman, that there are very great problems to be solved in that section of the country. I have also been aware for many years that eastern Canada faces serious problems. When speaking of the west, I presume this should include Manitoba and the other provinces up to the Pacific, including British Columbia; and when speaking of the east we mean Ontario and Quebec right down to the Atlantic.
Supp ly-A griculture
However, Mr. Chairman, my purpose this afternoon is to discuss the acute problems affecting Canada's far eastern section. By that I mean the area from Quebec city eastward. It may be that many hon. members from western Canada know absolutely nothing about the great natural difficulties which confront the farmers of that area, the far eastern part of Canada, in the discharge of their occupation.
The land of my constituency is not naturally fertile and is often rocky in many areas. The climate is severe; our winters are very cold and very hard. Hon. members might be surprised to know that in my parish, no later than last Monday, I saw snow banks 5 to 7 feet deep along the roads. In fact, at this time of the year, owners of dairy herds still have to keep the herds in the stable and feed them. Summer is very short for the growing season and the grazing season is limited to two months, that is from June 15 to August 15. Thus, Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to imagine all the sacrifices and the hard work, the problems of all kinds to which the pioneers in our region were subjected when they had to clear the land to get tillable soil fertile enough to provide a living for the families of eastern Canada.
Those are problems that the federal government must not ignore. Farmers of eastern Canada, farmers in the area east of Quebec city must receive at all times and continue to receive from this government the necessary encouragement to maintain family farming. We do not have many industries and being located as far as we are from large centres, we find transportation a problem. However, it is important that the authorities be made aware of their responsibilities. We must not forsake this region which was conquered with sweat and sacrifice just because it is far from large centres or because the climate is not favourable to agriculture. It is essential that the average farmer, the producer, the head of the family, be in a position to increase his production and receive fair prices for his products.
Our farmers should be made to feel that they can keep their trust in established authority; they must continue giving their children some education; they must continue impressing upon the masses, and upon their daughters and their sons, the patriotic spirit which should be nurtured by every good citizen in this country. The sons of farmers

Supply-Agriculture
should remain on the land; and that area which, perhaps, has not been conquered as easily as others should again receive encouragement from the federal government and all right-thinking people who want our great country to be prosperous, progressive and happy.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention some needs of the farming people in the area I just mentioned. Our soil does not favour seed grain production, and farmers in the eastern part of the province must buy those seeds from producers either in the other eastern parts of this country or in the west. Since, as I said a moment ago, distances are long and freight rates are very high, the Department of Agriculture should consider the possibility of granting subsidies in such a way as to relieve the cost of freight rates for seed grain.
Second, as the soil is not naturally fertile, we must-and I repeat Mr. Chairman, we must-as I am one of those who sire concerned with small farming, one of those who buy seed grain and who buy fertilizers-buy fertilizers; but, at the present time, because of freight rates, the cost of those products is very high indeed.
The government could also grant a fairly substantial subsidy for the transportation of calcereous ameliorators. This is the name given to ground limestone, commonly known as "calco". Added to our soil, that product has given excellent results in the past. But, unfortunately, there again, its cost price, once it gets to our farms, is still too high for many of our farmers. I believe, if I am not carrying my argument too far, that the federal government could perhaps, authorize an investigation of the fertilizer industry-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, as this session progresses and as the minister makes one announcement after another, it becomes more and more clear that the government has abandoned its agricultural policy as set forth in the recent election campaigns. When the Prime Minister was in the opposition for many years he spoke, as did many of the rest of us, in favour of parity prices. It was the policy of the Conservative party before the election in 1957 to establish a system of support prices in this country based on a parity relationship. In the Conservative handbook for the 1957 election it

is reported that regular motions have been introduced into the house by Mr. Diefen-baker in order to secure for the farmer a more satisfactory share of the national income.
That is one quotation and I have many others here. I will put a few of them on the record but they are all along the same line. When the Prime Minister spoke on June 8, 1957, he is reported by the Canadian Press as promising that if a Conservative government were elected he would call a September session of parliament to set up a system of floor prices for agricultural products based on parity. Well, we have had some indications this session that the present Minister of Agriculture is basically carrying out the same kind of program that we have had with previous ministers of agriculture. We have had certain support prices for agricultural products; the government has failed to obtain markets for products at the support prices and immediately the support price has been cut. This announcement was made as far as hog support prices are concerned, that there will be a reduction in the floor price October 1 from $25 a hundredweight to $23.65, basis Toronto.
Then there was the announcement yesterday that the government is reducing the floor price of powdered milk from 15 cents to 10 cents a pound, and that a few months from now the support price will be removed altogether. In its place will be paid a 25 cent per hundred pounds of milk deficiency payment under certain conditions. The total of the government's announcements adds up to lower prices for agricultural commodities.
These announcements have not been supported by the farm organizations. This government is not carrying out the recommendations which have been brought to it by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or the Ontario milk producers and other farm organizations. Soon after the minister's announcement was made yesterday the following press release was made by the Ontario farmers' union.
Dairy price support levels announced in the House of Commons by agriculture minister Harkness indicate flagrant disregard for the high ideals expressed by the Conservative government in the agricultural prices support legislation enacted in January 1958, said Gordon L. Hill, president of the Ontario farmers' union.
There is Mr. Hill's statement as to what this announcement on dairy support prices means-a flagrant disregard for the high ideals expressed by the Conservative party

in the agricultural prices support legislation enacted in January, 1958. The statement goes on:
"While Mr. Harkness is to be commended for changing the system from market price support to the deficiency payment system in the case of skim milk powder, the amount of deficiency payment is negative and completely ignores increasing farm costs", Mr. Hill said. "In the face of rising operating costs Canadian farmers are expected to hold the line on prices for some commodities and to absorb price cuts on others such as milk powder, and a reduction in the price of milk powder is not in line with the objectives of the act. Rising costs for fertilizer, farm implements, mill feeds, freight rates and other goods and services which farmers must buy have created an impossible situation for the dairyman", said Mr. Hill. He stated that concentrating milk producers, who are already living on the depreciation of their assets, will be forced to seek an additional source of income. This will increase the trend to contract farming and vertical integration wihch is already sounding the death knell of the family type farm.
This is the answer to statements of hon. members opposite that their program has been one to assist and promote the small farmer. Mr. Hill says that this policy of the government will increase the trend to contract farming and vertical integration. The statement concludes with the following:
"A disturbing aspect of the whole situation." Mr. Hill continued, "is that the advisory committee to the stabilization board has been completely ignored. What use is an advisory committee that is not consulted?" Mr. Hill asked.
I think this last statement is a very grave reflection on the attitude of the government. I think it is a rather serious indictment of the way the minister considers this legislation in advance when he has, according to Mr. Hill, failed to have the advisory committee consider this question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not hear all the hon. member has said, but if I may comment on what I understand him as saying now I think that Mr. Hill and every member of the advisory committee will bear me out when I tell him that the committee spent three days discussing this matter of price support for dairy products at its last meeting. They have in fact considered this matter and have been considering it throughout the past year. Then, as I say, they spent three days of their last meeting doing so.


Hazen Robert Argue: Could the minister say when the last meeting was held?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think it was about six weeks or two months ago. I cannot be certain how long ago it was.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the comment made by the minister. I am not going to dispute it. All I have done is to place in the record the last paragraph of the statement that was
Supply-Agriculture
issued as a result of the announcement yesterday. Perhaps the wording of the announcement might be considered to mean that the recommendations of the advisory board have not been carried out. That may be what it means, although I do not, myself, think so. I took it as meaning that they were not consulted. The minister shakes his head, and I take it, now, that they held a three-day meeting and put forward certain recommendations with regard to which the minister has not taken action.
I note that the minister has not made any comment on that part of the statement issued by Mr. Hill in which he says that the government's policy has shown flagrant disregard of the high ideals expressed in its agricultural prices support legislation, nor on Mr. Hill's statement that the policy ignores increases in farming costs.
There will have to be a good deal of new thought and new ideas placed in the government's agricultural policy if the small farm is to survive in this country. Under the policy announced by the government-a program of lower and lower price supports for agricultural products-the ordinary family farm in this country is facing increasingly great difficulties. We had hoped that the government would take action in other fields. We had hoped that the government would move in the direction set forth in the brief presented by the farm delegation. We still await an announcement by the government, and as the days go on, and as one member of parliament from the prairie provinces after another goes on the record, it is becoming more and more clear to me that a unanimous decision has been taken by the Conservative members from the three prairie provinces that deficiency payments as outlined in the submission of the farm delegation should be opposed and are not in the interest of western agriculture.
We have the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Wheat, oats and barley are not included under its provisions. The government has purchased a number of commodities under the terms of this act, and I submitted a series of questions, to which the minister has provided answers, as to the quantities of the various commodities which have been supported. I think there is a feeling abroad in this country that supports for agricultural products benefit western Canada almost exclusively. There seems to be a feeling that when a farmer gets something it is always the prairie farmer who is on the receiving end. I think the statistics which the Department of Agriculture has produced in this regard are most revealing, because they show that out of a total of $69,814,000 worth of agricultural products purchased by the board

Supp ly-A griculture from April 31, 1958 to December 31, 1958, only some $5,862,000 worth were purchased in the three prairie provinces. Thus, whatever the value the act has been so far, and to whatever extent it provides for some support for agricultural producers from the national treasury, it has in the main benefited farmers outside the prairie provinces. I think that is an additional argument in favour of government action at this time to support, by way of deficiency payment, the prices of western grain.
The government has stated that it has an agricultural policy. Members of the government say that there is an agricultural policy designed to help the small farmer, to give the farmer a greater share of the national income, and to provide prices for agricultural producers which are fair and which bear a fair relationship to cost of production. In fact, I think the program is almost the exact opposite. It is a program which has failed to deal with agricultural surpluses; it is a program which merely mimics the program of the previous administration; it is a program without vision; it is a program which means that in the face of agricultural surpluses the government acts to reduce support prices.
When the Prime Minister met the delegates, and when he spoke in this house a year ago on the dollar an acre program, he said the government had a long term policy, and in that long term program he included just about everything but the kitchen sink. Among the matters he included-and upon which we are now awaiting action-were long term farm credit, crop insurance and some other matters. We await legislation on these subjects with interest. We shall study it very carefully when it is brought before this house, and we shall support it on second reading if we think it is in the best interests of the agricultural community.
But while we are waiting for the government to move in the direction of easing farm credit and bringing in an improved farm credit program, may I point out that the government is allowing interest rates in this country to increase? The government is saying: we intend to provide long term farm credit; but on the other hand it says: let the Bank of Canada discount rate go up to 4.97 per cent; let this result in an increase in the prime interest rate for the banks; let this result in the insurance companies and finance companies across this country being able to increase their charges. Is this tight money policy of the present government-the policy which is now in effect-not increasing charges to the agricultural community of this country? Of course it is. The government talks in one way, and acts in another. It has talked in
IMr. Argue.]

favour of fair prices; it has talked in favour of prices bearing a fair cost relationship, but only yesterday we heard the announcement that the floor price on skinmed milk powder is being reduced.
I think the case which the western producers put before the government was a sound one. I think it was a modest one. It was one which asked for a fair parity price, as the government has promised. It did not ask that all the increases in cost of production should be taken into account, but it said to the government: we want you to take action to maintain the price of wheat, in recent years and today, such as we have enjoyed over an eight-year period from 1947 onwards, and although we shall find it most difficult we are prepared to absorb the increase in the cost ourselves.
In this fair and moderate position which the agricultural producers have taken, when they have looked to this house for members to support them, they have found that the people who have opposed them the most, and consistently opposed them, are the members of parliament from the prairie provinces. They have opposed the case that was put forward by the farm delegation. I do not think I have to quote statements to prove that; Hansard is full of them. The statements are being repeated day after day. Yesterday the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose had this to say, as reported at page 2983 of Hansard:
We are supposed to believe that every member of that delegation was in agreement with deficiency payments. They were not.
Here is another slur on the farm delegation. This is a slur on the farm delegation that came down here-


An hon. Member:: No, it is not.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and met in the Chateau Laurier in conference before they prepared their brief, unanimously supported the brief and presented it to the government. And yet a member from the prairie provinces said that a good 50 per cent of them were satisfied with the acreage payments if only we would pay just a little more. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that statement is just as far wrong and just as misleading as the statement made by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson that if you did what the delegation requested all you would do would be to give the farmer with a Cadillac, a Buick. That is a slur, Mr. Chairman, on the agricultural producers of western Canada who are not driving Cadillacs, and the hon. member knows it and, generally speaking, they are not driving Buicks. These people have had an average income in recent years less than the average national income. These extravagant statements are more grist

for the mill; this makes good press copy in eastern Canada but it is a false position for the hon. member to put forward and it is completely inaccurate.
In the years when the hon. member for Essex East sat on the other side of the house with his colleagues the members from the prairie provinces had a different line. They would get up in the house and they would get up back home and they would say, "We are really working for the people we represent; we are trying to do the best we can. But, you know, it is the eastern members we cannot convince. If you would come down and help us convince", as the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek used to say, "the eastern members, we would get somewhere". We not only have a new government in office, we have a complete change in the line; we have a complete change in the attitude. According to the prairie farm delegation, the attitude now is that they received a more sympathetic hearing from eastern members than they received from the prairie members.


Mr. Pascoe:: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it is true. You find that in one report after another. Here is a report by Robert Moon and Ron. Brown.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: They snicker. I have not the faintest notion what they are laughing about:
Prairie farm delegates Wednesday were becoming openly hostile to the nature of grain deficiency payment replies given them by their western Conservative M.P.'s.
Coming on the heels of Prime Minister Diefenbaker's rejection of immediate payments on Tuesday morning, the rebuffs they were meeting from their own western members came as a shocking aftermath.
I scarcely need to quote from this report. Hansard is full of statements of one member in this house from the prairie provinces that deficiency payments are not the answer; that an acreage payment is the best. Therefore, whether they are hostile or whether it is just strong opposition or whether 50 per cent are in favour of what they are supporting, I will leave it to the people who are affected to decide.
I think there would be a chance for deficiency payments if the members from the prairies in this house were anywhere as nearly ranged in favour of the position taken by the farm delegation as the people on the prairies are at this time. I am certain that if the members of parliament from western Canada would say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Agriculture, "We want action; we think the farmers have a case for deficiency payments", something would be done; but as long as the members who
Supply-Agriculture
represent the farmers who are directly affected stand up in the house and say their case is not a good one, that half of them do not believe in it and it is not something that is advantageous to the average farmer, then, of course, there is little or no hope that this will be done. What is the excuse?


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will be very pleased to answer if the hon. member would wait until after the timekeeper over here calls the time. The last time I spoke half of my speech was made up of questions.
These gentlemen say that deficiency payments are not the answer; that if you have a deficiency payment which is paid on the unit of wheat at a certain ceiling, as stated by the brief, you help the big farmers. Oh, how these people want to help the little farmers. Their hearts bleed for the little farmers.


James Ernest Pascoe: Does yours?


Hazen Robert Argue: What did they say in the house yesterday? They said, "We want a two-price system; we do not want to get the deficiency payment that is asked for by the western delegates, but we will take a piece of it. We will not take it out of the national treasury but will add it to the price of bread". But when we get the two-price system, if we get it, I ask them if they are going to put a ceiling on the amount that is paid to any farmer who sells wheat, or are they going to do as the Prime Minister said a year ago, that if you increase the price by 50 cents a bushel to provide a two-price system it would add 6J cents to the price of bread.
If we get a two-price system-and I am in favour of it and have been in favour of it for years-do the hon. members say that they will not use it and pay it out on an acreage basis up to 200 acres? No, I am certain they will pay it on the price of a bushel of wheat, where it should be paid, and that is the whole case that is being put forward by the farm delegation.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the agricultural problems facing this country can be solved. The surplus can be disposed of and I would suggest that a food surplus disposal corporation should be established at this time and properly constituted, with a board that would have the power to undertake to sell all of these products and to dispose of these products by contact; that would have the power to obtain other goods in exchange. Call it a barter system, if you like, which is one of the things that has worked in the United States. This disposal corporation

Supp ly-A griculture
should dispose of some of these products byproviding that they be used in the mixing of feeds in Canada. With regard to the surplus of milk and the surplus of butter and other edible food products suitable for human consumption, they could be used as part of the school lunch program in Canada. I think our products can be disposed of. I would suggest instead of this backward looking policy of cutting prices and removing supports, this is the kind of program that should be set forth at the coming meeting in Washington when they are discussing the all-important food for peace program. Food for peace should be something of a co-operative program between nations, and this is the kind of policy that I suggest the Canadian government should advance.
It has been suggested very often, Mr. Chairman, that the sums of money the western delegates have demanded could not be provided. It has been suggested that they have asked for too much. I suggest they have not asked for too much and that they themselves have put forward ways and means by which this money can be obtained. They have come here and have said, "We want a deficiency payment that will guarantee us a certain price for wheat." They have said that to the extent they can get any part of this payment on any other basis they are prepared to reduce their demand. Implement a two-price system and you automatically reduce the deficiency payment asked for by the prairie grain growers. Take action on the exchange rate so that Canadian wheat will be selling on the basis of dollars of equal value to United States dollars. By that means you will increase the price of wheat another four or five cents a bushel. Pay from the national treasury the subsidy that is now charged to the Canadian wheat board, and therefore charged to the farmers, for wheat that is used in the production of flour for export. Extend the payments that are provided for storage at the end of the crop year to cover all grain in public storage and by that means you would add another substantial sum for the western wheat producer. I suggest that these measures would in fact reduce the deficiency payment which the farmer has been asking for by almost 50 per cent.
Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that the final payment on last year's wheat crop would be announced within the course of a few weeks. I think it should have been announced long ago. I have argued in the agriculture committee and I have argued with support in years gone by that soon after the end of a crop year the inventory

should be accounted for, transferred to the next pool account and the farmer paid his money. The farmer should not have to wait month after month after month until the next crop year is almost over before announcement of the final payment is made. With worse drought conditions on the prairies at the present time than at any time since 1937-and we hope they will change-with the farmers so short of money that they felt it necessary to send a mass delegation to Ottawa, I plead with the minister to announce the final payment immediately and in announcing it to take into account the demands of prairie grain producers for deficiency payments and augment the final payment by a deficiency payment.
I have pointed out that the greater portion of the money spent under the Agricultural Stabilization Act has been spent outside the prairie provinces. I do not put that forward by way of criticism at all. It is necessary to support certain agricultural products. If support of these products means that most of the money at any given time goes to a certain part of Canada, I have no objection. But realizing that the Agricultural Stabilization Act has benefited in the main farmers and agricultural producers of central Canada I think the government and parliament would be justified in giving sympathetic consideration to the demands of the mass delegation and in taking action forthwith on those demands.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the usual sort of tirade, shall I say, which we get from the hon. member for Assiniboia. I regret very much the quite evident attempt he has made to try to raise sectional differences and to make out that one part of Canada is getting more benefit than another from the agricultural policies which the government is pursuing. That is absolutely not the case. As far as the application of the Agricultural Stabilization Act is concerned, every farmer in every part of Canada gets the same benefit from the legislation to the extent hat he engages in the raising of the products covered by that act.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not say anything different.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member made a great point of the fact that the majority of the money which has been used to purchase commodities under the stabilization act has been expended in a part of the country other than the prairie provinces. That does not mean anything. Where you happen to pick up the goods that you take off the market does not make any difference with respect to the total effect of the benefits produced for the farmers.

By picking up surplus butter, for example, we put into the pockets of Canadian farmers at least $80 million more in 1958 than they would have otherwise had. Where we picked up the extra butter for that purpose in order to take it off the market and to maintain the price of 64 cents which we maintained throughout last year does not make any difference. The attempt to try to make out that it does by saying that $5 million was spent by the stabilization board to purchase commodities in western Canada compared with $60 million odd in eastern Canada is not a valid argument at all. It does not establish in any way whatsoever what the benefit of the stabilization act has been in different parts of Canada.
The hon. member also goes on about the demand for so-called deficiency payments on western grain, which are not deficiency payments at all. What is being asked for is retroactive flat payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: Who is quibbling now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 
Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the minister a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just a minute. The hon. member goes around the country trying to establish as a fact what is a complete myth, that we have not been assisting the western farmer and assisting him very materially since we have been in office.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister permit a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Sit down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All right.
Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not ask my questions when sitting down. I have the permission of the minister to ask him a question. I appreciate it. I know he does not mind. In referring to these three main subsidies, I wonder whether he meant to say that the amount of $22 J million in prairie farm assistance is provided wholly from the national treasury. Is it not a fact that throughout the history of the legislation approximately half has been paid by the agricultural producers themselves? Is it not also true that two of these programs have been on the statute books for many years?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 
George Robson Muir: He does not want to.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With respect to the reduction in the support price on skim milk powder, he made the statement that support prices are being reduced and that this is contrary to everything that members of the government said in the last two election campaigns, and so on. It is not contrary to those promises at all. He seems to believe that once you establish a price you cannot do anything except raise that price. The price should never be reduced at any time. Once a support price has been set, that should be the price for eternity. If you do anything about that price, you should raise it but, under no circumstances should the price be reduced. This is not common sense, nor is it practicable. There is no country in the world which has a support price program of that nature. When the hon. member talks along those lines, he shows he either understands absolutely nothing about how a price support program works in this or any other country or he is just putting forth propaganda.


Hazen Robert Argue: How about parity prices?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, the whole principle of support prices is that they will move up and down, depending on market

Supply-Agriculture
conditions for the commodity, the supply of it and all sorts of other factors. I went into that in detail when the stabilization act was before the house last year. I made no attempt whatever to say anything except that we would vary the prices up and down as you must do under any stabilization act or support price legislation which will work.
In so far as skim milk powder is concerned, the hon. member seems to think we should keep the same price for skim milk powder. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, as well as some other hon. members opposite, seem to be of the same opinion. They seem to believe that we should keep the same price for skim milk powder, no matter how many millions of pounds we have to store, no matter how many millions of pounds we may have to dump in the river or something like that. It has been explained time after time that skim milk powder is not a product you can store indefinitely. It becomes unusable after a certain length of time, and therefore it is not a product that can be stored by the tens of millions of pounds to await the eventual development of a market. You have to dispose of it in a fairly short space of time, otherwise it is going to go bad.
Apparently the hon. member for Assiniboia and a lot of other hon. members in the Liberal party do not care about that at all. They say, maintain the price; go ahead and pile up surpluses by the tens of millions of pounds. Last year, according to the statements put before the house yesterday, we bought something over 100 million pounds of this powder. If we take no action this coming year we will buy another 100 million pounds of it. So long as the stabilization board stands ready to buy every pound of milk powder that is produced at 15 cents a pound, when the world price for this powder is probably around seven or eight cents a pound, there is no question whatever about what will happen. We will continue to buy milk powder which we cannot possibly sell any place and which, our experience has shown, cannot even be given away. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Assiniboia would like us to sit there and continue doing this. This shows how impractical his ideas are, and how little he knows about how a price support program for agricultural products has to be operated, if it is going to operate at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister permit a question? Did the farm organization representatives ask the government to increase the price of fluid milk going into the process from 25 cents per hundred pounds to a price of 40 cents, in lieu of the action taken in reducing the price on skim milk?
[Mr. Harkness.l


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer to that question is no, as it happens.


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers union of Ontario have asked for that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, they did not ask for that.


Hazen Robert Argue: We will leave it at that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one thing I will say in connection with support prices for dairy products as announced yesterday. We held discussions for several weeks with all the dairy producing groups in this country. We laid the whole situation before them in so far as the supply of skim milk powder, butter, cheese and other dairy products are concerned. We asked for their advice. We asked what they would recommend. We did not proceed with any action so far as support prices for dairy products were concerned without the fullest consultation with all the people concerned. As a result of that consultation we have come up with this program which I believe hon. members will find, in spite of what some members of the opposition are saying, is acceptable to the great majority of dairy farmers.
Just before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this extended debate on item No. 1 of the agriculture estimates. I think we are now in the seventh day of our discussion of this item. I should like to assure hon. members that the suggestions they have put forward will be carefully considered by me and by the members of the Department of Agriculture. I should like to say also that we are glad to get the wide variety of opinions and suggestions which come out during the discussion of the estimates.


Mr. Slogan:: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to rise on this occasion during the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and to congratulate the minister on his fine administration during the past year. During this time he has come in for criticism, often unjust, both in and out of this house. However, I think we are all agreed in our respect for his administrative ability and for his interest and dedication in furthering a fair deal for those who are occupied in the various fields of agriculture.
I am sure that unlike some members in the other parties in this house those on the government side take pride in the success of the prices stabilization act. During the past year the prices stabilization act has cost the govenment something like $15 million. However, the net cost to the government of this act is no measure of the real effectiveness or usefulness of it.

There has been a great deal of talk about dairy products. Let us take butter as one example. It is estimated that if it had not been for the support price on butter and import controls the price of butter would have dropped from 64 cents to 40 cents a pound. Based on an estimate of 340 million pounds of butter produced in 1958, the stabilization act has added more than $80 million to the farmers' cash income. The cost to the treasury in reselling 70 million pounds of butter that was purchased by the board was something over $2 million. However, even if the cost were substantially larger, it would be relatively small compared to the value added to the farmers' income.
Yesterday we were privileged to receive a report of the inquiry into the distribution of railway box cars by Mr. Bracken. Mr. Bracken, as everyone knows, was a distinguished member of this house for years and was also a former premier of Manitoba. He distinguished himself as the head of the commission which inquired into the liquor laws of Manitoba, and his report on that subject has been largely implemented. I am sure that the report which he has presented to us will receive very careful and sympathetic consideration from the government, and I hope his recommendations will be implemented. It was a pleasure also to hear from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the accounts for last year in connection with the sale of wheat are to be concluded, and in the not too distant future the board will be in a position to announce the final payment on this grain.
I should like for a moment to refer to the farm delegation that came to Ottawa recently. Before they arrived I, like many other hon. members, was rather dubious as to what their behaviour would be, but as soon as they arrived our doubts were dispelled. I am sure that all hon. members of this house and everyone in the building from the Prime Minister down to the guards of the House of Commons agree that the behaviour of the members of the farm delegation was exemplary. In fact, one guard told me as the delegation was leaving, "This was the finest group of gentlemen who have ever come to these buildings. Before leaving members of the delegation came and shook hands with us and told us how much they enjoyed their trip to Ottawa."
I was pleased to meet with the 17 delegates from Springfield and we discussed at great length the problems in agriculture with which they are being faced. I believe that one of the most significant accomplishments of this delegation was that it demonstrated to eastern Canada the position of western agriculture.
Supply-Agriculture
We have heard a great deal about the understanding and good relations that the eastern members displayed to this delegation. I should like to say a few words about the prairie members in this house. I might be forgiven in this respect because I am referring in large part to those who were members of this house in the two sessions of parliament before I myself became a member and I say this because I feel the western members are perhaps a little too modest to say it themselves.
I believe that a good deal of the credit for these good relations should go to the members from the prairies for the understanding which they have prompted in eastern Canada. Never before in Canadian history has there been such a unified voice speaking on behalf of the prairies and the western farmer. In the past we have had four political parties representing the prairies in this house each with a small number of members. This in itself would not have been bad had these members of the various parties joined together to produce a unified point of view from the west. However, they quibbled and quarrelled among themselves and the government of the day tended to ignore the west and paid little attention to the needs of those who live on the prairies. Today for the first time in history there is a unified front on the government side speaking forcefully for the farmer of western Canada and as a result of this great strides have been made in agriculture. It is a tribute to these western members that members from the east have supported all the agricultural legislation that has been brought in by this government and which was primarily of benefit to the west. I can say without fear of contradiction that these prairie members are continuing to work hard. It is not necessary to indulge in platitudes; you need merely look at the accomplishment of this government in agriculture to realize that these members have been working hard on behalf of the western farmers and will continue to work diligently on their behalf.
Since entering this house I have listened patiently to the profuse verbosity which is characteristic of emanations from Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I offer my condolences to the Liberal party on their annihilation on the prairies. I have observed that they have accepted this annihilation graciously. They do not make any presumption of representing or speaking for the prairies. Unlike them, however, the C.C.F. party which also met the same fate in 47 out of 48 seats has not accepted defeat graciously. The lone hon. member of that

Supp ly-A griculture
party from the west has set himself up as the ultimate authority on prairie agriculture and seeks to discredit the rest of the prairie members.
I have listened to the tidal wave of weightless words which are often wafted across this chamber from the confines of the family compact in the corner. In the last few days especially we have often been inundated by an avalanche of insulting invective the value of which is not in keeping with the dignity of this house.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are not supposed to read your speech. There is a rule against that.


Joseph Slogan: I have no doubt as to the desire of the members of the C.C.F. party to serve this country well. However, I would suggest that they read Norman Vincent Peale's book entitled "The Power of Positive Thinking".
In the constituency of Springfield we have a large portion of the fertile Red river valley. In this and other areas as well the majority of farmers are mixed farmers with relatively small farms. More and more of recent years these farmers are engaging in the growing of potatoes. It was therefore with particular pleasure that we welcomed the announcement in the budget of the extension of the duty of 37J cents on United States potatoes on a year-round basis. I have advocated this measure for some time and indeed made reference to it in my maiden speech.
Previously the Canadian duty on United States potatoes was 37J cents per hundred pounds from the period June 15 to July 31 while new potatoes were allowed entry free from August 1 to June 14. Potatoes were one of the products on which the tariff board recommended the duty should be placed for the full twelve months of the year and I understand that this was one of the items which was negotiated with the United States authorities when discussions were held regarding fruit and vegetable tariffs.
Considering the crop year as being from July 1 to June 30, the five-year average figure for imports and exports for the period 1953 to 1958 is pretty well in balance, being
1,979,000	hundredweight for imports and L,937,000 hundredweight for exports. While ;he five-year average is pretty well in balance there is a marked variation from year to year. For example, while in 1954-55 we exported only 985,000 hundredweight to the United States, we imported 2,907,000 hundredweight from that country. In 1957-58, on the other hand, we exported 3,325,000 hundredweight to the United States and imported 1,523,000 hundredweight from that country.

The situation in the current crop year was of concern to the producers of Manitoba. Their concern can be appreciated if we compare wholesale potato prices at Winnipeg on the basis of a 75 pound bag. As shown in the March issue of "The current review of agricultural conditions in Canada", issued by the federal Department of Agriculture, the Winnipeg local price for Canadian No. 1 potatoes was as follows:
Month	1957-58	1958-59	DecreaseOctober	
1.93	1.35	-58c.November	
2.33	1.41	-92c.December	
2.16	1.43	-73c.January	
2.27	1.43	-84c.February	
2.52	1.42	-1.10
While I am quoting wholesale prices may I say that the price to the producer is substantially lower. The spread in price from producer to consumer is another matter of concern to the farmer. Potato prices this year are substantially lower than those of a year ago, but it was not only the price that caused concern. The inability of the producer to market his product was of great concern to the potato grower, too.
The large United States surplus of potatoes this year caused depressed prices to Canadian producers. On December 26, 1958 United States imports forced Manitoba potato prices down to $1.10 for a 75 pound bag as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of that date. The article went on to say that a provincial department of agriculture spokesman said he believed a price of $1.50 would give a return to the producer which would bear a fair relationship to production costs. As reported in the article he went on to state:
However, the low shipping charges from the potato-producing areas of Minnesota and North Dakota influence Manitoba prices. Over-production in these areas can force our retail prices down to levels below the cost of production.
During the current marketing season imports have been markedly higher than in 1957-58. From July 1 to November 30, 1958 imports from the United States totalled
586,000	hundredweight compared with 489,000 hundredweight a year earlier. Three hundred and sixty-nine thousand hundredweight of potatoes were imported into western Canada in that period, an increase of 44 per cent over the year previous. Canadian exports of table and seed potatoes from July 1, 1958 to February 20, 1959 totalled 1.7 million hundredweight compared with 2.7 million hundredweight exported during the same period a year earlier. Almost all the decrease was accounted for by reduced shipments to the United States. February 1 stocks of potatoes in the central United States were 52 per cent higher than the year earlier. Total United States stocks, in spite of unusually large disappearance, were 16 per cent higher.

In Canada holdings of potatoes on March 1, 1959 amounted to 9.1 million hundredweight. This was 16 per cent less than they were the year earlier, and in spite of the lower stocks in Canada, as a result of the heavy United States surplus, prices in western Canada began the season lower than in 1957 and have held steadily lower in the 1958-59 marketing period. It was therefore encouraging that the government took this measure to discourage the dumping of United States potatoes into Canada, because the United States farmer enjoys somewhat more favourable conditions of production.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance for the initiative they have shown in bringing in this duty which will tend to make marketing conditions more favourable to domestic growers. At the same time I am sure it is not going to affect the price to the consumer to any extent because of the wide spread between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays. But what it will do is to provide an expanded market for domestically grown potatoes. I would recommend that because of this wide spread perhaps some further measures be taken to give the producer a price which will bear a fair relationship to what the consumer pays, and which bears a fair relationship to his costs of production.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the controversy which has prevailed between the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Assiniboia reflects, I think, pretty well, not only the difficulties that the government has permitted itself to get into but the reason for some of those difficulties. Those of us who were here in the last parliament will well remember the attitude taken by the Minister of Agriculture. As a matter of fact when he spoke on this side of the house it was very often very difficult to distinguish his arguments from those of the hon. member for Assiniboia-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Your memory is terribly bad.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -who repeats pretty well today what the minister has said in the past. If the Minister of Agriculture doubts my word all he has to do is to look at the speeches he made from time to time, and in particular at the recommendations made by the present Prime Minister in this pamphlet to which I made reference the other night, the new national policy which on the second last page it urges the people of Canada to adopt in the interests of the farmers of this country. All one has to do is to read these paragraphs, paragraph after
Supply-Agriculture
paragraph, to see whether or not the main lines of the argument are the same as those made today by the hon. member for Assiniboia and others on this side of the house.
I might mention in particular my hon. friend from Drummond-Arthabaska, who in his very constructive speech today I think clearly indicated that the government in its declaration yesterday of policy for this year with regard to dairy products has failed to satisfy the dairy industry; certainly it had failed to satisfy them to anything like the extent which the minister indicated a few moments ago would be the case.
The minister is confronted almost with a marathon in this first item, and I suggest to him in a friendly way that he is the author of the longevity of this particular phase of the discussion largely because of the attitude which he took in the house yesterday. Before the orders of the day he made an announcement of government policy in respect of a matter which was shortly going to be discussed in the house, at a time in our procedure when the opportunities for debate were limited, without having given the Leader of the Opposition the chance beforehand, as is generally the custom, of knowing what the government was going to declare by way of policy, although one could see from the afternoon papers that the statement made by the minister had been given to others in this building long before the house opened at 2.30 in the afternoon.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to correct that completely inaccurate statement at this moment. No copies of this statement were given to anybody in this chamber or any place else, as far as I am aware, until after I had made the statement in the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon.
minister says that, of course I accept his word at once; but that does not preclude the possibility that some ingenious person may have gotten that statement without the connivance of the minister, and as a result there were sections of this country that knew of the statement before it had been made in parliament. I therefore suggest that that is not the way to encourage a quick despatch and passage of one's estimates. But I do not hold any rancour against the minister and I want him to know that this last observation is more in the nature of a warning than a statement of intention to hold up unnecessarily his estimates.
The hon. gentleman in the defence he made a few moments ago in answer to the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia, as I have already said, is partly the author of his own trouble. All he has to do is to

Supply-Agriculture
look at section 7 of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, look at the preamble to that act, and see whether or not he has fully given himself a defence to the attack which has been made on him with regard to the announcement of yesterday and with regard to the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act itself. It is worth remembering that section 7 says:
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.
My hon. friend cannot substantiate the fact that the cost of production for dairy products has so changed as to warrant the change in policy that was given in this house yesterday; and unless that can be done my hon. friend cannot be said to have complied with the implications of section 7 of the Act. The Minister of Finance and my hon. friend, from the time that the Minister of Finance issued his white paper prior to budget night, made much of the fact that the farm income for 1958 had increased by a net of 24 per cent. My hon. friend nods his head again. He was proud of that statistic the other day, but I think that one should examine that statement in the light of its true context. And since we have now an admission from the Minister of Agriculture that it is his view that there was a 24 per cent net increase, we might just look at the white paper and see precisely what the Minister of Finance said. He said:
Accrued net farm income, after a sharp decline in 1957, recovered substantially in 1958 and rose by $234 million or 4 per cent.
That does confirm the nod of the Minister of Agriculture. It is an assertion by the Minister of Finance, who is not in the house today-he is possibly preparing for other duties-but who would, in any event, subscribe to this statement.
But on page 6 of the white paper-and this is something which the Minister of Finance did not point out the other day-there are some very interesting figures, and since they are now on record no one can accuse me of presenting figures that bear my personal authorship. These are the figures of the Minister of Finance himself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad to see this change.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I knew the hon. gentleman would be happy, and I am trying to accommodate him as far as I can, consistent with my obligations, in pointing out the many errors into which he has been plunged by the character of his own policy

and his failure, sometimes, to realize that there has been a gap between the declaration of that policy and its actual achievement.
Now at page 6 the net income of farm operations from farm production is given for the years 1955, 1956, 1957, and the preliminary figure is given for 1958, and it is interesting to see what those figures show. They read as follows:
1955		$1,261,000,000
1956		 1,468,000,000
1957		 968,000,000
1958		 1,202,000,000
These figures appear on page 6 under "National income and gross national product". The conclusion which flows from them is that farm income in 1958 was, indeed, 24 per cent higher than it was in 1957. However, 1957, as the Minister of Agriculture knows, was an unusually bad year, because of crop failure. If we compare 1958 with 1956, the last full year of Liberal administration, we find that farm income was 22 per cent higher in 1956 than in 1958, the year to which the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture point with such pride as revealing the achievement of the present government's agricultural policy. And this is without taking price increases into account.
And now we must go one step further. The hon. gentleman will see, from this statement by the Minister of Finance to which I have referred, that farm income in 1958 was lower than it was in 1955. I hope that will put an end to the boast of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Minister of Finance that as a result of government polices there has been a real improvement in agricultural income.
The facts show clearly that in 1958 as compared with 1956, the last full year of Liberal administration, farm income was 22 per cent lower than it had been two years earlier. It is clearly seen, also, that farm income in 1958 was actually lower than it was in 1955. I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture will say now, but I am sure that these figures cannot be challenged. They do, certainly, circumscribe the claims made by the hon. gentleman on behalf of the government.
I do not quarrel with the minister's explanation of the way in which the stabilization act must operate. The principle of flexibility is an essential part of the administration of this important measure, as it was with regard to the parent act of which it is in principle nothing more than an emulation, as the minister admitted a few moments ago. All the many millions of dollars which are put out for the benefit of agriculture in western Canada, and agriculture generally, have flowed for the most part from acts introduced by

this party when it held office, and all the hon. gentleman has done is to revise previous measures. There is no new policy for agriculture which has been introduced by this government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are quite wrong.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: The minister makes the assertion that I am quite wrong, and he clothes it with all the authority of a carefully prepared argument. A mere assertion, as I told him the other day, is no argument and in any event it is obviously not one which is going to appeal to the farmers of Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not what the last election showed.


Peter Francis Martin: That is quite right. The last election resulted exactly as the minister has said. But when the next election comes he will know differently.
The other day I was talking about some of the problems which affect my own area and I want to refer again to them. I should like to thank the hon. member for Lambton-Kent who supported me, without having said so, in my request to the government that there should be a floor price on corn. He will remember, as I do, the ingenious reason given by the Minister of Agriculture why this could not be done. It was, he said, because our corn, unlike corn produced in the United States, had too much moisture as if there were no moisture in the corn grown in the United States-and he gave other reasons why it could not be done, forgetting of course that this had been promised to the farmers in south western Ontario.
I should like the minister, in addition, to give careful consideration to the request made by the soybean growers in our section of the country, and this matter was also referred to the other evening in passing by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. The soybean farmers have been to see the minister, but he was preoccupied and could not receive them. I am not complaining about that, because I know the minister is a busy gentleman. They could not see him, but they did see others in his department, and they did ask for a continuation of the floor price on soybeans. I am joining them in making that request and asking the minister to give careful consideration to these representations.
It will be seen that the production of soybeans in Canada last year was not significantly higher than it has been in the past and that, in itself, should assist the government to give consideration, not only to retaining the floor price on soybeans but in meeting the request of the farmers for an increase in the 66968-9-193
Supply-Agriculture
floor price. It is interesting-and I put this figure on record so that the minister, when he comes to consider my submission, as I know he will in the careful manner with which I know he always gives consideration to my representations-


Douglas Scott Harkness: To everybody's representations.


Peter Francis Martin: I know, but I am asking him to give special consideration to mine, because he has not done so with regard to this particular subject in the past.
I now refer to the average price for soybeans between 1949 and 1958. These have been as follows:
1949 		
1950 		
1951 		
1952 		
1953 		
1954 		
1955 		
1956 		
1957 		
1958 		
The floor price at the present time is $2.10. The group who came to Ottawa, headed by Mr. Will Wallace of Woodslee in the riding I represent, asked for an increase in the floor price. They are concerned about this matter, particularly because the floor price in the United States has been cut 25 cents. Whatever may be the justification for that in the United States, the cost of production in Canada does not warrant any similar action in this country, particularly when the minister takes into account the fact that costs of production certainly in our section of the country are rising continually, notwithstanding the minister's statement the other day that he had arrested the rise in production costs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I never said that.


Peter Francis Martin: What did my hon. friend say?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said the cost-price squeeze, which is a different thing altogether.


Peter Francis Martin: I know that is what my hon. friend says now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is what I said.


Peter Francis Martin: That is what he said at the end of my speech the other day. It is not what he said earlier. Look up Hansard. That is not what he said during the course of the little argument that he and I had on that very matter. In any event, the cost of production today does not warrant a cut in the floor price of soybeans. I sincerely trust that in considering this matter the minister will see that soybeans continue

Supply-Agriculture
to be classified as a designated commodity under the stabilization act, and that a floor price will again be established. I point out that the growers ask that:
The prescribed price for soybeans for the 1959 crop be established at not less than 110 per cent of the base price.
They also suggest, and I strongly support this, that:
The stabilization board do appoint the Ontario soybean growers' association marketing board as their agent for the administration and distribution of any deficiency payments made.
This would mean that the base price on a 10-year average would be $2.30 per bushel. The support price requested is $2.53 per bushel, 110 per cent of the 10-year average.
I hope the minister will give this matter his careful consideration. It will have a very important effect in stabilizing-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the hon. member permit a question? Has he any idea what percentage of the soybeans producers' return on those beans would come from the general taxpayers' pockets if we put into effect a support price of $2.53?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be very glad to have the minister tell me what it is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It would be nearly 50 per cent, which I think he will agree is not a reasonable proposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, one would want to examine the facts. The minister makes that statement. That is not what the growers themselves say. It would undoubtedly be a factor that would have to be borne in mind.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It would be between 40 and 50 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am a little disturbed by what the minister says because he may even have in mind something less than $2.10. I tell him that if he does that, particularly in line with the assurances given when over $2.50 was promised during the election in 1958, he will find that the farmers in southwestern Ontario will find additional reason for being dissatisfied with the agricultural policy of this government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member will permit, I would just like to tell him that I have nothing in mind in connection with this. The stabilization board and the advisory committee have not considered the matter and have not advised me in connection with it. I point out that if this price he is talking about were put into effect the taxpayers, in other words, through the deficiency payments which would have to be made, would be paying about half of the

price, between 40 and 50 per cent of the price that the soybean producers would be getting which, I think, he would agree is not a reasonable proportion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say I would want to see all of the facts. What I am doing now is putting forward the case put forward by the soybean growers themselves. I am a little disturbed from what the minister has said about the effect of his declaration with regard to the existing floor price of $2.10 which no one certainly can, in the face of all the circumstances, regard as unfair in the situation.
Then the minister has before the board a request with regard to the sugar beet growers.
I ask the minister to take all these things into consideration when he comes to develop his policy for this year with regard to these matters.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have had letters of thanks from the sugar beet people on the support price put in last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend deserves the thanks, but I am not talking about last year. I am now talking about this year. I will tell him that he will get a letter of thanks from me if he listens to the representations which I am making.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It would be the first one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; I have written to my hon. friend many times. If I did not have occasion to thank him on many occasions it is simply because he did not deserve thanks; but I assure him that if he does listen to my recommendations he will receive my full gratitude.
Before I take my seat I should like to say this. I know the minister is faced with criticisms from this side of the house. The reason for those criticisms rests on the doorstep of hon. gentlemen opposite who for years in this house told the farmers of Canada that the existing agricultural policy was not satisfactory; that the farmers of Canada were not sharing adequately in the income of the nation, and that the only way to rectify this situation was to put hon. gentlemen opposite in power. Hon. gentlemen opposite are now in power and if there are marches on Ottawa and if there are marches to be created in order to assess the effect of the first march; if groups from farm organizations continued to come to Ottawa complaining about the gap between accomplishment and promises, the responsibility lies only on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and members of the government who talked about parity and about deficiency payments in such a way as to give the farmers of this country the feeling that

under this government, with its formula, farmers could look for substantial economic improvement in the lot of agriculture. That is the situation. If the Minister of Agriculture would some day, or perhaps in the course of these estimates, simply rise and say: Well, we promised too much; our promises were extravagant; we are now in power and we see that the situation is not what we thought; we now realize that the last government really did do something for the farmers of Canada; if he would take that kind of attitude he would find that his estimates would pass quickly and that he would have less trouble than his continuous and persistent championing of a case that is so obviously faulty and so obviously invalid.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Research Branch-
6.	Research institutes, regional laboratories, branch farms and research services-operation and maintenance, $21,151,451.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: On what item does the hon. member want to speak?


Samuel Boulanger: Item No. 5. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but the item on which I wanted to rise has not been reached yet.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
7.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $7,187,248.
Mr. Herridge:: I do want to say a few words on this item; I think it is the appropriate one. In the Kootenays we have a climate and soil that are ideal for the growing of cherries. Our cherries are of first-class quality. This has been recognized by western Canada, in some parts of the United States and even by prominent fruit people in Great Britain. Nevertheless, our production and quality of cherries have been affected in recent years by a disease known as "little cherry" and a disease known as "brown rot". These diseases have affected the production of cherries particularly in certain areas and they have had a serious effect on replanting because, so far as little cherry disease is concerned, a satisfactory solution has not been found to the problem. I am sure the minister knows what I am talking about because he comes to Kootenay West on occasion for summer holidays and knows some of the orchards I am talking about. I want to read briefly from the report of the royal commission on the tree fruit industry of British Columbia prepared by Dean E. D. MacPhee. I will do so briefly and it will 66968-9-193i
Supply-Agriculture
save speaking at length. He has this to say with respect to little cherry on page 188:
One of the two serious blows to the cherry industry in the Kootenay area was the "little cherry" virus. This disease was first discovered in 1933, but it was not recognized as a virus disease. In 1934, three of the orchards near the point of the original outbreak were showing "little cherry."
I know those orchards quite well.
By 1940 the disease had spread in an area 20 miles in diameter. It was in 1940 that Mr. W. R. Foster, assistant plant pathologist with the British Columbia department of agriculture, was delegated to study this disease, and in 1941 he determined the cause to be a virus. By 1947 it was found that all of the cherry areas of the Kootenays, except the Deer Park-Renata area, were showing the virus.
That is not quite correct because on my own ranch, which is very limited in area, there is no little cherry disease as yet.
This rapid spread of "little cherry" in the Kootenays took place in spite of many natural barriers, such as mountain ranges, large lakes, and often considerable distances between orchards.
In 1946 the federal government set up a sublaboratory at Creston to study this disease, and these investigations are continuing. Studies have been carried out to determine how the disease is spread, and it is reasonably well established that insects are the carriers of the virus.
I will not read any more but I want to bring this serious question to the attention of the minister again. Before proceeding, I wish to pay tribute to the work done by the officials of the department, particularly the research workers at the Summerland experimental station. However in my opinion you cannot carry on an adequate investigation unless you have sufficient funds. In view of the importance of this industry to the Kootenays, a district particularly well suited for the production of cherries, pears and peaches in some areas, I am asking for a more intensive study of the question so that an economic solution can be found in order that many of our young people will again have faith in planting young cherry orchards which will no doubt produce such fruit as has made the district famous in the past.
There is a general feeling among the cherry growers in our district that the matter has been treated in a sort of piecemeal and timid manner. I bring it to the attention of the minister again, present the views of those persons interested in the re-development of the cherry industry in the Kootenays and urge a full scale attack upon the problem.
The second one is brown rot, a serious disease which we have had for a good number of years. I read again from page 189 of the same report in order to condense my remarks:
Brown-rot is the second serious disease in the Kootenay area. Brown-rot has been known in the

Supply-Agriculture
Kootenay area for many decades. The severity of this disease is directly correlated with the degree of summer moisture and the amount of attention growers give their orchards. Unfortunately, since the late forties and during the fifties, there have been a number of cool wet summers, which have caused this disease to develop into epidemic proportions, especially in semi-neglected orchards.
Brown-rot is a disease which is spread by a fungus, the spore of which live over winter for the most part in an infected fruit which has fallen to the ground. These infected fruits are called "mummies''. The disease can also be carried over on infected twigs and spurs. The first infection period occurs in the spring from the pink stage of cherry through to the fall of the husk. This period is extremely critical, and it is imperative that developing growth be covered with a protective film of fungicide. Mr. J. E. Swales, district horticulturist for the Kootenay area, points out that from the experience gained in 1957 sprays should be applied at intervals not longer than four days during the blossom period, regardless of weather conditions.
I want to bring to the minister's attention that this disease has been prevalent for many years in the southeastern portion of British Columbia and I believe it has caused serious concern to cherry growers in some sections of eastern Canada, in portions of the United States at times and also in Europe. I have read quite a lot of the literature on the question. Because the disease was not serious in extent until recent years there was no work done by the minister's department with respect to testing in orchards and research of that sort. During the past year control measures have been studied in the Deer Park-Renata area with a considerable degree of success as a result of the co-operation of the personnel from the department and the growers concerned.
In the first place, these investigations should have been carried on before. It was not good enough to allow this disease to reach epidemic proportions under circumstances which are bound to recur in certain seasons, that is, with an excessive amount of rain, hot weather and consequent relative humidity. These are the conditions that produce the spores which produce the brown rot disease.
During the last two or three seasons we have had these conditions in our district during cherry growing and cherry picking times and very large losses have resulted from brown rot. Brown rot is a very insidious disease. You can pick fruit that appears to be in first-class condition, pack it, place it in a reefer car, and before it reaches the Calgary market the crates of cherries will in some cases be covered with a white mould or rot will have developed on the under layers of the cherries in the pack.
I mention this to the minister because it is a very important thing to our growers. I
[Mr. Herridge.l
do ask for an extension of the control measures into other orchards and other areas of the district. I ask that the minister's department seek the co-operation of the growers in these control measures and studies to the advantage of the growers concerned at the present time and the long term advantage of the industry and therefore the district.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as the hon.
member for Kootenay West says, I have indeed enjoyed the scenery and the fruit in the interior of British Columbia in the days when I used to be able to take a summer holiday. I hope that the balance of the session will proceed in such a way that that will be possible again this year. In connection with little cherry, the hon. member has brought this matter to the attention of the government on various occasions for many years past. I can remember him speaking on it on several occasions. I should like to assure him that we are continuing research on the disease at Summerland and also, I believe, at the station we now have at Creston. How much success is being achieved in finding a means of controlling the disease I am sorry I am not able to tell him without having the matter looked up. I have not the information with me at the present time. However, I should like to assure him that we will continue research into the disease with the hope that something will be found which will control it or bring it to an end.
As far as brown rot is concerned, a spray has been developed consisting of sulphur and d.d.t., I believe, which, if applied twice during the period the trees are blossoming, does control brown rot fairly well. Research is still going on at Summerland in connection with brown rot in an attempt to find a better means of either controlling it or stamping it out.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his remarks and I rise again just to say that I overlooked one point I intended to mention when I was speaking before. I think the officials of the department are inclined to hide their light under a bushel. For instance, I found that in the district of Renata, which I know very weR, there were a number of cherry growers who were having considerable success in their co-operation with the officials in connection with the sprays the minister has just mentioned. However, when I went to Edgewood, they seemed to have no knowledge of exactly what was happening in the other places. I suggest it would be a good idea if the department issued periodical releases through the local press concerning

what is happening with respect to the cooperative studies on brown rot and the progress being made with the studies on little cherry disease. I think this would be helpful.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thoroughly agree with the hon. member that the result of the research should be put into the hands of the people who can make use of it as rapidly as possible and by the most effective possible means. As the hon. member knows, there is an extension program, I think it is called, by means of which the results of this work are put into the hands of the farmers. This program is primarily one of the things carried on by the province. We do the research and we turn the results of that over to the provincial departments of agriculture and other bodies. By and large they put it into the hands of the people who can make use of it.
In the Okanagan valley there is a joint committee of the provincial department and our own department which attempts to get the results of our research out as rapidly and as effectively as possible. I am sorry to hear that the knowledge of this spray for brown rot apparently did not get to certain cherry growers, and also I presume peach and plumb growers, because those are the three types of trees affected. I would hope that co-operation between the dominion and provincial officials, and the community as a whole, would be such that we would not have lags of this kind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The information did reach them, but too late for them to take advantage of it during the growing season.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
10. Agricultural Stabilization Act administration, $103,710.
Mr. Rapp:: In rising to take part in this debate on item 10 of the agriculture estimates, which deals with the Agricultural Stabilization Act, I should like to say that this legislation, which was desired by the farmers across Canada and has been in operation for only one year has proven to be excellent legislation. It is regrettable, however, that wheat, oats and barley, being under the jurisdiction of the wheat board now, could not be brought under this stabilization act. All other agricultural commodities are either under the act or could be brought under the act, but our most important products such as wheat, oats and barley are outside the scope of the stabilization act.
I am not prepared to suggest what steps should be taken to bring these grains under the protection of the stabilization act, but as a long range step toward stabilizing prices
Supply-Agriculture
for western grains a method should be found. There are some other agricultural products that are not under the stabilization act right now which should be brought under it, and I refer particularly to rapeseed. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to give a short history of rapeseed growing in the west.
The growing of rapeseed in Canada on a large scale commenced in 1943. At that time the British, Canadian and United States navies needed supplies of rapeseed oil to be used as marine oil. The Canadian wheat board purchased all rapeseed from the growers during that period at a guaranteed price of six cents per pound. After the war the wheat board discontinued the purchase of rapeseed, and as a result of this the price dropped sharply from a high of six cents per pound to a low of 2.3 cents per pound last year. In 1957, as a result of the heavy wheat surplus, more rapeseed was produced and, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, 629,000 acres were seeded to rapeseed, of which 535,000 acres were in Saskatchewan alone. The output of rape-seed in 1942 was 420,000 pounds, but by 1957 it had increased to 423 million pounds. As I have said, last year the price dropped to a low of 2.3 cents per pound, the lowest price we ever received in the history of the industry. It is for this reason I am requesting that rapeseed should be brought under the stabilization act in order to keep prices in line instead of having them drop to a level that will destroy the producer.
We have no rapeseed surplus as yet, and the way rapeseed oil is being utilized much more could be produced. I have with me a clipping from a newspaper which states that the opportunities for vegetable oil crops are tremendous. It reads:
Opportunities for expansion of Canadian vegetable oil seed crops were described as "fantastic" and "tremendous" by a spokesman for the edible oil foods industry.
Robin E. Merry, president of the institute of edible oil foods, speaking at the institute's fifth annual meeting said that within six years Canada will need a billion pounds of foods fats and oil annually to meet the needs of its growing population...
Unless the increase in Canadian needs of vegetable oils is to continue to be supplied by even greater imports, an all-out program to assist Canadian farmers to convert to soybean and other vegetable oil seed farming must begin at once, said Mr. Merry...
"We can no longer afford the luxury of obsolete thinking about farming," he said. "Federal and provincial governments appear to be guilty of such thinking and seem to be unaware of the need for positive programs designed to help farmers seize the opportunity for profitable vegetable oil seed farming."

S upply-A gricu Iture
This, Mr. Chairman, is the reason I am asking that rapeseed be brought under the stabilization act. As the member for the Humboldt-Melfort constituency I am aware of the fact that half of the rapeseed grown in Saskatchewan is grown in my constituency. I cannot stand idly by and see the rapeseed industry, which is so vital to the Canadian economy, receive less than fair treatment from our Minister of Agriculture.
I should like to bring this to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as well. The fact that rapeseed was grown on acres that would have been otherwise seeded to wheat meant that we were able to reduce the wheat surplus by millions of bushels. Credit must be given to our Minister of Trade and Commerce for making such a creditable attempt to cut the wheat surplus. Unless rapeseed is brought under the stabilization act, thereby giving the growers a fair chance to get a good price, these acres will again be put into wheat, thus increasing our wheat surplus. The only hope the rapeseed producers have at the present time is that parliament will act to bring rapeseed under the stabilization act and thus give the industry a square deal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the matter of wheat, oats and barley produced in western Canada for the wheat board not being under the stabilization act, which the hon. member mentioned, may I point out that no doubt the hon. gentleman knows this is due to the fact that it is handled by another government board, the wheat board. When the stabilization act was being prepared the wheat pools in western Canada asked that western wheat, oats and barley not be placed under the stabilization act but remain under the wheat board. I think it is certainly wise not to attempt to handle these commodities simultaneously through two government boards.
As far as rapeseed is concerned this is the first request I have ever received to have this commodity placed under the stabilization act. There has been no request up to date, to my knowledge, from any of the producers of rapeseed to the effect that it should be placed under price support. If there are requests of that kind the stabilization board and advisory committee will consider them but again I state we have received none to date.
The request made by the hon. member that rapeseed be placed under this act and his remarks concerning the possibility of producing sufficient rapeseed in Canada to meet Canada's vegetable oil requirements point up again some of the difficulties that are encountered in these matters. We had a recent

request by the hon. member for Essex East that soybeans be given a high support price this year. Several other hon. gentlemen mentioned soybeans and the fact that we do not produce nearly as many as we could produce and that the demand for vegetable oil in Canada is larger than our total production of soybeans. It must be remembered that rapeseed oil, sunflower seed oil, flax seed oil and various other oils all interact in terms of production. We could have in Canada a larger production of vegetable oil than we could possibly consume in the country. I just mention this to illustrate the fact that there is a danger in overproduction. The fact that we import a certain amount of soybean oil each year does not indicate that we should proceed to expand our soybean production more or less indefinitely. The same thing applies to rapeseed production or the production of any other oil producing crop. We must look at the picture as a whole and take into consideration the fact that if we expanded production of any of these crops to the extent that expansion could take place in Canada we would meet the entire market and it would make it difficult as far as the production of similar crops is concerned.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I directed a question this morning to the Minister of Agriculture to which I have not had a reply. I asked the minister what would be the price for skim powdered milk, roller processed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The price for roller processed dried skim milk will be proportionately the same as for the spray processed commodity. It will be two cents under-that is, eight cents-for the roller processed product.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say on this item. I trust it is the appropriate one on which to mention the question of the marketing of tree fruits. As the minister knows, marketing is the principal problem of tree fruit growers as it is with nearly all agricultural producers.
In British Columbia there has been a great deal done with respect to self help on the part of the growers and their efforts to obtain satisfactory legislation. As a result of years of effort the British Columbia marketing act was brought into being under which we have the tree fruit board. Working under the act and under this board is the organization called Tree Fruits Limited which is the growers' sales agency. Owing to the particular problems that have arisen in recent years with respect to the marketing of tree fruits in general, and particularly apples, there is a growing realization among fruit growers in British Columbia that the problem cannot be met on a provincial basis alone

and that it is going to take co-operation within the industry throughout Canada if they are going to market their fruits to the best advantage under any given set of circumstances.
That feeling has been growing for a number of years and it found expression in the last convention of the British Columbia fruit growers' association which was held in Vernon from January 20 to January 22, 1959. That expression was highlighted by the adoption of two resolutions which I want to place on the record because to me and to those persons who have been interested in the tree fruit industry for a number of years they represent a progressive step in the thinking of the persons who have had particularly to do with these problems.
The first resolution that was considered by the convention was a resolution entitled "Cooperation amongst fruit producing areas" which was introduced by the Penticton delegation. They are quite a progressive lot down in Penticton; they come second only to those in the Kootenays. This resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the conquest of the moon has become a real and serious objective of apparently responsible governments, while at the same time the very existence and welfare of those who produce man's food on this planet-notably that of the fruit grower -appear to be of minor concern to those not directly affected, and
Whereas the only effective remedy for the growers' plight must be self help through extended co-operation,
Therefore be it resolved by this 1959 B.C.F.G.A. convention that their governing bodies be instructed to take definite and vigorous steps to bring about such co-operation among the major fruit producing areas of this northern continent that eventually all futile and destructive cut-throat competition may become a thing of the past, and be superseded by some form of orderly marketing such as this organization has demonstrated is feasible among the growers of this province.
To illustrate the comprehensive approach which is developing, I might mention that an amendment was moved to this resolution urging that the words "this northern continent" be deleted and that the word "Canada" be substituted therefor. When that amendment was placed before the convention it was defeated which indicates that the growers realize that not only must we co-operate within the province or within the country in the marketing of agricultural commodities but we have to have some degree of cooperation with the growers in other countries. I believe this is a very forward step.
After that resolution was unanimously adopted, as I understand it, the convention then discussed the next step with respect to what would flow from this co-operation between tree fruit growers in Canada. The
Supply-Agriculture
convention then passed the following resolution which was put forward by the south and east Kelowna delegation and entitled "Canadian fruit board". It reads as follows:
Whereas the average return for apples for the 1957 crop, even with the deficiency payment, was inadequate to meet the cost of production, and Whereas our own organization has done all in its power to secure the highest possible returns to the grower but has not been able to do so, not for lack of effort, but due to controlling only one-third of Canada's production in a small contained area, Therefore be it resolved by this 1959 B.C.F.G.A. convention that we work primarily through the Canadian Horticultural Council to obtain the two things absolutely essential for the economic stability of this industry, and they are:
1.	The establishment of a Canadian fruit board to handle the entire national and international selling of our fruit, and
2.	A minimum price for our fruit commensurate with the cost of production.
I am particularly interested in the change in thinking that has occurred over the years. Until recent years I was closely associated with the British Columbia fruit growers' association and attended a number of conventions. At one time it was extremely difficult to get any consideration for a national approach to this problem. At that time growers tended to depend on the high quality of the fruit, the fruit packing and the advantage they would receive in competition with some other area in that respect. They found out as a result of experience that regardless of what is done to improve the pack or the efficiency of the organization in general, to meet with success they must co-operate with other fruit growing districts in Canada and with those in the United States to the south of us. They recommend the establishment of a Canadian fruit board. I do urge the minister to give consideration to this new expression of opinion on the part of the British Columbia fruit growers, and I ask that serious study be commenced by the appropriate officials of the minister's department of legislation suitable to meet the particular, and in some way the peculiar needs of the fruit industry in Canada, to the end we establish a Canadian fruit board in due time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that the fruit growers of British Columbia have passed a resolution to put forward their representations, and take action through the Canadian Horticultural Council. We have been encouraging horticulturalists right across Canada to do that ever since I have been in this position in order to get away from the business of regional representations which are often in direct conflict with each other, because they are made by every small section of the country. I found not very long after I became Minister of Agriculture that,

Supply-Agriculture
for example, the fruit growers of a particular kind in British Columbia wanted action which was diametrically opposed to the action which was being requested at the same time by the growers of that same kind of fruit in Ontario. This seemed to me to be the sort of situation which the fruit growers should thrash out amongst themselves, and therefore we have been trying to encourage them to take these matters up in the horticultural council and come to some agreement amongst themselves before they come to us asking for action. I am glad that the British Columbia fruit growers apparently have adopted a resolution to follow that practice.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: So am I.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have some further clarification from the minister as to what policy the government is going to follow as far as the support price of hogs is concerned. I am wondering if any result has yet been obtained from the study which is going on as to whether the deficiency payment, if it is inaugurated after October 1, will be limited-and I understand that is the thinking of the department and the minister-and what the ceiling may be on the number of hogs on which a deficiency payment may be made. The minister may say that this has not yet been determined, and if that is the situation I hope he will consider very carefully keeping the ceiling at a reasonably high level. I do not think the number of hogs on which a deficiency payment may be made should be so low as to encourage inefficient production or very small farms. I am enthusiastically in favour of removing support prices from great corporations or very large industries engaged in the production of hogs. If vertical integration in the production of hogs is extended, I think the formula outlined by the minister is one way by which it may be discouraged. But I think that in setting the ceiling as to the number of hogs eligible for deficiency payments, the number per farmer should be such as to enable an efficient farmer to make a reasonably good living in the production of hogs. It should not be a system of rationing the production of hogs or a system which will lend itself to a very small quota or number per farm being eligible.
When the minister is replying I wonder if he would comment on the quantity of pork products now held by the board and state whether he feels this is a very large quantity, and how it compares with quantities held by the board in previous years? Would he say whether the surpluses or quantities held by the board are the main reason that the government is considering this new kind of policy to which he referred some weeks ago? 
I would like some information as to what the plans of the board may be to dispose of this surplus pork, how it will be worked on the market, and in particular whether the quantity now held by the board will be placed on the Canadian market after the time when support prices are removed and in their place put the support price based on a deficiency technique.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as far as the general scheme is concerned I thought I had made that relatively clear in my statement and in my answer to one or two questions in the house afterwards. In any event, the idea is to maintain the support price by means of deficiency payments. I should like to emphasize this point. There seems still to be considerable confusion in some newspaper articles I have read between a support price as opposed to, as represented in these newspaper articles, a deficiency payment, as though they were completely different things. This is not the situation. A deficiency payment is a method of maintaining a support price, and a support price and a deficiency payment are not completely different things, as a considerable number of newspaper writers whose articles I have read in recent weeks seem to indicate.
I have said here several times that we establish a support price. That is the price which the farmer will receive for his product. We ensure he receives that price either by purchasing the product at that price or we give him the difference between the price he actually gets for the product sold on the open market and the support price we have established. We give him that difference by means of a deficiency payment. We can do it in some cases by certain other methods, such as the type of method the western grain farmers asked for, the retroactive flat payment. There are various other methods; but in any event the policy, as soon as it is worked out, will be to maintain the support price which has been announced for the first six months, which is now $25 per hundred pounds basis Montreal and Toronto markets, and for the following six months, $23.65 per hundred pounds basis those same markets, with appropriate differentials on other markets. The hon. member seemed to think we were going to change the method of support from purchasing the article, as we are doing at the present time, to the deficiency payment method when the price change goes into effect. That is not the case. We are going to put this deficiency payment method of supporting a price into effect just as soon as we can assemble the necessary information to determine what number of hogs we should support

and have worked out the general administrative changes which will be necessary in order to carry this into effect.
In other words, we do not intend to wait until the end of September before putting this into effect. We shall put this into effect in a month, if we can get the necessary information and can get the administrative machinery set up in that time. I am not saying it will be a month; I expect it will be more like two or three months. In any event I believe it will be before the end of September.
As far as the ceiling on the number of hogs is concerned this is one of the matters with respect to which we require information. I do not know what the ceiling will be and I do not intend to guess at it. One thing I might say in connection with it, is this: the suggestions I receive depend entirely, it would seem, on the number of hogs that the man making the suggestion raises. I have had all kinds of suggestions already, ranging all the way from 50 hogs up to several hundred. Thus, I cannot answer that part of the question now, except to say that the ceiling would be set at a point which I hope will make it possible for the largest number of farmers possible to be able to make a reasonable living out of hog raising.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a main industry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In some cases, yes. In any event, the only reason we are putting a ceiling on the number of hogs a farmer can deliver is to prevent contract farmers from beating the system. We could just cut out contracts and integrated operations which we know exist and pay the deficiency payments to the other farmers, but if we attempted to do that nothing would be accomplished because all that would happen would be that the hogs would be delivered in different peoples names under contracts of different sizes. So in order to have any control, some limit has to be imposed on everyone. This is really a control measure. It is the only way in which a scheme of this sort could, in practice, be put into effect and accomplish the purpose which we have in mind.
As to the manner in which the pork presently on hand is to be disposed of, I may say that we hope to sell some of it on the Canadian market as the price rises, as I think it undoubtedly will. In other words, if we hold this pork for a certain length of time we expect we will find a market for it. We do not, of course, intend to break the market as the hon. member has suggested. That is one thing we certainly do not wish to do. In addition, I think we have some chance of selling some of this pork abroad. That was
Supply-Agriculture
one of the reasons I went overseas, last fall, to investigate the possibilities of opening up markets again for our pork in Britain and in other European countries. I think we shall be able to sell some pork in Britain and in Europe during the coming year. I cannot say definitely that we shall be able to do so, but I think there is a fair chance of this happening.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks about the poultry industry in Canada, and particularly, in the province of Quebec. The poultry industry in Quebec is faced with some very difficult problems, mostly in the production of broilers. Last year, and especially last fall, broilers sold for 14 to 16 cents a pound; today, the price is about 17 cents a pound. Now, it is a known fact that it costs about 21 cents to the most efficient producers to produce one pound of broiler, while the cost can run as high as 29 cents for the average producer.
Would the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) consider the opportunity of establishing a deficiency price for poultry meat, and more particularly for broiler meat? I believe that the farmers have made representations on that matter to the minister last fall, besides asking him to reduce the number of export permits for poultry.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I may say a word with regard to this question of putting price supports under poultry, particularly broiler chicks in which, I think, the hon. member is particularly interested, I would point out that this is just not a practical possibility. I do not look upon the production of these broilers as a real farm operation, because it is really a factory operation. It does not require a farm. It does not require even a rural atmosphere. It can be carried on in the middle of a city. A man puts up a building, buys several thousand chicks and then feeds them up to three and a half pounds or so. Along those lines he can turn out birds by the thousand every week. It is not a farm operation at all; it is a production line operation, and because practically no ground is required it is the type of operation which can lead to almost unlimited production.
If there were a guaranteed price for broiler chickens in effect in this country there could be produced here ten times as many broiler chickens as we in Canada could possibly eat and, of course, as the hon. member knows,
66968-9-194

Representation Act
there is no possibility of exporting any quantity of these chickens. In other words, there is no limit to the production which would be possible unless it were the amount of feed available, and we have almost unlimited amounts of feed available. It is, therefore, the type of operation upon which a support price just cannot be placed, because that would encourage unlimited production to take place.
The price difficulties faced by the chicken industry, or the broiler chicken industry at this time have been brought on by the industry itself. They have produced themselves out of their markets. I have warned the producers of broilers and the producers of turkeys for the past year and a half that if they continued to expand production as they were doing they would produce themselves into bankruptcy, and that is exactly what has happened as far as some of the broiler chicken producers are concerned. And that is what will happen to some of the turkey producers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Competition from the United States is very great.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. As far as turkeys are concerned, as the hon. member knows import control is in effect.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to interrupt the minister; but it being five o'clock it is my duty, according to standing orders, to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit later today or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of public bills.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. Antoine Frechette (Temiscouata) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-21, to amend the Representation Act.
He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is simply to change the name of the electoral district of ''"Temiscouata" to that of "Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata", because, in my constituency, there are two provincial electoral districts, one named "Riviere-du-Loup" and the other, "Temiscouata". So, at the request of the county councils, I introduced this bill to change the name of "Temiscouata" to that of "Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata".


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: What would be, then, the name of the constituency? Could the hon. member tell us what would be the name of his constituency and what are the reasons for the change he proposes?


Antoine Fréchette: At present, my constituency is named Temiscouata-
(Text):


An hon. Member:: He has already explained that.
(Translation):


Antoine Fréchette: -but from now on, it will be known as "Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata". (Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.



COMPANIES ACT


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-22, to amend the Companies Act.
He said: Before I go into the details of this bill and the intent behind it, I do wish to point out to hon. members who may disagree with some of the wording that the Companies Act is a very involved act and it is rather difficult for a private member, with the limited resources at his disposal, to bring in a properly worded bill. However, since this is simply second reading, which means approval in principle, I feel that the various legal problems involved can well be dealt with in committee. This is particularly pertinent because there have been no amendments to the Companies Act since 1934, and conditions have changed rather remarkably since 1934.
The purpose of the bill, as shown in the explanatory note, is to prevent public companies taking advantage of the exemption given in section 121 of the Companies Act to private companies-among other requirements, those not having more than 50 shareholders-by which the so-called "family" companies do not have to file annual statements with the Secretary of State. Under the present definitions and section 121 large companies are able to avoid filing annual financial statements by incorporating private companies and becoming shareholders therein.

The Canadian Companies Act, as it now stands, is taken almost word for word from the English companies act, but in 1948 the English companies act was revised and a provision was inserted in that act to cover the point I am trying to cover in this bill.
Generally speaking, there are a lot of other sections in the Companies Act that need revision. It would not hurt it if the Companies Act had a thorough going over.
The intent of the bill is two-fold. First, under the present law a public company, that is a company with more than 50 shareholders, can purchase a private company and operate that private company and in the operation of that private company, although they are forced to divulge facts in regard to the operation of the public company, under the law they do not have to divulge any details in regard to its operation.
This might well be exemplified by a communication which all hon. members received from a gentleman containing an excerpt from the Toronto Star of Friday, April 10, 1959 which details certain happenings at the annual meeting of the Canadian General Electric Company. One of the few Canadian shareholders tried to inquire into the activities of the private companies owned by the public company, Canadian General Electric, and he was unable to get the information he wanted.
I would think it should be rather axiomatic that any law laid down by a government should have for its purpose not only the protection of majority stockholders in a company but, far more important, the protection of the interests of minority shareholders. Under the present Companies Act this just is not so. The majority shareholders can, if they are not receiving the information they want, elect a new board of directors but the minority shareholders are utterly powerless. Actually in one respect the bill does not go far enough because minority shareholders of private companies today have to pay in order to receive financial statements. One of the definitions of a private company is that it shall have not more than 50 shareholders. The expense of printing such statements is not great and minority shareholders should receive these statements as a matter of right.
Although, as I say, that is one purpose of the bill, perhaps the other purpose is of much more public interest, namely the hiding behind the private companies' section of the Companies Act of large corporations which are essentially not private companies but rather public companies. In this respect the problem is to decide in what sense the property of a large business is private and, if it is private, who is entitled to such 66968-9-194J
Companies Act
privacy. Under our present regulations, as I said before, the criterion has been the number of shareholders. In other days that was an indication of the size of the company but that is not so today. In this era of large international corporations with extensive holdings in many countries the criterion of the number of shareholders does not hold good with these wholly owned subsidiaries because the stock of the subsidiary is voted through the directors of the parent corporation. They therefore qualify as to number of shareholders but this is simply begging the question because in all other respects they are properly public companies.
In dealing with the questions of foreign investment in Canada the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects made three recommendations, with the second of which the bill is concerned. The three recommendations are found on page 393 of their report and read as follows:
1.	Wherever possible, such concerns-
The reference is to foreign subsidiaries.
-should employ Canadians in senior management and technical positions, should retain Canadian engineering and other professional and service personnel, and should do their purchasing of supplies, materials and equipment in this country.
2.	They should publish their financial statements and make full disclosure of the results of their Canadian operations.
3.	They should include on their boards of directors a number of independent Canadians and they should sell an appreciable interest in their equity stock to Canadians.
Mention is made of 20 to 25 per cent. In dealing specifically with their second recommendation they had this to say, as found on page 394 of the final report of the commission:
The second objective is that foreign-owned concerns should publish or make available their financial statements showing the results of their operations in Canada. If these concerns, more particularly the larger ones, were owned in Canada, they would be required to supply copies of their financial statements to Canadian shareholders and in this way, if there were more than just a few shareholders, these statements would be made public. Generally speaking the parent concerns publish their own statements in considerable detail in their own countries.
I might add that the requirements with regard to the publication of such statements in the United States, for instance, compared with the requirements in Canada are much more extensive. They require a greater degree of disclosure of company operations and in many respects they are far ahead of what we require under our Companies Act. The commissioners go on to say:
It is not unreasonable therefore that Canadians should wish similar information about the activities of the subsidiaries in this country. Indeed, it is our opinion that the community at large is entitled to

Companies Act
be interested in the financial results of the operations of the larger foreign-owned concerns operating in this country, since in many cases these operations have a direct bearing upon economic activity and the level of employment. We do not propose that foreign-owned concerns operating in Canada should be forced to publish their financial statements-
By that they mean the taking of advertisements in newspapers in order to acquaint the public in that manner.
-but we believe it might well be in their best interests to do so voluntarily. Such a step should improve the public relations of such concerns and should allay unjustified suspicions about their operations and activities in Canada.
With regard to the extent of the operations of such subsidiaries, I wish to quote a statement taken from an article by Professor J. E. Smyth, published in the Queen's Quarterly, the autumn issue of 1958, which statement reads as follows:
Until about four years ago the Bank of Canada compiled and published financial data from a sample of Canadian companies; it has since abandoned the series. One of the important limitations of these data was that they were drawn entirely from published financial statements, and that the proportion of Canadian economic activity which was affected by large private companies, for which no statements were available, was so significant as to invalidate any conclusions which might be drawn from the published figures.
If any hon. members are in doubt as to the degree of this control of Canadian industry I should like to read a few percentage figures from the book, "Canada-United States Economic Relations" issued by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. In this regard I am referring to the degree of control and not the degree of 100 per cent ownership. With regard to automobiles and parts, the percentage of that industry controlled by United States residents is 95 per cent and in the case of rubber 84 per cent. No figure is available for electrical apparatus but the figure as to the amount owned is 62 per cent, and the figure for the amount controlled should be similar. In chemicals the figure is 51 per cent; for the petroleum industry 68 per cent; other mining 54 per cent; pulp and paper 45 per cent; smelting and refining of non-ferrous native ores, 55 per cent; all other manufacturing 43 per cent. This table is found on page 104 of the book to which I referred.
Considering these facts it is rather interesting that so often you hear the statement made that labour unions should be forced by law to publish financial statements for the information of their members and the public at large, and the commonly used argument is that the financial affairs of companies and

businesses are open to public knowledge and that if this is fair for companies it should also be fair for unions.
Without taking sides pro or con all I wish to say is that what I have said so far should clearly indicate that it is not true that the business affairs of a very large section of Canadian business are open to the public. This goes even a little bit farther, in that it confers on the so-called private companies an advantage over public companies. The statements of operations of public companies are open to their competitors, but the private companies' affairs are secret. For instance, if you take a sampling of industry you will find that the statements of the Ford motor company are available to all the people of Canada, but those of General Motors and Chrysler are not. If you want to look at the pulp and paper industry, you find that the statements of Canadian International Paper are not available but Powell River are. In so far as the meat industry is concerned, we know all about Canada Packers but we know nothing about Swift Canadian. In so far as the oil industry is concerned, we know about the operations of Imperial Oil, but Cities Service, and a host of others are completely secret. In the merchandising field, the statements of Simpson's are available but Eaton's are not. In so far as farm implements are concerned, if you think you are paying too much for your farm implements, you can ascertain how much Massey-Harris is making, but not International Harvester. In the food industry we find that Weston's operations are open to the public, but General Foods, Nabisco, Heinz and a lot of others are not.
This is an added inducement to foreign companies to refuse to allow Canadians to buy stock in the Canadian subsidiary, because if they allow Canadians to buy stock they will lose the benefit of this quirk in the Companies Act which states that a private company has 50 shareholders or less and a public company is one in which there are more than 50 stockholders. This type of thinking is in line with the former legislation which made it an advantage if a company had 95 per cent or more foreign ownership because if the ownership was of that degree greater tax concessions were received It is a type of thinking that is not colonialism, but it is economic feudalism in my opinion.
As I stated at the outset, there are many points which must be considered with a bill such as this. Undoubtedly, the matter is not covered in the way the Department of Justice for instance, might cover the rectifying of this queer omission in our Companies Act up to the level of national sovereignty, if you like,

to which the United Kingdom brought their act in 1948. However, I do not believe any member on this side of the house can quarrel with the intent of the amendment. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) has repeatedly pointed out in his speeches that this and other steps, such as those mentioned in the report of the royal commission, are necessary in order to improve Canadian-United States relations and to give recognition to the need for making the operation of these companies more Canadian in nature.
About a week ago the minister of northern affairs delivered a speech in the Chateau Laurier and, from the tenor of his remarks, one would have thought he was speaking on this bill. Speeches made in the United States by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) have indicated they believe that measures such as these are necessary and will, in the end, react not only to the benefit of Canada but the other countries involved. It is unfortunate that in every case I must make reference to the United States, but the fact is they are by far the major owner of our industrial complex. This was clearly indicated by the table I read earlier.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how anyone could quarrel with the intent of this bill. It does not place a liability on any foreign company. It only brings such a company into a position of equality with its more truly Canadian counterpart. It does give to the Canadian people the type of information which is so freely available from the ordinary public companies. As I also stated, this measure does not demand any greater degree of disclosure than is demanded by the United States law.
I do not think there is very much more I can usefully add at this stage, Mr. Speaker. I think that this is simply a companion piece, a sort of trilogy, if you like, because I will have other bills coming forward to take care of some of the other loopholes which I feel should be plugged in order to have this country become a nation in the economic as well as in the political sphere. I have in my hand a pamphlet put out by the Canadian institute of international affairs entitled "Foreign Investment in Canada", by J. M. Smith. He ends up by saying something along these lines, that Canadians have benefited greatly from foreign investment, control notwithstanding, in terms of employment, income and living standards. Yet, as Canadians, we are right to be concerned. Is our economic independence slipping away? At what point, if we are losing our economic independence, will we begin to lose our political independence?
Companies Act


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us agree in principle with the statements which have been made by the hon. member in his excellent introduction to this bill. However, what struck me, in the first instance, was that he did not mention whether or not he had consulted with the Secretary of State (Mr. Courte-manche) on this bill. After all, the Companies Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation on our statutes, and I should have thought that this afternoon we would have had the benefit of the advice of the Secretary of State who administers the act. Not once during the hon. member's speech did I hear any reference to any consultation with the officials of the Department of Secretary of State or with the minister. In any event, that is not my responsibility.
I must say that, in so far as the member's statement is concerned, he covered a great deal more ground than is included in his amendment. After all, his amendment relates to only one of the points he mentioned. There is not only the question of public companies incorporating as private companies and thereby avoiding making their statements available, but we have another practice which could have been covered in such a bill. I refer to the fact that companies do not have to disclose a statement of operations for wholly owned subsidiaries, thereby avoiding telling the public the proper financial status of the major company. There are many other facets to this very important clause which the hon. member wishes to amend by this bill.
I do not know if this house is qualified to amend the Companies Act without a thorough examination and until we have some assurance that the officers of the companies branch and the Secretary of State himself have been consulted so that if the intent of this bill were to be enacted as legislation it would have the approval of these gentlemen and also accomplish the things the hon. member who sponsors the bill seeks to have it accomplish.
I shall reserve my detailed remarks for the committee stage, if we should reach that stage on this bill. I know that the hon. member has a great deal of interest in having proper disclosure of the financial status of companies operating in Canada. I agreed entirely with him when he spoke about foreign corporations which do not have to disclose their assets or financial position in Canada because of a lack of proper provisions in our Companies Act. Before agreeing to any amendment I think, when we reach the committee stage, we should have had the full and proper advice of officials.

Companies Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my support for the principle and purpose of this bill. In doing so I must first of all congratulate the hon. member for his short, somewhat hesitant but most certain step toward C.C.F. policy in this connection.
I support the purpose of the bill as indicated by the explanatory notes and congratulate the hon. member for his most interesting speech when introducing the bill. Personally I think it is wrong in principle that large companies and corporations are allowed to get around the law by incorporating as private companies or being considered as such because they have 50 shareholders or less when it is obvious to most hon. members of this house that it is done in order to conceal an examination of their affairs by the public.
In my opinion the protection of the shareholders and the public interest requires and demands that all proper publicity should be given to the activities of large corporations and companies in Canada. Their activities are usually related to the development of natural resources and the welfare of large numbers of human beings whether they be shareholders or employees of the company concerned. I feel that every proper publicity should be given with respect to their financial position, their profit and loss position, their expansion intentions and questions of that sort. It is for that reason I heartedly endorse the hon. member's efforts in this direction by the introduction of this bill.
However, as the previous speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) said, it is a large step. The Companies Act is a most important and complex act. I believe the matter should receive very careful consideration to make certain that we amend the act to best advantage having in view all the circumstances. Therefore, to that end I would suggest that it would be a good idea and one which should win the approval of the sponsor for this bill to be sent to the appropriate committee of this house where the Secretary of State, officials of the companies branch and representatives from other sections of the community could give evidence and thus enable the committee to ensure that either this bill or a similar piece of legislation does the job intended by the hon. member who has introduced this measure.
Because of the importance of the matter I hope the bill will go to a vote before this private members' hour is concluded and I personally would suggest that someone should move an amendment to the effect that the bill be referred to the appropriate committee.


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I, like the two hon. gentlemen who preceded me in this debate, feel that a certain amount of congratulations should be extended to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) for the fine way in which he introduced this measure. Although I cannot concur with everything he has said, in large part I must agree.
I should like first to make some reference to the quotations he cited from the Gordon commission on Canada's economic prospects. He quoted from pages 393 and 394 which consists of that part of the report dealing with foreign investment in Canada.
What the hon. gentleman says about our requiring some control over foreign investment in Canada is absolutely correct and I believe all those who have participated in this debate concurred in that statement. I should like to read from page 392 of the report of the Gordon Commission:
-we believe the main objectives of Canadians in this matter should be; first, to see a larger share of foreign capital invested in the form of bonds and mortgages, which do not involve control of large sectors of the economy; second, to see that the part of foreign investment which is invested in the resource and manufacturing industries is associated in some degree with Canadian capital and Canadian interests-
In my opinion it is impossible to implement the Gordon recommendations merely by making a slight amendment to the Companies Act. In the first place, there have been no amendments to the act since 1934 notwithstanding the reference in the explanatory notes on the right hand page of the bill as printed.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: Yes.


Ernest James Broome: What part of the explanatory notes implies that there has been?


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I know the hon. member mentioned the year 1934 in his opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, but the explanatory notes imply that amendments may have been made since then. The English companies act was revised in 1948 and referring to this in the second paragraph of the explanatory note the hon. member's bill states:
The Canadian act was amended in some respects to follow the 1948 English revision; but this provision was not adopted.
This indicates that the mover of the bill is aware of the English revision of 1948 which probably was justified in that country because, unlike Canada, England does not rely in large part on foreign investment.
I think it would be of some interest to the house if I made reference to the fact that

in both the Canadian and English companies acts the definitions of a private company are identical at the present time. Both acts place restrictions on the right to transfer shares. Both impose a restriction of a total of 50 shareholders and in both acts a company is given no right to request that the public subscribe to its shares.
Mr. Speaker, I have made that statement to bring to the attention of the house that the amendment suggested is not in any way in conflict with the English act; we have identical legislation at the present time. Section 121 of the act is reprinted in the bill which we are discussing today in identical form, with the addition of the folowing words:
-exempted by subsection (2A) -
In other words, if Bill No. C-22 is adopted it will not be making a change in the law in so far as public companies are concerned but it will be making a drastic change in what has been referred to as private companies. In England they have a similar section to section 121. A public company or a private company in England must give 21 days' notice to its shareholders; an English company must also give 21 days' notice to debenture holders. However, we have not that compulsion in Canada.
Personally I have no objection to compelling Canadian private companies to send out their financial statements to their shareholders. There are only 50 shareholders in any case, and in most instances the shareholders are very familiar with the financial statements. In fact, our present act, by section 121 (3), gives the shareholder of a private company, if he is one of the 50, the right to request a financial statement, and it must be mailed to him within a period of seven days. However, there is a small penalty: The shareholder can be obligated to pay 10 cents a folio, or 100 words, for the preparation of the financial report.
As far as I am concerned I have no objection to the bill in so far as a private company being obligated to send out free of charge to its shareholders its financial statement. I have no objection to the statements which have been made by the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard). However, there is one basic point which I think all of us at all times should be concerned with if we want to keep free enterprise alive in this country of ours. This bill assumes that the internal affairs of a federal private company are of public interest even when there is no questien of this private company going to the public to borrow money or of asking it to subscribe in any way to its security
Companies Ac I
issues.	In my opinion this matter concerns the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian association of chartered accountants.
If we adopted the bill in its present form I suggest we would be creating three types of companies in Canada. In the first place we would be left with the public company, the large company in which anybody can buy shares.	In the second place the private
company, that is the family company which has not more than 50 shareholders, would remain in existence with the same privileges as it has today. The third type of company would be a new creature of fiction. We would be creating a private company which, like the one just mentioned, would not have more than 50 shareholders but it would have to comply with section 121 of the act and the bill we are discussing.
The bill has four conditions, and it is these four conditions I am chiefly concerned with. In the first place the conditions are objectionable because the restrictions or exceptions are cumulative in effect and it would be impractical for anybody to administer the same. The first clause of the bill reads:
(a) No body corporate is the holder of any of the shares or debentures.
Now, if a body corporate became a holder of a share or shares of a private company, that company would then become this new type of company, the third type which I mentioned a moment ago. That could happen very easily in many of the family industries or companies of Canada. It could happen, for example, if a legitimate private company of not more than 50 shareholders went to a bank, borrowed money, and was compelled to put up some of its shares for security. In other words, if a private company went to a bank and the bank insisted on a transfer of shares for security purposes, naturally that company would fall within the ambit of this legislation and would be obligated to comply with section 121. It would then mean that the financial report of that company would be filed in the office of the Secretary of State and the information contained therein would be public in nature, which is certainly contrary to the principe of a private company.
The same thing would happen if any one of the 50 shareholders in a private company registered his shares in a holding company or if he sold them to an incorporated investment dealer for transfer to another person. The same objection which I have just mentioned would be applicable to clauses (b) and (c) which follow.

Companies Act
The last clause (d) is also weak and I suggest, as was also suggested by the hon. member, it is merely a question of bad drafting. However, I feel it should be pointed out, that in Canada today in order to be a director of a Canadian company it is necessary to be an individual, while section (d) says:
no body corporate is a director-
That, I suggest, is merely bad drafting.
What I am also very much concerned about is the objection raised by the hon. member for Ottawa East: Do we know whether or not the Department of the Secretary of State could administer this act if it was adopted in its present form or in some type of amended form? In the first place, it would require a tremendous increase in the staff. The Secretary of State would have to keep a list of all shareholders of every private company and record every individual notice of transfer of shareholdings. He would probably be compelled to hire a large number of inspectors who would be travelling across Canada visiting the head offices of these private companies. I suggest to hon. members that before this bill is passed the Department of the Secretary of State and the solicitors concerned would have to make an exhaustive study and probably introduce a series of amendments in order to make Bill No. C-22 operative.
Personally, I am not at all concerned about requiring private companies to distribute automatically their financial statements to shareholders and to perform this service free of charge. It would not cost them very much. They are obliged to prepare statements by the Companies Act; it would just be a matter of having them mimeographed and distributed.
One point which has not been mentioned is this: because certain things work well in England or in a foreign country this fact alone is no indication that they would work equally well in Canada. I say this because in England, for example, there is just one jurisdiction which can issue letters patent while in Canada there are 11 jurisdictions which have authority to issue letters patent to corporations.
As far as I am concerned, this bill in its present form or in any form which the House of Commons should amend it would always remain ineffective unless we were assured beforehand that all the ten individual authorities would follow suit.
I suggest that before the house votes on this measure it should be studied by the federal-provincial committee which will be meeting again this spring to study the uniformity of Canadian company law. At the
[Mr. Creaghan.l
present time a draft uniform companies act has been prepared. It has been circulated to the various attorneys general, and has been studied by the Canadian Bar Association. I understand that this revised act will be reviewed when this federal-provincial committee meets again some time next month. After study by that committee the measure could possibly be introduced in a better form and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce where delegations could present briefs and the members of the committee could receive the benefit of the expert advice which is available in the capital city.
I wish to emphasize once again that I am in complete accord with the recommendations of the Gordon report. I am opposed to the influx of United States capital into this country in its present form by means of which it can obtain control of the equity stock in new and growing Canadian companies. However, I do not feel that this bill could correct the situation. I believe this matter requires to be dealt with in separate legislation in the form of a bill which would be drafted in such a way as to have some control over the flow of United States or other foreign currency into this country.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: When the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) sat down, I felt myself to be very much like the wife of a man who had imagined himself to be a refrigerator. This couple had taken their unfortunate problem to a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist eventually took the wife aside to see how things were proceeding. She said that things were not going too badly, although her husband still imagined himself to be a refrigerator and slept with his mouth open, very much like a refrigerator door. The psychiatrist asked if this was particularly annoying, and the wife said: "Yes, the little light keeps me awake".
When the hon. member sat down and closed his mouth I am afraid the light went out for the person who is now addressing you. It seems to me that the bill presented by the hon. member has two specific purposes. The first is to tighten up the provisions which relate to private companies. The second seems to be some roundabout method of taking a swipe at the growing United States control of some Canadian companies. For the purpose of completing the record, it might be of interest to read into the record just exactly what a private company is now, as defined by the Companies Act in chapter 53 of the latest edition of the Revised Statutes of Canada. There are three particular matters which help to

define what a private company is. The first, of course, is that the right to transfer its shares is restricted. Second, the number of shareholders is limited to 50 and, third, any invitation to the public to subscribe for any shares or debentures is prohibited. The definition is set forth more explicitly and much more fully in the interpretation section of the act, section 3 (j).
To these factors which now make up a private company, the hon. member has introduced others which are set forth in the second paragraph of Bill No. C-22 now before us for our consideration. I am wondering if he does have in mind the correcting of one ill, where, by the use of hanky-panky and legal ritual, some companies are able to classify themselves as private companies and thus avoid making any disclosure, while other companies are public companies doing the same type of business and must, therefore, make those disclosures. Perhaps he would be better advised even at this stage to consider withdrawing this particular measure and bringing in something which would effect a new definition of what exactly is a private company.
Companies Act
With regard to the other point which, I gather, is concerned with the prevention of United States domination of the Canadian economy, I would say that this bill is really of little use along that line. It would certainly make apparent the extent of the control exercised by United States capital in this country, but it would not change the present situation one bit, and therefore I wonder if the hon. member is really serving the purpose he wishes to serve by means of this bill.
Those are the two reservations I have about this measure. I am afraid that I do not understand it as well as I should. It seems to me that the Companies Act is a difficult field to enter. I hope some brave soul will tackle it one day, refine it, streamline it and even write it in basic English. I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. member, and would be prepared to vote for this bill. However, I see that the hour of the voting has come; perhaps it is now past, and I hope we can achieve in committee the notable objectives which he has in mind.


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

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

Mr. Argue: 1.	As at March 31, 1959 or nearest available date, how many Canadian citizens were employed at bases in Newfoundland under lease to the United States?
2.	Are these employees eligible to receive superannuation or retirement allowance upon their retirement?
3.	If not, has the Canadian government approached the United States government with a view to making provision for an adequate pension plan for these people comparable to that provided for United States citizens employed at these bases?
4.	If not, has the Canadian government considered the possibility of making alternative provision whereby these employees might become eligible for a superannuation plan?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister and Acting Secretary of
state for External Affairs):
1.	4,324 as of March 31, 1959.
2.	According to information that has been received from the United States authorities,
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia .... Northwest Territories Yukon Territory	
Total	
they are not eligible for United States superannuation benefits since they are not United States citizens. The employees are not known to have made arrangements for any other retirement benefit scheme with those United States military services by whom they are employed.
3.	The government has not made any proposals to the United States government on the matter of retirement benefits for this particular segment of the Canadian labour force but stands ready to offer whatever assistance it can in any reasonable initiative which the employees may take with the United States military services concerned.
4.	These persons are not eligible for Canadian government superannuation benefits since they are not employees of the Canadian government.


INDIAN ENFRANCHISEMENT
Mr. Howard: 1.	Have any Indians been enfranchised since 1951, pursuant to section 108 of the Indian Act?
2.	If so, how many have been so enfranchised, by provinces, for each year since 1951?
Answer by:	Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1. Yes.
2.	As follows:					
1952	1953	1954	1955	1956	1957	19585	9	12	9	6	2	131	Nil	Nil	1	Nil	2	NilNil	10	8	19	11	8	517	18	16	30	34	44	30362	284	204	258	268	215	164127	136	107	143	126	119	893	108	77	59	69	81	1175	113	50	125	94	74	130122	106	132	161	166	152	3014	15	54	24	13	16	Nil6	10	8	10	22	5	3822	809	668	839	809	718	394
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Administration Branch-
1.	Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $747,531.
2.	Information division, $622,790.
3.	Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux in a total amount of £46,384, notwithstanding that payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1958, which is, $125,599.
4.	Economics division, $726,985.
Research Branch-*
5.	Branch administration, including an amount of $187,420 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada, $1,752,025.
Research institutes, regional laboratories, branch farms and research services-[DOT]
6.	Operation and maintenance, $21,151,451.
7.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $7,187,248.
Production and Marketing Branch-
8.	Branch administration, including marketing of agricultural products, $890,029.
9.	Agricultural products board administration,

[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 27, 1959

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on marine and fisheries-Mr. English.