1959-03-13

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I recall to the house that the national film board endeavoured to get a picture of the house in session some two or three weeks ago without using flashlights. This attempt was unsuccessful, and unless hon. members have some objection to a picture being taken with flashlights I propose to ask the film board to try again at the commencement of the sitting on Wednesday next, when I think more members will be here. Wednesday is the day proposed unless some other time may be suggested.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
March 11-The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-The following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the convention on the nationality of married women done at New York on February 20, 1957, and that this house do approve the same.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Stand.


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



GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT DIVERSION AND DUMPING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the government considering action which might counteract the effect on Canadian oil production arising out of the pressures created by the new oil restrictions in the United States for the diversion and dumping into Canada of oil and its products which would otherwise have been exported to the United States?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this subject is a matter of very great concern to the government and to the oil industry in Canada, as well as to all Canadians. We have the matter under review, and close study is being made of the mandatory controls recently set up by Washington. In due course we perhaps will have something to say with regard to what may be done. At this time, however,
I may say that the whole problem of the oil industry is certainly seriously affected by the controls which have been established. There has been some leeway permitted in the midwestern area of the United States, to which area some of our crude oil has been going. The government recognizes the serious situation that now prevails.



NOVA SCOTIA-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ASSIST INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the number of layoffs and continuing unemployment in the Nova Scotia coal industry. Can the Prime Minister say what consideration has been given to assisting this industry, and can he inform the house as to when an announcement of government policy in this regard may be made?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been a subject of constant review and examination by my colleagues and myself. It is an involved and difficult question, but I hope the government will be in a position at a very early date to make some announcement with respect to this matter.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguslin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I regret that I could not give him notice of my intention to ask this question, and of course he may take this as notice. I wonder if the minister would tell the house if the Canadian mari-times commission have granted a subsidy to

Inquiries of the Ministry a Quebec passenger ship company operating in Quebec, which has not yet been issued a permit of operation by the public service board in that province?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I will speak to the chairman of the maritime commission and let the hon. gentleman know as soon as possible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on a report in the Gazette of this morning that the Canadian Labour Congress has formally requested a complete investigation into what actually occurred in Newfoundland, namely the unfortunate result in respect of many and the death of one. Is an unbiased and complete investigation going to be held?


John George Diefenbaker: So far as I know, no request as yet has been made in that connection. When any communication is received the matter will receive consideration. I am not saying that some of my colleagues have not received such a notice, but there is nothing on my desk at the moment that indicates the receipt of such a communication.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question supplementary to the question I asked the Prime Minister. I now ask the same question of the Minister of Justice.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report in this morning's Gazette that Mr. Jodoin is sending me a formal request. I have not seen it myself, but I have been informed that it has been delivered to my office in the justice building just recently, and that it does ask that we conduct some sort of formal inquiry into the activities of the R.C.M. police in Newfoundland.
I have to say in reply that I am told by my office that the letter contains no specific information to back up the allegation that the R.C.M. police have acted in an improper manner. I have had no such evidence from elsewhere, and in the absence of such evidence I would not feel inclined to recommend to my colleagues that such an inquiry be held. However, if evidence is received, or if factual information is received that would warrant it, we would immediately reconsider the position.

Furthermore, as soon as the situation down there permits the ordinary administrative routine to be resumed I would expect to be receiving full and detailed reports of every one of the incidents involved, and if those reports themselves disclose anything that would warrant such an inquiry I shall refer the matter to my colleagues for a decision.
But at the moment there is no evidence or information before me which would lead me to change the opinion I have expressed to the house that the R.C.M. police have conducted themselves with restraint under very difficult circumstances.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question. We are all interested in peace and harmony and a solution to this difficulty. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he is in a position to go to Newfoundland personally and see what can be done to solve the difficulty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am as concerned as anyone in the house, but no more concerned certainly than any of my colleagues, and probably no more concerned than other hon. members. While I have every desire to do everything possible to contribute to a settlement of this question, the question of anyone visiting Newfoundland would obviously have to be a governmental decision. This matter has not yet been taken up because there seems to be no occasion for it; there has been no suggestion that such a visit would produce any good results.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask another supplementary question. Is the Minister of Labour interesting himself in the situation, and is it possible for his good offices to be used in Newfoundland?


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows, as every member in the house knows, that this matter is strictly under provincial jurisdiction and the federal Department of Labour has no jurisdiction at all in this dispute.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. When the minister is making the survey of R.C.M.P. activities in Newfoundland will he find out whether I.W.A. property was given the same protection by the R.C.M.P., on the occasion when windows were broken, as was given to the property of the company on other occasions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the reports I will be receiving will cover the situation.
I should perhaps advise the hon. member that I have an interim report this morning

that yesterday, in the course of transporting the body of the constable who was killed back to St. John's for burial, at one of the small towns through which the train passed there was a demonstration which took the form later of an attack on the I.W.A. hall in that community. Before the situation could be brought under control there was, I understand, some damage done to the hall; but as soon as possible the police moved in and were able to restore the situation and bring about a cessation of the attacks without the necessity of using force. The police moved just as quickly as possible to protect that property, in the same way that they will move to protect any property that may come under danger.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in last night's Citizen to the effect that strife and intrigue are being created in the selection of federal government employees through the actions of officials in various departments?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member is asking the minister whether or not the account is correct, and if he is I would remind him that this is not according to the practice of the house.


Frank Howard: I am not asking whether or not the account is correct, but whether the minister's attention has been drawn to the article and whether he has any comment to make.


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report but I will check and answer later.

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



NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
236. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $879,640.	.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 236
carry?


Mr. Pickersgill:: No, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping that the Minister of Justice would be present in the committee, because my observations relate to his conduct rather than to that of the hon. lady. I should like to make one or two observations about what the hon.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration lady very properly called a fiasco as revealed by the questions asked last evening by the Leader of the Opposition.
The observation I want to make is this. It appeared from what the Leader of the Opposition brought out last night and from what the hon. lady herself said in the answer she gave in parliament that the government were perfectly prepared to buy the picture in question so long as they thought there was an existing appropriation, and it probably would not come to the notice of parliament; but when they found that they would have to come here in a straightforward manner and ask parliament to vote the money-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -they backed down on their commitment. The record shows that very clearly indeed.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Utter rubbish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance, who was probably at that time on one of his numerous travels instead of attending to his business here in Canada, failed


Donald Methuen Fleming: Wrong again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -according to the record-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Too bad you
couldn't be right once in a while.


John Whitney Pickersgill: According to the record, or at least according to the evidence that has been supplied so far and is uncontradicted, the government were quite prepared to buy this picture if there had been an appropriation, but when they found that they would have to come in here and in a straightforward, honest fashion ask parliament to vote money, they repudiated the good name of Canada. This is what happened, and there is no getting away from it.
Perhaps the most shocking feature of all, sir, is that the Minister of Finance, who presumably was represented at the cabinet meeting if he was not there himself, ought to have known what the appropriations were. In other days the affairs of this country were managed differently.


An hon. Member:: They sure were.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance did know, in those days what was going on in government and commitments were not made that had to be repudiated because of misunderstandings about the real situation. It does seem to me, sir, that this is a shocking and a shabby business. It is quite obvious that what the government hoped to be able to do was buy this picture and then, if there was any criticism, get up and say that the Liberals had provided the money. However,

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration after finding they had to come in here and take the responsibility for their own act, they did not have the courage to do so. What they very obviously decided to do-


Mr. Bell (Saini John-Alberl):: May I ask
a question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a beautiful example of the kind of government we have been getting during the last two years.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a
question? Would the hon. gentleman have been prepared to spend this amount of money himself, if he had been in the position to make the decision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, that would have depended upon-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that would have depended entirely upon the state of the exchequer. As the hon. gentleman knows, in the days when we were in office we had a very considerable surplus because the affairs of this country were being well managed. We could well afford to purchase imperishable articles of this sort that would last as long as the country lasts. We are not ashamed of having done so. However, if the country had got into the terrible condition financially that it has under the hon. gentlemen opposite, I doubt if it would have been a prudent thing to do.
I did not have that decision to make. The decision had to be made by the Minister of Justice, as acting minister, by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. I feel sorry for the Minister of Justice because having made a commitment on behalf of the government of Canada, and knowing the Minister of Justice as I do, I am sure he wanted to keep it. I am sure he was overruled by his colleagues. I am sympathetic toward the Minister of Justice, and I am sorry for him. I am sorry to see this habit of repudiation beginning to develop.
I am sorry to see the Minister of Justice being put in the false position in which he has been put over this matter. It does seem to me, sir, that either the government should have decided in the first place they were not going to spend this money, if indeed they were so concerned about the treasury as they later pretended to be, and made a decision on the basis of the merits of the case. However, having made a decision and then having found they were wrong about the technicalities, they should have been honest enough and straightforward enough to go through with what they had started.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman has not lost his ability to work up a fine state of frenzy over nothing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just a repudiation of contract.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is quite obvious that the hon. gentleman wishes to continue in opposition that great fault from which the Liberal government suffered when in office; that was to commit the country to a course for which they had no authority, and to act as a government in a manner for which they had not been given any authority by the house. Now the hon. gentleman has asked us to do the same thing, which we refuse to do, and for the doing of which the previous government was, in a large measure, repudiated by the country. The fact of the matter is that no commitment was made because there was no authority to make any commitment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what the hon. lady says.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. lady said so, as will be found on the record at page 1905 of Hansard for March 12, 1959. She said:
It is clear that no authority existed to make a firm offer or enter into a contract for this purchase by the national gallery or the government of Canada or anyone on its or their behalf.
The hon. member knows, and I assume has conveniently forgotten for the purpose of this discussion, that in the absence of an appropriation by parliament there can be no contract, and that in the absence of an appropriation by parliament no one has any authority to make a contract. Hence what the hon. gentleman is asking us to do or is suggesting that we should have done is to make a contract for which we had no authority. When we found that was the position we informed all those concerned immediately, explained the position and said that we were not prepared, in the absence of parliamentary authority, to do that which we had no authority to do; nor were we prepared, as the former government so often did, to seek to commit parliament as to what parliament would do, before parliament had any opportunity to express its opinion.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that completely disposes of the matter except to say this. If any further answer were required the hon. gentleman has given it himself. When, after all the sound and fury which he emitted, he was asked a simple question, namely whether if he had the authority, he would have come to parliament for the appropriation, he took refuge in those typical Liberal words, "That would depend upon the circumstances". What a fine ending for an

initially valiant stand. Having started out so valiantly to do battle, when he sees the enemy he turns tail and flees.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If any hon. member has ever seen me turn tail and flee in this house, Mr. Chairman, I should like him to cite the occasion. What I said about the hon. gentleman, which he cleverly-because he is clever -perverted in his reply, was that the government should not have entered into these negotiations at all if it did not intend to go through with them. I said, and I repeat, that it was extremely incompetent of the minister and of the government not to know the facts, not to know whether there was an appropriation before they entered upon these negotiations. That was the whole point. It is just another of the examples we have had over and over again in the last two years of the fumbling and bumbling incompetence of the present administration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps in a quiet mood I could ask a few questions which might help to get to the truth of this matter. At page 1364 of Hansard, in her answer to the question, the minister stated:
-the board of trustees of the national gallery had asked for "authorization to negotiate for the purchase of the Breughel owned by Baron von Polnitz".
This is my first question, and I have many more. Will the minister tell me from what that quotation is taken? Perhaps she would put the full communication on the record. Will she also give us the date when that authorization was requested?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could answer that question, Mr. Chairman, because I was acting minister at the time. The quotation reproduced at page 1364 of Hansard comes from a resolution of the trustees of the national gallery. In this resolution it was stated- I am not sure that I am quoting the language exactly but I know that the fact is correct; it was in either that resolution or the immediately preceding one to which it was related -that funds were appropriated for the purpose. Then the resolution went on to ask the government to give authority to negotiate in the terms which are quoted at page 1364 of Hansard.
With regard to the previous statements of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, it would take a long time to correct all his inaccuracies, but there is one that I think should be corrected. The government at no time entered into negotiations. The government authorized negotiations to be commenced on the basis of the information it had received from responsible persons appointed by the previous government to manage the affairs of this gallery.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the Minister of Justice deny that negotiations in regard to the purchase of this picture had been going on for weeks before the communication from the gallery to which he has referred?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not in a position to confirm or deny that. I find that at page 1903 of yesterday's Hansard the hon. gentleman himself is reported as having said:
If I am inaccurate in giving my account of these negotiations no doubt the minister, who has the records at her disposal, will correct me. As I understand the situation, the first contact between a representative of the gallery and the agent for the owner of the picture, a landscape by Breughel, was made on January 4, 1957.
If that date is correct it would, of course, be during the administration of the hon. gentleman and his friends who were then in office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That information is quite correct. The first approach was made at that time. Does the minister not agree that subsequent to that time, as I mentioned last night, at the end of the year, or in January 1958 these negotiations regarding the purchase of this picture were proceeding and that negotiations had gone so far that prices were being discussed, as to what would be a fair value for the picture? Is not that negotiation, and is not that long before the statement from the gallery to which the minister has referred?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The matter first came to my knowledge in about February of 1958, as I recall it, when the director of the gallery first gave me a resolution of the trustees. That was a resolution of the trustees of January 29, 1958. The trustees were then meeting, and immediately after that meeting *-I think it was early in February; within the first few days of February-the director brought this resolution to my attention and first asked for authority to negotiate. That authority was not given at that time. It was late January, or early February, when I was first advised by the director that discussions-I do not think they should properly be called negotiations-had been entered into between representatives of the gallery and representatives of the owner of the painting with regard to possible purchase.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will not quibble over the
difference between the words "discussion" and "negotiation". The minister now admits that in February he knew discussions were going on with regard to the possible purchase of this painting. I ask the minister now whether this matter was not brought by him before the cabinet, and whether there was not a discussion of this matter by the cabinet. I ask him when that discussion took place, and whether there was not an agreement

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration reached by the cabinet that an offer of $350,000 should be made for this picture.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, that is incorrect. The
matter was brought before the cabinet by me on the basis of a resolution of the board of trustees requesting "that cabinet document 244/53 of October 7, 1953, be amended so that the sum of $2 million appropriated for the purchase of paintings from the collection of the Prince of Liechtenstein, of which $441,000 remains, could be applied to the purchase of works of comparable quality and importance". That was the resolution of January 29 which the director requested me to take to the cabinet. The request was taken to the cabinet, and on that occasion the cabinet turned it down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So was not the directorand he must have been acting in his capacity as director; the gallery is a department of government in this regard-authorized on May 2 to make an offer to the agent of the owner for the purchase of this picture?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the second occasion when
the submission was brought forward the cabinet approved it. The submission was based on the resolution of the trustees asking for authority to negotiate, and the director was advised that the cabinet had approved.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am asking the minister
whether the director was authorized to make an offer to the owner for the purchase of this picture at an amount of $350,000 or some other amount.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The authority that had been
asked for was authority to find out whether two paintings could be bought. It was asked that authority be given to negotiate to find out if one painting could be bought for a certain price and, if it could, it could be that authority would be given to negotiate for the other painting to see if it could be bought for a certain price. The resolution asked for authority to negotiate, and it was a submission based on this resolution which was approved by the cabinet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister now says there was no authority given to any representative of the gallery to make an offer at that time, May 2, for the purchase of this picture. I follow this up by asking him whether such an offer was made to the agent of the owner of this picture, a firm offer, without strings, at a particular price?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As far as the Breughel is concerned, I was advised by the director of the gallery that he inquired of the agent of the owner whether the owner would be willing to sell for that price. I was advised by the director in a memorandum from him that this was

the question he asked, whether the owner would sell the Breughel for $350,000. It appears that this inquiry, this conversation, was taken by the agent as a firm offer. What justification the agent had for doing so I fail to understand. The position is, as I have said, that there was no authority to make an offer. The only authority given was to negotiate. There could have been no authority to make an offer or enter into a contract, because there had been no appropriation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister now states very clearly that there was no authority given to make an offer for the purchase of this picture, and that so far as he knows no offer was made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No offer, on the basis of this memorandum of the conversation which I have received; no offer which I as a lawyer would regard as a firm offer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well I, perhaps, would make a distinction between an offer which would be regarded as a firm offer by a lawyer and an offer which might be regarded as a firm offer by the owner of the picture.


Some hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask the minister this. Was the owner of this picture, who was acting in good faith in this matter-


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know a little more about this than the hon. gentleman does, so perhaps he will not bother to interrupt. Was the owner of this picture not asked to confirm his acceptance of the offer in writing?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will have to check the documents and memoranda again. My information is that it was the owner who asked whether what he describes as the offer could be confirmed in writing, and the owner was notified on May 8 that the basis for any further negotiations no longer existed. I think it was on May 8; certainly it was not later than May 12.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is a fact that the minister saw the agent for the owner of this picture on May 8. Did the minister at that time tell the agent that he had previously obtained agreement to make the offer on the understanding that the money was available, and that later he found he was wrong in this understanding and that he did not wish to ask parliament for the appropriation which would now be required.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman is asking me to recall a conversation which I am frankly unable to do in detail at the moment. I recall the agent visiting me in my office, at which time I explained the position to him in detail and explained that there had been no legal

basis on which any offer could be made. I also said that I could not hold out for him any hope that the government would decide to go before parliament and ask for an appropriation, and that in the absence of an appropriation there was no authority for anyone to commit the government. I told him 1 would consider the situation further, but that I could not hold out any hope of an outcome that would be acceptable to the agent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister when and how the government finally decided that the money was not available unless a further appropriation was made by parliament?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My recollection is that the absence of an appropriation was first confirmed on May 7, some three days after the submission had been approved by the cabinet, when I was asked to make a submission to treasury board asking that an item be inserted in the supplementary estimates for an appropriation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: From what we have learned, Mr. Chairman, the minister I know will agree with my statement that a representative of the government, the director of the gallery, was authorized to negotiate for the purchase of this picture, which was an important negotiation both financially and otherwise, on the assumption that $350,000 was available when it was not in fact available.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The director was authorized to negotiate on that basis; that is a correct statement of the facts. I have referred to two resolutions of the trustees stating that the funds were available. I should also mention that on several occasions when the matter was under discussion I questioned the director of the gallery as to whether in fact the funds were available, and I was assured that they were.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then later the owner, assuming this was a serious negotiation, was told there was no such financial basis for negotiation. May I ask when the owner was finally and officially informed that the government was not going to proceed with the purchase of this picture?


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the owner was informed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to know when the owner was finally and officially informed that the government did not intend to proceed with the purchase of the picture.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As far as being a government decision I would have to ask my colleague who is presently the minister concerned to answer that. My recollection is clear that there was a telephone call on the 8th and a letter from the director to the agent on the 12th. I ceased to be acting minister on the 14th. I believe I actually handed over to my
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration colleague, the present minister, on May 21. I have recounted the interview I had with the agent, at which time I told him I could see no way in which the matter could be proceeded with; but whether there were further official letters from the minister or on behalf of the government stating this as a government decision, I would have to leave the present minister to answer.
As I have said, there was a letter from the director to the agent on May 12. There was a visit from the agent to myself within a very few days of that time; it may have been within a week or ten days. I recall also that later I had a discussion with a solicitor who I understood was retained by the owner or the agent, I am not sure which. I understand he also had some conversation with my colleague, but I am not sure of that. He came to me because I had been acting minister at the time.
Certainly on the basis of those discussions I told him that the government's decision was that there was no way of proceeding with it, that we did not intend to proceed, and the solicitor agreed that there was no contract. We have not heard further from the solicitor since that time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: One final question, Mr. Chairman. Has the owner made an effort to see the Prime Minister or any minister, and has there been any such interview between the owner and any representative of the government on this matter?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Possibly I could answer that, Mr. Chairman. I understand the owner was in town. I was given to understand there would be some attempt made to have an appointment with the Prime Minister or with this minister. Certainly no approaches were made to this minister, and I understand the situation is precisely the same with regard to the Prime Minister, but of course I cannot answer for him.


Mr. Best:: Mr. Chairman, just a few brief remarks on this item. I listened with interest last evening and today to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who appeared to me to be attempting to recoup some of the technical losses he suffered yesterday in the debate. I was particularly interested in the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition last evening as reported at page 1904 of Hansard, when he recounted his feeling with respect to the sequence of events leading up to the discussions surrounding the tentative purchase of these two paintings. It is bewildering to me-and I cannot answer this-how the trustees of the national gallery could pass a unanimous resolution that they would like
1920	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to buy the Breughel painting and convey this information to the agent, expecting that the purchase might go forward. It seems to me there was a great lack of information in this instance, perhaps on the part of the trustees-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the minister.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: -or those acting for the national gallery. This is a field in which I think the procedure should be clarified and set out more distinctly in the future.
The possible purchase of these two paintings has attracted wide comment throughout Canada and this, of course, is a more subjective field, as did the purchase two years before of paintings from the collection of the Prince of Liechtenstein. The information conveyed to me by a number of people in the art world in both Canada and elsewhere is that the price talked about in this immediate case and the prices paid in the past case were very much out of line and higher than the general market price, even considering the rise of prices in value of old masters.
This raises the problem, of course, of what sort of price should be paid, who should judge these matters and on what basis prices should be arrived at. I gather it is the feeling of experts in this field that the prices have been considerably inflated. While I am very hopeful that in future we may acquire a Breughel and works of other masters of that period when they come on the market, there must be considered the interesting question of the level of prices that should be paid.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps one could summarize this matter by saying that the thought in the mind of the government was very similar to the opinion expressed by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. We were not prepared under the circumstances to ask parliament for an appropriation of this amount of money for this painting, and it is clear that my hon. friends opposite, at least as represented by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, would then have come to the same conclusion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on the question of value. It is difficult, of course, to value a painting of this kind. If you are attempting to build up a national art collection I suppose the question of price is more or less in the hands of those who own the rare pictures and you must negotiate on the basis of the best price you can get. I understand this painting was valued at $500,000, and as a result of earlier negotiations long before May the price was reduced to $350,000. I believe it is of the greatest importance to build up a national gallery of first class pictures, but at the same time when we are confronted with a serious unemployment situation and an extremely substantial
[Mr. Best.l

deficit, I consider that even $350,000 is too much to pay for that picture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there is one comment I should like to make before the Minister of Justice covers himself with glory by pretending the government was not willing to spend the money. I believe the record should be made clear. As the Leader of the Opposition clearly demonstrated by these questions and answers, the government was prepared to spend this money as long as it did not have to come to parliament to ask for it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, that is so obviously a foolish statement that it cannot be allowed to pass.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the truth.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The circumstances are that if there had been an appropriation as was alleged, that appropriation would have been passed by parliament. The very fact that there was no appropriation showed that the government was unwilling to act without the consent of parliament, a point which I think my hon. friend completely ignores.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate perhaps that the minister has raised this question again, but has she not already said that the director was authorized to negotiate for the purchase of this picture and a price was arrived at on the assumption that $350,000 was available from a fund which had been previously voted?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, I did say that, and that is precisely the point. If that amount had been in the purchase fund of the gallery, under the terms of the National Gallery Act the trustees would have had the right to go ahead and purchase this painting. As my hon. friend knows, there has been a lot of talk about this appropriation, and I understand that some time ago the national gallery was told that the previous government could negotiate up to a certain amount for paintings from a specific collection, but each individual purchase had to be approved or the appropriation had to be approved to cover the purchases of the trustees for the gallery from time to time. No such approval had been given; the matter had not been presented to parliament in this instance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should just like to conclude with this observation. Surely the hon. lady has been a minister long enough to know that even if parliament has provided money the government is under no obligation to spend it unless the government in its wisdom decides that it is a wise expenditure. Now, the government had decided that this would be a wise expenditure, if the money

had been appropriated, but they were not willing to come to parliament and ask for it, so they can take no credit for themselves for the great virtue of saving.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I am still unwilling to ask for it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You got the last word,
anyway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not try to have the last word.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
PUBLIC ARCHIVES AND NATIONAL LIBRARY Public archives-
308. General administration and technical services, $542,870.
Charles Edward Rea: This item will be found on page 62 and the details on page 405.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman,-


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Mr. Chairman,-


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hear some murmurs, Mr. Chairman. I think it has always been the understood practice in committee of supply-


Mr. Aiken:: On a point of order, the murmurs the hon. member heard were in connection with the fact that the hon. member for Halton had been on his feet for some considerable time when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate rose.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair did not see the hon. member for Halton but saw the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to ask the hon. lady, and I am not going to inflict any speech on the committee. I think it would be of great interest to the public if the hon. lady could tell us the progress that is being made in dealing with the public records of the various departments, reducing their volume and getting them into the public records office; because in my opinion this is one of the most important functions the archives are carrying on at the present time. It could save the Minister of Public Works millions and millions of dollars in real estate if it is done quickly and efficiently. If the hon. lady could make a statement I would be greatly pleased.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, the reason I did not rise immediately is that, as the hon. member knows, the work of the public archives is very diverse and to attempt to summarize it in brief form is almost impossible in
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration a short space of time. I am anxious to answer any specific questions which the members may have, but I do have a statement with regard to the records centre which I shall be very glad to read.
The records centre, which is one of the group of government buildings at Tunney's pasture in Ottawa West, was handed over to the archives on January 3, 1956. It was formally opened on April 10, after the installation of shelving and other essential equipment. The building is approximately 200 feet square and there are five storeys. Floor area totals more than four acres. Initially, 20 miles of steel shelving were installed; another 20 miles were added in 1957.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I wonder whether hon. members would keep their voices down. It is hard to hear the minister when she is speaking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. lady read a little more slowly for the benefit of the duller members of the committee like me?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall certainly comply with the suggestion. I know, Mr. Chairman, that is a fault of mine; I am inclined to speak too quickly.
When all the filing rooms are fully equipped the building will have 62 miles of shelving. In addition to file rooms, the centre has receiving and sorting rooms, a fumigating chamber, offices, reference rooms and a research room. It is thus a fully equipped branch of the public archives, with all necessary reference and research facilities.
The primary purpose of the centre is to take over from departments and agencies all records that are not required for day to day use. Such records can be divided, in a rough and ready way, into "dead" files and "dormant" files. As the name implies, the former are referred to seldom, if ever. In the records centre they are examined and their future determined, in consultation with the department in which they originated. The department advises with regard to their practical value, or lack of it; the archives determine whether or not they contain material of long term importance or historic interest. Files that are retained for departmental use are filed in the records centre; those of historical importance will ultimately be transferred to the public archives building.
Useless material is disposed of through the public records committee, established by order in council in 1945. Particulars of the files for disposal are submitted to the committee; if the committee concurs in the recommendation that they should be destroyed it in turn recommends their destruction to treasury board. Although experience indicates that
1922	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration large quantities of old records can be destroyed and much valuable space and equipment thereby freed for further use, due care is taken to see that files of interest or importance are not disposed of. As the procedure outlined indicates, every proposal to destroy "dead" records must pass scrutiny from the departmental, historical, financial and legal points of view.
Files are considered to be in the "dormant" category if, on the average, references to them are not more frequent than one reference per file drawer per month. Much of the "dormant" material that has been transferred to the records centre must be referred to occasionally by the department from which it came, and the reference staff of the centre will either check a file or return the file itself to the department on loan, whichever the department prefers. In many instances additional files are transferred to the centre from time to time which must be integrated with the files already there; these "interfiles" must be handled with care and accuracy, and they are an important aspect of the service offered to departments by the records centre.
Inventories and detailed accession lists of all records transferred to the centre are compiled for the information of both the departments and the archives. These lists are so arranged that if they are merely given the file number under which a document was filed in a departmental registry, the staff of the centre can find quickly and accurately any one amongst the hundreds of thousands of individual documents that have been placed in their keeping. Quick access to records in the centre can thus be guaranteed, and this is naturally an important consideration to departments that send their files to it.
The following statistics summarize the activities of the records centre in the first three years of its operation: Cubic feet of records accessioned, in 1956, 53,471; in 1957, 29,007; in 1958, 31,242; square feet of floor space cleared in other buildings-and this is with reference to my hon. friend's remarks -46,291 in 1956; in 1957, 21,609; in 1958, 19,742. Requests for loans of files received from departments were 3,777 in 1956, 15,404 in 1957 and 35,958 in 1958. In other words, in three years the number of such requests increased over eleven times. Interfiles numbered 1,421 in 1956, 7,838 in 1957 and 63,715 in 1958, which is an indication of the increasing use being made of the records centre by the various departments of government. Cubic feet of records destroyed amounted to 240 in 1956, 7,425 in 1957 and 4,648 in 1958.
Up to December 31, 1958, the centre had thus received 113,720 cubic feet of records and had cleared a total of 87,642 square feet


of floor space, or more than two acres, in offices, filing rooms, vaults, basements, attics and storage rooms in other buildings. These records came from 28 departments and agencies of the government. Much of the material transferred was placed in special cardboard cartons that are cheap, reasonably dustproof, and use the space on the centre's shelves to maximum advantage. As a result, large quantities of filing equipment were released, much of which could be used again by the departments. In the three year period, 13,881 transfer cases and 5,377 filing cabinet.' were released in this way.
Except in a few instances it seems probable that most departments and agencies have now sent to the centre the bulk of the dead and dormant records that were causing acute crowding and space problems. The next step will be to persuade them to make the regular transfer of their older files to the records centre an integral part of their whole registry and records systems. Onl; in this way can the full benefit of the facilities and economies offered by the centre be secured. Careful planning will be necessary to bring this about; and in December, 1958, the public records committee appointed a small investigating committee with a view to securing for the committee and the archives the data necessary to plan for the future from a long term point of view.
In 1957, at the request of treasury board, the records centre undertook the task of assembling, sorting, culling and filing all personnel records relating to men and women who have been in the civil service but who ceased to be employed, for one reason or another, at least three years ago. This is a complicated undertaking, and among other things involves bringing together files held by the civil service commission, the superannuation branch of the Department of Finance, and all employing departments and agencies. Good progress is being made and files are now being processed at the rate of about 12,000 per month.
I do not know whether I have answered all the questions the hon. member wished to ask, but if there is anything further we will try to supply the information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. lady for her very complete explanation, which I found most interesting. I hope she will forgive me if I have to leave the committee now, because I am not walking out on her account.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National library-
309. General administration, $188,279.
Mr. Benidickson:: Would the minister give us an up to date report on the programming

with respect to the new library building? What are the prospects?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Frankly, Mr. Chairman,
this is a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. We had hoped, of course, that steps would have been taken before now, but having regard to the catastrophe which befell one of the public buildings in Ottawa in the last year there was some delay. I am sure the Minister of Public Works would be glad to give the necessary information to the hon. member.


William Moore Benidickson: The intentions are the same, and the only interference has been caused by the damage to the Jackson building and the postponement of the evacuation of temporary building No. 1?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would not like to say "only", because I fancy that all of that had ramifications. I would say that probably the accident, the ramifications thereof and the resultant moves of employees have been the deciding factors in the delay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch-
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $747,531.
Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, when the debate on the agricultural estimates was interrupted at five o'clock last Friday for the consideration of private and public bills I had just finished my presentation regarding the freight rate on rapeseed. Today I should like to speak about the tariff on rape seed. At the present time our tariff structure allows soybean oil, the largest competitor of rapeseed oil, to enter Canada from the United States under a 20 per cent tariff. However, soybeans themselves can be brought in duty free. Beans are transported into Canada, processed here and the oil sold on the Canadian market. The Canadian processor may also ship the oil back into the United States duty free or export the oil and meal under the British preferential tariff provided they have 25 per cent Canadian content.
Cottonseed oil, peanut oil and corn oil all enter Canada duty free. On the other hand, although there is no tariff with respect to Canadian rapeseed being sold in the United States, the rapeseed is subject to a 1 cent per pound import tax. Canadian rapeseed meal going into the United States is subject to a tariff of $6 per ton. So, Mr. Chairman, I know hon. members will agree with me in my presentation of the story of rapeseed.
I should like to turn now to another subject. At this time we hear so much in my province and in the west as a whole about
Supply-A griculture
the high cost of production and the cost-price squeeze. Nobody can deny the fact that the farmers of the west are labouring under these conditions and that the federal government has done many things since 1957 to eliminate them. Many more such steps will be forthcoming, some in the near future and others at a later date. But we cannot remedy all the existing evils and shortcomings of the past in one year.
This accounts for the delegation from the west. The march to Ottawa this week was very orderly. The 1,100 delegates from the west who came here were anxious to bring their case personally to the attention of the government. They behaved like gentlemen and were given a most friendly reception and hearing by the cabinet and members generally.
In the brief submitted to the government they stressed deficiency payments and the two price system for wheat. Of course the government has had no opportunity so far of reviewing the brief or coming to any decision. Serious consideration will have to be given to the contents of the brief. Personally I cannot disapprove of the stand our western farmers have taken at this time, as they are only requesting a fair share of our national income, which other sectors of our economy are securing.
However, I hasten to say that the situation in which our western farmers find themselves today is not one that came into being today, this year or last year. It had its start many years ago and has deteriorated over the last five or six years, to the point where it has become ruinous to many of our farmers. Nothing was done in the past by our predecessors to stem the tide of the cost-price squeeze or even to slow it down. Had steps been taken four or five years ago; or had full support been given to farm organizations which had prepared proposals for presentation to federal authorities, and had those proposals been given unanimous support by all farm organizations and farmers, as is being done today, some of our farm problems would have been solved years ago.
If the situation is considered to be a legitimate case now, why was it not a legitimate case then when the situation was similar to or worse than the one we are experiencing today? It was apparent to everyone in the west at that time that the situation could not continue any longer, but no attempt was made at that time to alleviate the situation or to make representations to the government in power at that time. I can only say now, let this be a lesson to us, and an example. If we, as representatives in this

Supply-Agriculture
house of western agriculture, must speak and act for western agriculture, let us do so with a unanimous voice and without prejudice or discrimination whatever. We will have to stand up for the sacred rights of our farmers. Let us be worthy of those men who stood up in the past and asked only for equal rights and consideration, for a fair share of the national income.
We who represent the farmers in this parliament relentlessly work conscientiously toward this goal. Our government has done a tremendous job since 1957. The records and figures are there for everybody to see. New legislation has been enacted, old statutes have been revised and amended, with only one aim in mind; that is to do all that is humanly possible to alleviate the plight of the western grain farmer and bring the cost of production in line with his income.
In conclusion I should like to say we should not only be concerned with the present situation, but we should also be concerned about the future of Canada and the long range programs for agriculture, so that all problems coming before this house will receive sympathetic and fair consideration. We ask that a just hearing be given to all representations and briefs, so that all decisions will be made without prejudice or discrimination against any one segment of our nation. This is our task, and I am sure our government will complete it to the full extent of their capabilities.
(Translation):


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on farm problems at a time when the estimates of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) are before the house.
Representing as I do a largely agricultural riding in the province of Quebec, I shall, naturally, limit my remarks to the problems facing the eastern farmers. Not that the problems of the westerners are unimportant. On the contrary, western agriculture, by its very character, affects the economy of the whole country. However, I shall leave it to hon. members from the west to deal with their own problems.
In the province of Quebec, there are no large farms as in the west, but agriculture remains nevertheless, a very basic industry.
In 1951, Quebec had a population about three times as large as in 1901, and yet from a percentage point of view fewer people were farming than in 1901.

According to a news letter published by the Banque Canadienne Nationale in April 1958, there were 60 rural people against 40 city dwellers at that time, whereas in 1951, the ratio was 33 to 67. Between 1941 and 1956, our rural population has decreased by some
73,000	people. Thus it now represents only
16.5	per cent of the entire population instead of 25.2 per cent.
During that period, the number of farms has decreased by 32,000 falling from 154,669 to 122,617, whereas the farmed acreage decreased from 5.4 per cent to 4.7 per cent in relation to the area of the province.
It is obvious that the increase of productivity in spite of a diminishing labour force is due to mechanization. The latest statistics I just quoted also tend to prove that the farmer has a larger acreage to farm.
As far as mechanization is concerned, if we look over the figures for April 1958, we see that the number of combines has gone up from 55, in 1941 to 1,481. The number of tractors for the same period rose from 5,869 to 54,322.
As a matter of fact, the figures put into the record by the hon. Minister of Agriculture indicate that farm production, which amounted to $114 million in 1940, went up to $424 million in 1958. However, I feel the hon. Minister of Agriculture has probably given in his speech, too much importance to production figures, and not enough to profits made on that production by our farmers; net profit indeed is not always proportional to production figures or gross income.
In spite of this increase in productivity, how can the constant increase in the loans granted to our farmers by the Canadian Farm Loan Board or the Quebec farm loan board be explained? I quote in this respect page 3 of the Canadian Farm Loan Board report for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1958:
The demand for loans has continued to increase and 3,702 loans for a total of $21,278,450 were approved and placed in the hands of solicitors as compared with 2,921 loans for $13,978,700 in the previous year. It should be observed that this is the first full year of operation following the 1956 amendment of the Canadian Farm Loan Act increasing the maximum first mortgage loan from $10,000 to $15,000 and the total amount approved for loans is the largest amount approved in any year since the board has been in business. The board has continued to give the speedy processing of loans top priority by increases in personnel and improved methods in field and office work.
In the course of the year 7,058 appraisal, reinspection and collection calls involving 600,000 miles of driving were made. The average loan

was $5,748 and 63.4 per cent was borrowed to buy land and pay land secured debts, 21 per cent to pay other debts, 11.7 per cent for livestock, machinery and improvements and 3.9 per cent for sundry purposes.
In 1955, according to a table included in the report of the Canadian Farm Loan Board for the year 1958, we find that loans amounting to $8,225,500 were approved for that year, and we also note that the loans granted for the year 1958 amounted to $21,278,450, and that, for the country as a whole.
From that amount, as recorded in the report of the board, $667,250 were granted to Quebec farmers only, but to that amount should be added those loans granted by the provincial farm loan board, as far as my province is concerned, loans which amounted to $10,799,725 for the year 1957.
To that should be added also the loans obtained by Quebec farmers under the Farm Loan Improvement Act. In fact, a study of the report, published by the Department of Finance in 1957 in connection with the farm loan improvement act, indicates that $1,231,526.81 were loaned for the purchase of trucks, $6,076,781.56 for the purchase of tractors, $211,110.76 for the purchase of combines and $1,036,160.92 for the purchase of hay-binders.
If we add up all those amounts which the federal government loaned to Quebec farmers, we come to an overall total of more than $20 million.
Mr. Chairman, last Friday, an hon. member stated that the speech of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) was a liability for the agricultural class. It seems to me the hon. member should have studied the liabilities of the farmers themselves; in the light of those facts, he would have realized that farmers are somewhat deep in debt.
Let there be all kinds of farm loan measures, I am in full agreement with that and I fully approve such a course, but we should not forget to provide farmers with the means to repay those loans, and that, without their having to tighten their belts, so that they may have each year what they require to look after the needs of their families and make their payments on their loans.
Of course, farm production has required and will require again some changes, and it would perhaps be preferable that more generous credit terms be granted to farmers.
66968-9-122
Supply-Agriculture
Besides, that is what is stated in the final report of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, on page 175:
Too easy credit can aggravate farm problems by inducing an expansion in output that would lead to lower prices.
Scarcity of credit, on the other hand, can prevent a desirable rise in agricultural productivity by perpetuating antiquated types of farm organization. As the mechanization of Canadian farms continues, some farmers in all parts of the country will need more medium-term capital to enable them to buy machinery and equipment, and more long-term capital to enable them to enlarge their holdings, while the rise in demand for meat will mean that more capital will also be needed for the purchase of livestock. As the result of these cumulative developments, the capital value of farm businesses will be rising on the average; and there will be difficulty in transferring them from one owner to another-in many cases it will be from father to son-unless somewhat more generous credit arrangements are available. So long as farm incomes are relatively low and irregular, it is important that fixed annual payments on mortgages and other forms of indebtedness be no larger than is necessary. Appropriate rates of interest will vary from time to time, but annual payments can be reduced by extending the number of years over which the principal will be repaid. Since the long-range prospects for farm income and for the ability of farmers to service loans would seem to be favourable, we think that farm credit agencies might appropriately extend the period of repayment up to 40 years for long-term loans and up to five or six years for medium-term loans. Extension of credit on somewhat easier terms is one way by which the adjustment of Canadian farming to changing economic conditions can be facilitated.
The price support legislation passed by the former government, and the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act passed by the present government, have been greatly beneficial to farmers. But are those two acts adequate to give farmers all the guarantees they are entitled to? Probably not.
It is necessary that a commission be set up to study production costs of various agricultural products, and perhaps to find a way of producing and marketing such products somewhat more economically.
Statistics show that it has been possible to increase production while cutting down labour, and I wonder whether a commission set up to enquire into production costs might not have the same happy results, namely to supply farmers with scientific and technical production data, because if production costs could be lowered, farmers would be able to raise their profits and could offer for sale on the international market a number of products that the national market cannot fully absorb.
Farmers have always shown their willingness to co-operate, and the most striking

Supp ly-A gricu Iture
illustration of that is the co-operation they have shown in mechanizing their operations.
With regards to price support, the board notes that this matter is so important and delicate that responsibility for it should be entrusted to a board whose members could devote their full time to this task, and thus be able to forecast emergencies and to set such and such a price not only with regard to production but also to income.
Nor should the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act be an umbrella handed to farmers when the sun shines, and taken away from them when it rains.
This umbrella policy was more or less adopted last November by the Minister of Agriculture when he said: If it should rain, or if surpluses are so large that they cannot be sold or even, in certain cases, given away, we will not be able, under the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act, to hold prices at their present level or even less to raise them. The minister went on to say that education work was necessary and that farmers should
be urged to voluntarily refrain from producing more than is required by Canadian consumers and available world export markets.
When the minister submitted his estimates on March 6 he made much of the high rate of productivity in 1958; on the other hand, in November of the same year, he told farmers the same thing, that their production was too high and that if they kept it up he would be unable to hold prices at their present level.
How can we reconcile those two different points of view? On the one hand the minister quotes farm production figures to prove that agriculture is prosperous; on the other hand he says those figures are a threat to the farmers, and cautions them that a high rate of production might force him to withdraw support prices.
I would like now to refer to a study on the matter, the MacDonald College Farm Situation and Outlook Report for 1959, published by MacDonald College, McGill University, in February 1959. Here is what I find at page 7:
(Text):
Net Farm Income Adjusted for Purchasing Power (Millions of dollars)
Year	Maritimes	Central Canada	Prairie Provinces	British Columbia1949 actual 	.... 57	557	747	551957 actual 	507	449	551957 expressed in 1949 dollars 	.... 35	446	368	45
Canada
1,416
1.054
(Translation):
It can be seen in that report that since 1949 farmers' buying power has declined by approximately 40 per cent.
We are also very glad to find that in 1955 a Senate committee on land use was instituted. However we note that this committee does not meet often enough. This certainly does not help farmers to get what they expected from that committee. We are still waiting for its proposals and we do not know yet when it will be in a position to make them.
Another matter I should like to mention is the marketing of farm grown pulpwood.
On April 29, 1958 the report on the inquiry came out and once again we have realized that farmers who produce pulpwood had been right in complaining.
But since the report came out, I believe new circumstances have developed which are causing difficulties. So I refer to an article by Jean-Marie Jobin published in La Terre de chez nous, October 1, 1958:

As soon as, in any area, farmers and settlers agree on a joint plan, a remarkable thing happens: companies stop buying pulpwood. And if some of the farmers go out and ask representatives of certain companies the reason for this phenomenon, they sometimes get the following answer: "Go ask the chairman of the U.C.C. (Union catholique des cultivateurs) to buy your wood". I understand such answers have been given. Not all of the companies in Gaspesia behaved this way, but it appears that the word is given around: they stop buying, and more wood is taken out of crown timber limits.
Now if this has happened in Gaspesia, it might well spread to other areas of the province of Quebec. I would therefore ask the minister to take the necessary steps to avoid such abuses, if possible.
However, I would not like to lay all the blame on the Minister of Agriculture, because I feel that the provincial governments, having full jurisdiction over crown timber limits, might very well work hand in hand with the buyers in certain cases.
In fact, it does seem to me that the provincial governments should come to an

understanding with the companies having concessions and oblige them to purchase part of their requirements from farmers.
In the report of the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act, for the year ended March 31, 1958, we read the following:
In the period 1948-1955, which is the period covered by the report, pulpwood purchases from all sources for use by the pulp and paper industry in Eastern Canada comprised between 26.7 and 34.6 per cent of such usage in the province of Quebec and between 30.9 and 39.9 per cent of such usage in the province of Ontario. The commission noted that: "for the pulp and paper industry as a whole, farmers' pulpwood constitutes probably less than 25 per cent of the total pulpwood used."
In other words, companies buy from 20 to 25 per cent of that wood from farmers, and it is on the basis of those figures that I say that provincial governments should see to it that, out of the amounts required by the companies, a minimum of 20 to 25 per cent should be bought from farmers at a reasonable price.
The present state of pulpwood markets in our area has shown little improvement. As I said a moment ago, I do not want to blame the Minister of Agriculture, since as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I feel the government of that province is largely responsible for the situation. But while I hold the provincial government responsible for the situation, one should not overlook the fact that the federal government has also a certain responsibility, which was recognized by the Prime Minister himself, when he promised at Rimouski, on February 26, 1958, as recorded in the Toronto Daily Star of February 27, 1958:
(Text):
The Prime Minister was in the course of pointing out that the Conservative government had put a new agricultural price support act through parliament to provide farmers with higher incomes when he lightly dropped the suggestion, almost in an aside, that wood might also be brought under the protection of a subsidy.
I hope, and representations have been made, that the advisory committee and the stabilization board (which will administer the act) will give consideration to including farmer-produced woods so they will know the lowest prices they will receive a year in advance.
It was presumed his reference was to pulpwood which normally is cut in heavy volume by Quebec farmers during the winter. This winter the demand for pulp has fallen off sharply as a result of the move by pulp and paper companies to reduce heavy pulp inventories.
Although pulpwood is not one of the nine products which must come under price supports, the act gives the price stabilization board wide powers to include other commodities.
(Translation):
In view of that promise made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), I
66968-9-122J
Supply-Agriculture
ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) to carry it out if possible, or at least to give it very thorough consideration.
I would also like to read to the hon. Minister of Agriculture some paragraphs of a letter I received from several poultry farmers in that area who are now complaining of heavy American imports that are jeopardizing the marketing of Canadian chickens at a reasonable price. I shall just quote the two following paragraphs:
In 1957, imports of U.S. chickens amounted to 1.4 million pounds; in 1958, they went up to 6.2 million pounds, almost five times as much as the previous year.
As a result of those massive imports, Canadian chicken prices have dropped alarmingly and on January 1, 1959, storage stocks were twice as large as a year ago.
This situation is highly prejudicial to Canadian poultry farmers, and especially to producers of broilers. The government of Canada should hasten to introduce legislation that would afford better protection to our poultry farmers; otherwise, they will have to give up the market to American producers.
I therefore ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to give favourable consideration to the representations of Canadian poultry farmers so that they can stay in business and not suffer too much from exaggerated competition on the part of foreign countries.
I would also like to deal with another problem which hon. members may think exists only in the riding of Beauce. Of course I could not speak about farming without mentioning maple syrup.
If we refer to a press release issued by the department of agriculture of the province of Quebec, we find the following constituencies produced over 20,000 gallons for the years 1951 to 1954.
I would like to read the list of these constituencies, together with production figures, so that the members for these twelve ridings may make representations for the settlement of this problem which is of concern to us. The matter of maple products does not concern the Beauce district exclusively, since twelve constituencies are heavy producers of maple products:
gallons
Beauce	 262,500
Megantic	 186,000
Arthabaska	 117,200
Dorchester	 113,800
Frontenac	 108,125
Bellechasse	 79,000
Shefford	 97,800
Brome	 49,500
Compton	 40,550
Lotbiniere	 51,900
Wolfe	 25,225
Portneuf	 31,800

Supply-A gricu Iture
At the bottom of that page of statistics, we find this note:
All other constituencies produce less than 20,000 gallons-260,000 pounds.
Thus, as I said earlier, the matter of maple products does not concern Beauce district alone, since twelve constituencies are considered heavy producers.
Therefore, I urge the members for these constituencies to make representations for an efficient solution to that problem.
During the last election campaign, I did not have the pleasure of receiving the visit of the Prime Minister in Beauce riding. However, I admit that I would have appreciated it very much, as I am sure that he would have promised to solve the maple syrup problem, because wherever he went he promised to solve all problems.
Perhaps some government members will reply that the Liberals, while they were in power, took no action to help solve this problem.


Mr. Pigeon:: That is a fact, an obvious truth.


Jean-Paul Racine: I would recall to the house, and not only for the enlightenment of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, that in 1940, the government favoured the exchange of sap pails and that, up to 1955,	17,047,310 pails had been
turned in, involving a grant of $2,932,447.78 on such exchanges.
Moreover, in 1939, the former Liberal government passed the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. Under this act, the Canadian Minister of Agriculture could guarantee bank loans to enable co-operative organizations dealing in maple products to market their merchandise in a methodical way.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member for Beauce allow me a question?


Jean-Paul Racine: I would ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, since my speaking time is running short, to kindly wait till the end of my remarks before asking me the questions he has in mind.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Very well.


Jean-Paul Racine: Moreover, in 1945, under the former administration, the government had taken steps to protect sugar producers in regard to their operations. Those are three

cases where the former government took action. I would ask the present government to act at least once to help our sugar producers.
There are many other agricultural problems that I could deal with, but I shall be content with those I have mentioned. I feel, as I am sure the Minister of Agriculture feels, that agricultural problems are of utmost importance and that the government should pay special attention to those problems, because they present both a social and an economic aspect and, as 1 said before, they exist in western Canada no less than in eastern Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) has allowed me to put a question to him after he was through. I should like to ask him why the previous Liberal government has discontinued grants on the exchange of sap buckets.


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to answer the question of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. I believe that grants on sap buckets exchange were discontinued in 1955. At that time, 21 million maple trees had been tapped and more than 17 million sap buckets had been replaced. The policy established by the previous administration had then been profitable to the great majority of producers of maple products. The hon. member will agree that many of those sap buckets are now obsolete and that it is now up to the present government to revive this legislation for the benefit of our maple producers.
I want also to point out that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm seems to blame the former administration exclusively for this problem which now besets the maple product industry. He seems to forget that on three occasions, the former Liberal administration did show concern for sugar producers, and it was as a result of the action taken that we now have a sugar producers co-operative, which can store its syrup because of the government guarantees to banks that make loans to sugar producers.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, the introduction of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) affords me a welcome opportunity to make very brief comments on two questions which are of concern for the farmers in my riding. These are the poultry market and the pulpwood industry.
I do not want to rehash what was said by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. MARCH 13, 1953
Racine), but refer to representations which were made to me by the farmers in my riding. I shall try to deal with them very briefly.
In 1957, as you know, the government introduced a measure providing for an embargo on the products and sale of poultry from the United States. The enactment was particularly welcomed by our poultry farmers since this legislation, at the time, saved our poultry market in this country.
Apparently the measure was of short duration and poultry farmers had no way of knowing that it would soon come to an end.
On learning that the government had put an embargo on poultry, poultry farmers expanded their facilities so as to produce more. Thus, in my own riding, where there are many poultry producers, almost $300,000 was spent in 1957 and 1958 to improve and build chicken houses, incubators and other equipment to improve the quality of the product. They could afford to do this because they could then confidently compete with their American counterparts on the Canadian market, as the Canadian embargo had somehow slowed up poultry production in the U.S.A.
It is unfortunate that the embargo on turkey and poultry has been so short-lived in 1947, for our poultry farmers' overproduction has alarmingly depressed the turkey and poultry market.
Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Beauce, I have received serious representations from several poultry farmers in my riding who would like the government to take firm and immediate action in order to correct that situation.
Personally, I do not think that it is so much the quantity of broilers imported from the United States that is affecting our market as the ready availability to Canadian outlets of American poultry at prices that our own poultry farmers cannot meet.
Just now, the hon. member for Beauce read an extract from a letter he too had received from various poultry farmers. The letter pointed out that, in 1957, American chicken imports amounted to 1,400,000 pounds, and in 1958 to 6,200,000 pounds, i.e. five times as much as in the previous year.
According to poultry farmers, that state of affairs is highly prejudicial because the massive imports of American poultry have
Supply-Agriculture
contributed to lower the price and they also doubled our stocks as of January 1, 1959. 1 therefore ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to consult with his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and to consider amending the customs tariff in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I also wish to draw the minister's attention to another problem that was dealt with rather briefly by the hon. member for Beauce. I am referring to the problem of production and sale of pulpwood.
It is recognized that in my province, farmers must sell a certain amount of pulpwood every year in order to make ends meet. In Quebec province, the government has taken some action in this regard, contrary to the assertions of the hon. member for Beauce. The government has passed an act that allows our farmers to form a kind of union, as a means of rationalizing woodcutting operations both in regard to quality and to quantities. The act also aims at protecting our farmers against the practices of certain buyers who formerly purchased wood from the farmers at ridiculous prices.
As we all know, pulpwood production is an important factor of our Canadian economy since approximately $900 million are spent each year in Canada on forest industries.
Moreover, a review of economic prospects of forest industries in Canada shows that of the 263,000 farms which reported to the 1951 Census, 235,000 were engaged, in 1950, in forestry production. Farm wood lots accounted for close to one tenth of the pulpwood and rough sawn timber production and for most firewood.
Those remarks, Mr. Chairman, clearly indicate that the problem of our farmers, in so far as the production and sale of their pulpwood are concerned, is not one to be given second priority.
But it is of no use to them to do their utmost to improve the quality of their forest products if they must suffer, from the companies, a kind of boycott with the aim of forcing them to sell their products at prices lower than production cost.
And yet, companies using pulpwood for the production of newsprint make substantial profits which would warrant their paying a reasonable price to farmers. The export of newsprint has not slowed down very much for the last ten years. Markets for that product are stable, and it could even be added that they rather tend to increase.

Supp ly-A gricu Iture
In 1950, 4,000 tons of paper were exported to the United States; in 1955, 5,000 tons, and it is expected that our exports to the United States will reach, within 12 years, 7,000 tons. If we add that the price of newsprint ranges from $120 to $140 a ton, we realize that the profits made by companies in that industry are high enough to enable them to pay our farmers a reasonable price for pulpwood.
The problem now facing our farmers is very serious. Paper companies categorically refuse, at least in my constituency, to buy wood from our farmers at a price determined by the Union Catholique des cul-tivateurs. Their attitude, in my opinion, is akin to a conspiracy between buyers of that type of wood to refuse our farmers' pulpwood or, at least, to buy it at a price often lower than its production cost.
In 1958, when I took part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I mentioned the unfairness suffered by our farmers. I said this:
The gross unfairness prevailing on the pulpwood market in our part of the country cannot be too strongly condemned, Mr. Speaker. Dealers and buyers compete for the purchase of this wood, often below production cost. It is high time that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) appoint a committee of men familiar with this matter who would study pulpwood problems and determine whether it would not be appropriate to ask the Industrial Bank of Canada to finance the creation of small pulpwod companies or co-operatives, in specified districts, to handle the buying and selling of this product in such a way as to avoid our people being victimized by any glaring unfairness in this field.
We would like the Minister of Agriculture to include pulpwood in the price stabilization act. The plan would be quite practicable, for the profits made by corporations on each ton of paper are well known.
Obviously the matter of price stabilization on pulpwood comes under the provincial jurisdiction but I would encourage the minister to given this matter careful consideration so as to help provinces find a solution which would be of material assistance to our farmers.
I therefore submit these remarks to the minister's consideration. I am sure they will relieve him from the thorny problems raised this week by the delegation from the western provinces regarding deficiency payments on wheat.
(Text):


Mr. Peiers:: Mr. Chairman, I see it is almost one o'clock. Will you call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. [Mr. Asselin.l
Charles Edward Rea: Order. I understand that the Minister of Transport wishes to make a statement with Mr. Speaker in the chair. Will the committee agree to my rising, reporting certain resolutions and requesting leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to advise the house that successful talks have been held between Canadian and United States officials who met in Ottawa on March 12 and 13 to discuss modification of the bilateral air agreement of June 4, 1949, as amended.
The discussions concentrated for the most part on improving present trans-border routes so as to provide a better service to the travelling public of both countries. The delegations expressed the hope that the discussions would be resumed at an early date to review the air traffic requirements of the two countries on a broader basis.
The two delegations agreed to recommend to their respective governments the following improved services. Canadian carriers may operate between (1) Prince Rupert and Ketchikan; (2) Calgary and Spokane; (3) Winnipeg and/or Kenora, International Falls and Fort William-Port Arthur; (4) Toronto and Buffalo; (5) Halifax and New York by an extension of the Halifax-Boston route.
United States carriers may operate between (1) Ketchikan and Prince Rupert; (2) Spokane and Calgary; (3) Great Falls and Calgary in replacement for Lethbridge on the existing Great Falls-Edmonton route; (4) Minot and Regina; (5) Duluth-Superior, Fort William-Port Arthur and Hancock-Houghton; (6) Buffalo and Toronto.
It was also agreed that a United States carrier might serve Portland, Maine, as an intermediate stop on the existing route between Boston and Montreal and that

Winnipeg might be served on present U.S. turnaround flights between Minneapolis-St. Paul and Edmonton. This agreement will be put into effect, when approved by each government, by an exchange of diplomatic notes.


Mr. Chevrier:: May I be allowed to ask one or two questions? First I should like to say that the negotiations, as the statement points out, have been in the offing for some years and I am happy to be able to hear the minister say that they have come to fruition. However, as the minister read the statement I was struck with this reaction. There seem to be five concessions granted to Canada and six granted to the United States. In addition, United States carriers are to serve Portland as an intermediate stop on the existing route between Boston and Montreal and Winnipeg is to be served by a United States carrier on the present turn-around flight between Minneapolis and/or St. Paul and Edmonton. My first question is this. What does Canada get in exchange for these additional rights granted to United States carriers on the over-all basis?


George Harris Hees: The answer to that question is that the inclusion of the very important stop of New York as an extension of the Halifax-Boston route is considered to be equivalent to the additional privileges granted the United States which the hon. member for Laurier has just mentioned.


Lionel Chevrier: Another question comes to my mind. For many years now T.C.A. has been trying to get fifth freedom rights at Miami. Did that matter come up for discussion and is there some hope that Canada, through its chosen instrument, T.C.A. will be able to get fifth freedom rights at Miami in the near future?


George Harris Hees: That is one of the calls which we have very much in mind. I can assure the hon. member for Laurier that in the future talks we expect to have on these matters we will continue to press for that additional route.

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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in years past we have heard it said that many of the members from eastern and central Canada are not familiar with agriculture and these members have had to listen, without knowing too much about agriculture, to other members discuss the subject. However, I think that cannot be said now of the present membership of the House of Commons because during this week we have had the opportunity to hear a number of western farmers present a specific problem.
It may be quite true that the industrial sections of Ontario are not too concerned with the matter but I do not think it can be said any longer that they do not understand some of the problems facing farmers across Canada and particularly the grain producers of western Canada. Over the years politicians on both sides of the house have supported the need of establishing a closer relationship between the cost of the goods the farmer must buy in order to produce and the amount of money he gets for his product. When the Prime Minister and other ministers of the government sat in the opposition they pointed out the need to establish a fair relationship between the cost of production and the selling price of the product. This has not been put into effect and is not being put into effect at the present time. It is true that some slight consideration has been given to the matter under the Agricultural Stabilization Act but in general no consideration has been given to establishing parity prices for farm products.
I am sure that the farmers of western Canada are well aware-the delegates I spoke to were-of the need to establish a fair and just situation so that as their production costs rise they will be able to justify their position when they ask more from consumers in the rest of Canada for what they produce. I should like to congratulate the people responsible for the delegation. Their manner was certainly controlled, quiet and dignified. They presented their arguments to the government and to members generally in an orderly and reserved fashion. I think they were a credit to the people they represent and made the contribution they came here to make.
It was stated by a number of members that this delegation was not necessary. It would have been fine to send only two or three people down to represent them. I am quite sure if that had been the method chosen

Supply-Agriculture
the delegates would have made a fair representation. I am quite sure that the
300,000	people who supported this delegation, who gave money to pay the expenses involved in the delegation, are going to find much more satisfaction in being able to talk to their delegate and hear firsthand of the reception he received in Ottawa. I think these people are going to be anxious to find out if there was any difference in the attitude of the government between the time the delegation arrived in Ottawa and the time they left for Ottawa.
I think we need to look no further than the front page of the Financial Times, which states it is Canada's newspaper for investment, to ascertain that they congratulate the government for having turned a deaf ear to deficiency payments. The article is headed "Deficiency Payment Denial Augurs Well". Then it goes on to say what they think about giving any subsidies to western grain producers. On the opposite page of the same newspaper there is an advertisement which probably gives you a better idea of what they suggest you should do, and that is buy British Columbia Electric bonds which carry an interest rate of 5.63 per cent. I think that this is their solution, and if it is then the government has given the answer that that is the best thing to do.
Let us look at what has been happening to agriculture in general. The dominion bureau of statistics figures on December 10, 1958 point out that the cost of living and production index for the western grain producers stands at 244.9, taking 1935-39 as equalling 100. In other words, it means that it costs the prairie farmer $2.44 for what one dollar would buy in 1935. This means that the $1.40 initial payment on wheat is worth only 57 cents in 1935-39 value of money, basis of No. 1 northern wheat, Fort William. This is equivalent to a price at a country elevator point of approximately 49.5 cents a bushel.
As has been pointed out, the western farmer is faced with a most serious position because in the period from 1945 to 1953 the cost of production had risen by 51 per cent. During the same period of time the price they got for their wheat went down by 21 per cent. This is an indication that something must be done for these people. I do not believe they came here asking for a handout. What they are asking is that some consideration be given to the fact that the Canadian government sells their wheat, and it takes some time

before they know exactly what they are going to get for that wheat. They now find that they are not going to get a price that is in keeping with their cost of production. They are asking the government, through a short range program, to pay deficiency payments for the last three years. I suggest that the remaining segments of the economy of Canada would look favourably on this type of payment. It could easily be pointed out that the farmers of western Canada are not going to be able to produce if they have not enough money to pay the expenses they incur in the production of that wheat.
We have assumed in Canada a responsibility for the marketing of their wheat. We have assumed, or we have neglected to assume, any responsibility for the matter of inflation which has meant that the money they have received has not been worth as much as it was previously. We have this responsibility, and I think we have a responsibility to the farmers of western Canada to see that they continue to exist in that area.
These farmers came to Ottawa and presented their case. I think they are going to do something else besides present this case. I am sure they are going back to their own areas and they are going to report upon the reception they received from the government as well as individual members of parliament. They have already one western member's report in this house that there was no need for this delegation to come to Ottawa because 47 Conservative members had been elected from the west to do the talking for these people. I feel these members are going to have to do more talking for the delegation because I think much more pressure is going to be put on them.
We have made inquiries about this dollar an acre payment versus deficiency payments. In no case did I meet a farmer who considered the dollar an acre payment to be a substitute for deficiency payments, and I did not meet any farmers who considered deficiency payments or acreage payments or both to be any substitute for a full parity price program. These farmers realize they can justify to the other segments of the Canadian economy their request for the cost of production plus a fair and reasonable wage. I do not think they are asking for anything unreasonable.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he like to make things a little bit clearer? Would he state definitely his party favours paying to the largest farmers in Canada a cash payment of $4,500?


William Arnold Peters: I cannot answer that question. The reason is I do not know the mechanics or the method that would be used in paying it.


An hon. Member:: Did you read the brief?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, I read the brief. You
asked me about a specific amount, about a specific case. Our party is on the record as endorsing these deficiency payments as presented by this delegation. We agree that these would be made once and that this is no solution. We are going to have to give consideration to a much more satisfactory method of financing agriculture, not only in western Canada but in all of Canada. It is because the situation with respect to the grain producers is so desperate that these deficiency payments are the only answer at the moment. The exact amount, and how it applies to a specific case, I am not familiar with that.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Read the brief.


William Arnold Peters: The brief explains it, and
the hon. member can read the brief if he has any doubt about it. We do support their representations.
There are, Mr. Chairman, many other problems in connection with agriculture today. The Prime Minister on numerous occasions spoke so eloquently on this matter of parity prices, but he has given no consideration to implementing this policy for agriculture. In my particular area we are not grain producers but engage in mixed farming. We find the same problems exist in Timiskaming, in the fruit growing areas of southern Ontario and the grain producing areas in the west; in fact, in all agricultural areas in this country. We have recommended over the years, as have many other members, that parity prices be applied. We do not ask for 50 per cent parity or 150 per cent parity, but full 100 per cent parity. This parity, we should make clear, includes the cost of production plus a fair and reasonable wage.


Mr. Brunsden:: Would the hon. member
permit a question? Would he give us his definition of parity in relation to agriculture?


William Arnold Peters: I thought I was doing that.
I do not think parity is very difficult to define. This term is being used, and the policy of parity followed, in one small segment of agriculture in Ontario. They do not call it parity prices. We may disagree with the original starting point they use, but the whole milk producers in Ontario are using a formula of prices in which they take into consideration the various commodities they purchase, the expenses they incur in the production of that particular product, and when 66968-9-123
Supply-Agriculture
those prices rise by a certain ordained amount, then the cost of the product to the consumer rises in accordance with their formula.


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


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Mr. Woolliams:: I should like to ask if the greatest cost-


The Chairman:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Lisgar.


George Robson Muir: In the United States, under their agriculture policy, they have a percentage of parity. The government now holds $9 billion worth of farm products. This year it is going to cost that country an additional $7 billion. How would you avoid that situation in Canada with full parity when down in the United States they have got themselves in such a mess with only a percentage of parity?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member well knows that we are not going to justify what happened in the United States or try to explain it. I should just like to remind him how difficult it is to apply to the Canadian economy United States programs and to suggest to him that he read the Clark report on another subject. We are not suggesting that we follow the United States program. We are suggesting something which I think is fair and reasonable and which can be understood by anybody. I do not think you can expect any segment of the Canadian economy to produce any product at less than it cost them to produce it. It seems to me that any business which operated at less than cost for any period of time would be bankrupt, no matter what their reserves were.
The farmer has been able to exist in this type of situation by the simple expedient of not worrying about depreciation and not worrying about labour. We are finding that the very fact that the parity price has not applied is one of the reasons why we are getting surpluses in Canada. Every farmer knows

and if the hon. gentleman lives on a farm he will know it-that if he can make a decent living with 160 acres and 20 head of cattle, then he will farm with 160 acres and 20 head of cattle. But if he finds that the amount of money he has at the end of the year is not enough to take care of the debts he has incurred, then he rents the farm across the road and works twice as long hours and puts in another 20 head of cattle. Then the next year, when he still finds that he is not making a go of it, he buys some more land or rents it and puts some more cattle on it and he neglects such things as buying

Supp ly-A griculture
fertilizer and he ignores such things as painting the barn and doing the other things that a farmer will normally do as a conservationist. You can check the figures, Mr. Chairman. You do not need to take my word for it.


Mr. Kindt:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: I think I had better keep on with the speech. I should be quite happy to answer questions at the end of it. I have a number of points I should like to make and I think I had better continue. If we go back to 1945 we shall find that at that time the Canadian farmer came as near as he has ever come to a parity price but the cost of production was about equal to the selling price of his products, and at that time we did not find surpluses piling up. I know that on our own farm we were making a fairly decent living. We had one pasture besides the home one. Last year they extended the barn. They have put in almost twice as many cows. They are now farming five farms and my father was telling me the other day that they are making less money than he has made for a great number of years.
These matters of parity are relative, I think, to the needs of the farmer himself. If a farmer finds that he can break even, he is lucky. I do not think he has ever been one to ever put any money in the bank. I know few farmers that have ever become really rich.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Most of the rich farmers have come from some other industry. I think that _ is perfectly true even with regard to the Minister of Agriculture who did not go into farming and come out of that industry but who went into it from another field which I do not think was too lucrative either sometimes.


Mr. Harkness:: I might say that I never got rich in any of them.


William Arnold Peters: I agree that that is a true statement. Certainly I would agree that it is true of the farmer himself. But in the main, farmers have not been ones to abuse their farms in times when they were making a fairly decent living. They were willing to put fertilizer on them, to do summerfallowing and do the other things that make for good farming. These are things that they will continue to do as long as they get a decent living. But when they are getting less than parity, they are going to produce surpluses because they are going to be obliged to produce twice as much.

On a number of occasions the minister has pointed out that the farm cash income is higher this year than it has been for a number of years. I think this statement is probably true. But I also think it is not correct to imply that the farmer has more money now than he had before. I think this situation results from the farmer having to overproduce, from his having to put in a couple of extra head of cattle in the barn and having to sell an extra couple of beef. I am sure if the farmers from western Canada were asked-and they should know about the matter-they would tell you that they have sold more beef this year than it has been their practice to do in the past because the price has been good and they needed the money, and this has raised the price.
I had some research done into the total price index numbers, taking into consideration the drop in the value of our dollar. Our deflated cash income from farm products, according to these figures has dropped 7.37 per cent. At the same time these figures also point out that comparing the average for 1946-1956 with that of 1957-1958, the farm cash income has risen by 10.26 per cent; the net farm income has dropped by 11.14 per cent; the deflated cash income from farm products is down 7.37 per cent; and the deflated total net income is down 34 per cent. Mr. Chairman, I think this is the reason why there has had to be an increase in production. This is the reason why there will be a surplus established with low prices and not with high prices.
Agriculture is faced with another problem that is almost insurmountable. We have it in eastern Canada. This may not apply to areas for deficiency payments. This situation may not apply to western Canada yet, although I suggest that they had better take a close look at it because it will affect western Canada shortly. I refer to the matter of vertical integration. A great deal has been said about vertical integration, some of it in a light vein and some of it in a heavy vein. I noticed in the Western Producer a short article on vertical integration. It reads as follows:
The most striking example of vertical integration is to be found in the northern Saskatchewan constituency of Athabasca,-


An hon. Member:: That is in Alberta.


William Arnold Peters: The quotation continues:
-says C.C.F. MLA John Harrop. One of his constituents raises chickens in an old mine shaft.
This is one aspect of vertical integration, I assume, because vertical integration means integration from the top of the bottom. If he has filled a mine shaft with chickens, I suppose that is vertical integration as far as the mine shaft is concerned. I might say that this is a new use for mine shafts.

Vertical integration in Ontario has become a major problem. I am told that the broiler industry is 98 per cent integrated at the present time. The pork industry is 30 per cent integrated and 10 per cent of beef production is involved in vertical integration or contract farming in one form or another. Vertical integration and contract farming are terms which are widely discussed and sometimes misunderstood even by the farmers themselves. I am told that vertical integration is the last stage of contract farming.
There are four major stages in contract farming. Many farmers have had to accept contracts because of their inability to get cash for such things as feed or the primary products and commodities which they need. The first stage of contract farming would be the feed companies supplying the money or the feed necessary to produce a particular crop. The producer is allowed to buy his own primary product and to sell it on the open market. Then he has to pay off his obligation under the contract. Interested in this type of contract farming are the feed companies, the packing companies, a number of industries and, also, a number of general stores.
The second stage of vertical integration arises where the feed is supplied under contract, and the primary product, too-the chick or the suckling pig, the small calf or whatever it may be that the farmer proposes to raise. The market is open and the farmer is allowed to pay off his contract with the money he receives from the sale of his product on the open market.
In both these stages marketing legislation would be of assistance and it is obviously to the farmers advantage to press the government for the type of legislation most suitable to his selling operations.
In the third stage of integration the contract will call for feed to be supplied and for the primary product to be supplied. In addition, there is an undertaking to supply the market as well. In this phase we find a number of the chain stores handling the finished product, and obviously in such a case as this it does not really matter whether there is marketing legislation or not, because it simply does not apply.
The fourth stage, which is total vertical integration arises where the feed, the primary product and the market are supplied and where, in addition, the buildings are owned by the company or interest managing the enterprise, and in which the farmer is only an employee or labourer engaged by the financing interest. I suggest that this last stage of contract farming or vertical integration will probably be the easiest to handle, because one of the enterprising labour unions will 66968-9-123i
Supply-Agriculture
organize these farmers and the farmers will finally end up with a decent wage and a decent standard of living. If this is the way the farmers want it, all they have to do is wait for a short time and this will happen in the province of Ontario.
Some time ago a young farmer from Almonte was in to see me and he told me that if the change to vertical integration continues in Ontario during the next ten years as it has done during the past three years there will be no more family farms as we know them today. I questioned two leading members of farm organizations about this-Mr. Hannam and Mr. Patterson-and neither of them would disagree with this statement, though they thought the process would take rather more than 10 years.
I think this is a very serious matter, and the minister should give earnest attention to it. If farmers are to be forced to sign contracts for feed, primary products and even markets, then I think it behoves the government to work out contracts which would be acceptable to the farmers concerned. In some cases where a farmer is in stage 2 of vertical integration, for example, the financial result may not turn out too badly, but in other cases the results can be disastrous. The same young farmer to whom I referred a moment ago told me of the experience of one of his neighbours who had entered a contract with regard to broilers. He had a thousand, and when things did not go too badly he was encouraged to go into the business deeper. He went into bankruptcy in two years in the sum of $57,000, and the reason was that when the broilers in his buildings were ready for market he was told: sorry, but the price has dropped, it is now 18 cents. Since this man's cost of production was something over 20 cents it was obvious that it was impossible for him to do other than sustain his serious loss.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: One would not draw the inference from that example that contract farming is likely to continue.


William Arnold Peters: Certainly not, but one must feel sorry for anyone who is placed in this position. Small feed companies can no longer supply six months credit as they were once able to do, for the simple reason that they cannot borrow at sufficiently cheap rates. Interest rates have gone sky high, these financial companies are advertising bonds at
5.3	per cent, and it is obvious that seed companies cannot give credit at interest rates lower than this. They are obliged to charge the farmer a higher interest rate than they themselves must pay to the banks, if they are able to obtain loans at all. We are not suggesting that contract farming is a good thing,

Supply-Agriculture
because it is not, and I ask the minister to give very serious consideration to this question of vertical integration as it affects all agricultural production before it is too late.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think I would be remiss if I did not speak on agriculture at this time because my constituency depends a great deal on the condition of agriculture. First of all, I should like to commend the delegation which has recently been in Ottawa on their able presentation of their brief and on their behaviour while they were here, and I hope that in my small way I can do something here, along with the other western members, to promote better conditions in the west both with regard to wheat and with regard to the general agricultural picture.
I do not wish to comment to any great extent on the remarks just made by the hon. member for Timiskaming. The hon. member talked about farming conditions, but I realized that he knew very little about farming conditions. He discussed contract farming and told us what a great threat it is to the farm industry as we know it today, and then he went on to cite a very good example of one of the dangers faced by farmers who enter this type of farming. It seemed to me that the example he gave pointed to the very opposite of what he had been saying up till then.
In western Canada we have two main sources of income-wheat and cattle. In my constituency we sell as much wheat as in any other constituency in Alberta, and probably there are as many cattle raised. On the average the farmers in my area had a fairly good year in 1958. However, they realized that this was due to the demand for cattle and to the relatively high prices paid for cattle on the United States market. They are greatly concerned lest this should bring a false sense of security to farmers in western Canada, because there is no assurance of a continued demand from the United States for Canadian cattle. It should be realized that apart from income derived from cattle revenue from all other sources is low.
During the past six or seven years there has been a great deal of diversification of crops in western Canada. The farmers went into the production of durum wheat at a time when the price of durum was slightly higher than that of hard spring wheat. Today the price of durum has fallen and we have a slight surplus of it. Quotas have been imposed on its sale. There is no longer any incentive for farmers to continue in the production of durum wheat to any large extent.
The same may be said of flax. Six or seven years ago there was a growing tendency to

go into the production of flax but today the price is down. Although we have disposed of some of the crop through the manufacture of linseed oil and exports the price has fallen very low. There is little advantage in going into the production of flax over the production of hard spring wheat.
The same remarks would be applicable to rapeseed which had a very encouraging price at one time. The price has declined to approximately half what it was and there now remains little encouragement to go into the production of rapeseed over hard spring wheat. I am pointing out these facts so hon. members of the committee will realize that with respect to field crops the situation in western Canada is somewhat serious. The prices that can be commanded for field crops are falling and the costs of production are rising.
On the one hand we have labour causing strikes and demanding higher wages. On the other hand we have management failing to take constructive action. The results of these failures fall back on the primary producer. He is the one who in the end has to pay for these failures. A good example of labour causing strikes and not caring one bit who suffers is the longshoremen's strike on the west coast last fall. It primarily affected the farmers of Alberta because to a large extent their early fall shipments of wheat go to the west coast. Some farmers in my constituency could not even deliver their initial quotas in the fall because the market was tied up on the west coast and the boats were not being loaded. Many farmers in my area were unable to deliver their initial quotas until January of this year. Incidents of this type have a severe effect on farm families.
I am a farmer and I feel qualified to speak about the position of farmers in western Canada. Farmers operate on borrowed money all summer. I would say this is true in the case of nine out of ten farmers. In the fall the farmers are in dire need of a little ready cash. When the initial quotas are not readily made available the farmers must obtain further credit and sometimes it is difficult to secure the "little more" that is required.
To illustrate how the primary producers are affected by labour I shall quote an article that appeared in The Rural Scene, volume 13, of June, 1958. This article considers the wheat pool figures in relation to the cost of a small combine. I emphasize that a very small combine is used in the illustration because most combines are much more expensive than the one referred to in this example. The article states:
In 1946 it took 1,845 bushels of wheat to buy a small combine; and today it would take 3,963 bushels.

And later:
II a combine cost 1,845 bushels of wheat in 1946 and the price of wheat has dropped 20.8 per cent since then, and if no other prices had changed, the present price of a combine would be 2,335 bushels of wheat, or 490 more than it cost in 1946.
That is due to the drop in wheat prices alone. I continue:
But the price of combines has changed, and now it is 3,963 bushels of wheat. This is 2,118 bushels more than it was in 1946. The drop in the price of wheat accounts for 490 bushels of this. The balance, 2,118 minus 490, or 1,628 bushels, is due to the rise in the price of the combine. This rise in the prices of the things he buys is what really hurts the farmer.
The article concludes:
The answer is plain to see. Labour costs have moved steadily upward ever since the war and they show every indication of continuing to rise in the future. Not only the direct factory labour but also the labour involved in producing the raw materials and transporting them. All labour costs have risen.
I cite this as an illustration, of another side of this picture. The farmers are concerned about continually increasing costs due to another part of our economy taking advantage of the primary producers. The farmers have to pay for this.
The cost of farm machinery in my area went up 6 per cent last fall and then along came the 17 per cent hike in freight rates. The price of tractors in my home town went up an additional $35 to $40 as a result of the increase in freight rates. While on the subject of freight rates may I say that I am glad to see on the order paper notice of the intention of the government to bring in a $20 million subsidy which will perhaps defray some of these increased costs.
During the last three or four years the price of tractors, cars, trucks and other large items that farmers must buy increased in my neighbourhood by between $600 and $1,000 and in the same interval, as I pointed out, the price commanded by field crops has fallen.
Labour is not solely to blame; management is at fault, too. Management has made no sincere effort to put out a machine and hold the cost of that machine. I do not know if hon. gentlemen are familiar with tractors but I will use them as an example. What have machine companies done in the past few years in terms of holding down the cost of the machines to a level that would bear some relationship to the price a farmer gets for his goods? They have continually changed models and designs. During the last four years they have continually switched from model to model and from design to design and now I notice that a tractor has been put on the market that has a two-tone paint job.
Sup p ly-A griculture
This type of activity results in making it difficult for local agents to stock the many parts that are required for repairs to the machine.
During the forties tractors with rubber tires were put on the market. The fifties witnessed the addition of headlights on most tractors, individual wheel brakes and motors that would stand up fairly well to heavy use. There has been no drastic change in tractors in the past two decades. The price per horse power, however, has practically doubled. As. I said, the manufacturers are continually changing the external designs and we now have had the introduction of a tractor with a two-tone paint job that is perhaps no better than the tractors manufactured during the fifties although they have doubled in price since then.
I do not wish to dwell on this subject at too great length but I cannot resist mentioning that in my home town the farm equipment dealer four years ago sold more combines than any other dealer employed by that manufacturer in the province of Alberta. He was awarded a medal for doing so. Last fall this man had in stock two combines that were a carryover from the previous year and he could not dispose of them. I think he finally bought one himself at a loss just to move it. That is the type of problem confronting the dealers. Increased prices of equipment have meant that they are unable to sell the machines. A farmer certainly hesitates before paying $7,000 or $8,000 for a combine to take off his crop because although we have had fairly average yields in the last two years the prices commanded by field crops have been decreasing. This has to be considered also.
I have been told by one machine company that they have a price for machines which they charge in this country and another price which they charge in Europe, for instance. Those machines are made either in Canada or in the United States, taken across to Europe, and sold in that market at a much lower price than they are sold at in Canada. In other words, they have a two-price system for their machines, and this is very discouraging to the farmers of this country because they realize that the machine companies are charging just as much as the market will bear. Sooner or later the machine companies, for one reason or another, are going to price themselves right out of the market.
I think it was very evident from the delegation that was down here-I know the farmers from my constituency expressed it in various ways-that it is the cost-price squeeze that is the greatest problem so far as the agricultural picture is concerned. It is those irresponsible actions on the part of

Sup p ly-A gricu Iture
labour and management that have contributed to the continued high cost. Of course, the only way the farmer has to remain in business is to become more efficient. As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, some of them buy more land but that is not the only way in which the farmer can become more efficient. In many instances the farmer has ample land. He either steps up his production or the cuts down on his expenses. These are the only two ways that I know of by which you can come out with a higher net income. You either step up your production or you cut down on your expenses. Of course, if the farmers cut down their expenses very much the rest of Canada suffers to some extent through loss of labour used in producing machines or the loss of labour employed on the farms.
I should like to deal for a moment with the cattle outlook. Without a doubt the cattle picture in western Canada in 1958 was the brightest of any. The prospects for that crop were brighter than for any other crop the farmer had to market. Over the past year a great deal of concern has been expressed about the cattle market and about how long it will hold up. That thought was in the mind of every farmer who was down here with the delegation. They did not know. The cattle men are worried for fear the grain producers may go into the cattle business, produce cattle and thereby create a surplus. Of course, there is no way of telling whether they will go into that business or not. We have only to trust that in the future things will work out.
Let me go back to the fall of 1957. I think all of us from western Canada and eastern Canada will realize that in the early fall of 1957 we were faced with a depressed cattle market. Around October 1 the United States market opened up and things brightened up. Since then we have been in a relatively good position. It must be realized that in the last four months of the year we exported to the United States nearly 400,000 head of cattle. This was in the fall of 1957. In 1958 the number was around 700,000.
There is a great deal of concern in the minds of farmers as to whether there will be a surplus of cattle on the market in the future. The question is, how soon in the future, and what will be the effect on the price? According to the latest reports of the cattle population that I have seen the numbers of cattle are down below what they were in 1956. I think this is a good indication that perhaps a surplus of this product will be staved off for a while. The number of steers on the farm was down by 15 per cent. Calves were relatively the same as were beef cows also, although in some areas there
[Mr. Horner (Acadia) .1
is evidence that the farmers are reducing their basic herds. All this points to the fact that Canada, with a cow herd of about the same size as it was in 1957, can produce a great deal of beef if she is called upon to do so.
We must look at our population figures. We must also remember that from 1952 on, after the preceding fall in prices and the foot-and-mouth disease, we exported very little beef until 1957 when the vast demand occurred and we were in the very fortunate position where we could export beef to the United States. We should take a look at the Gordon report. This report states that by 1980 our population will be approximately 26 million. The report bases this estimate on the fact that our population will increase every year and that immigration will average around 75,000. Last year the number of immigrants was around 124,000, and most people considered it a low year. If one takes into consideration the increase in the birth rate and the fact that people are living longer now than they used to, I think it is safe to say that our population will increase about half a million each year and, of course, as our population increases so will the rate of increase. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that, judging by those figures, we shall very easily reach 26 million by 1980.
Of course, the Gordon report stated that by 1980 the numbers of our livestock would have to be doubled to feed our own population. If we keep these figures in mind, perhaps it would be safe to say that the cattle industry will perhaps hold up and that the next three years will be the crucial time. If we can hold on to the United States market for a certain small percentage of our production, then perhaps we shall be over the hump and be all right so far as cattle prices are concerned.
I should like to deal with hogs for a moment. We all know that as the price of meat goes down the rate of consumption per person goes up, and this has held true over the past years with hogs. Hog marketings have been very heavy, but we have surprised the experts. Through our own consumption we have got away with a great deal of this pork. Right now we have not much of a pork surplus. The price has been down to the floor. Anybody who has been watching the western markets particularly-I do not know what it has been like in the east-must have noticed that the price has been bouncing off the floor price at various times. I think in the future, perhaps by next fall, we shall see a trend upwards and away from the floor price of pork. Today, as I have mentioned, we have not got too great a pork surplus, probably one week's supply.

I think there is a great deal of concern among the people engaged in pork production, and rightly so, because with the floor price in effect there is the threat that contract farming will move into the industry. As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, they have already moved into the broiler industry and I am happy that we are not buying a lot of broilers. I think though that the government will have to bring in some sort of control. I do not know exactly how it may be done but the support will have to be reduced in the case of units that are large enough to be classed as contract farms. One way to do this would be by means of deficiency payments on hogs.
As hon. members know, the government is buying certain cuts of pork in order to keep up the price. In Alberta the price is $21.50 a hundred. If I were allowed to sell my hogs at 19 or 20 cents a pound, a deficiency payment to make up the balance would come to me. In that way I could sell 100 pigs and get a deficiency payment on those 100 pigs but I would not get a deficiency payment for anything over that number. I think this would have quite an effect on contract farming.
I do not want to speak too long but I think I should mention that I am certain the farmers will be pleased to receive the interim payment on wheat. Most of them should have received it by this time. I am certain that with the increase in the lakehead price of wheat of 5f cents the final payment will be as high as it was last year and perhaps a little higher on some of the lower grades. That is a very serious point. Last year the final payment on No. 4 wheat was just 2J cents a bushel and that had a severe effect on the over-all wheat price.
I am pleased to see that the port at Churchill has moved about 20 million bushels of wheat. Every bushel shipped through that port saved the western farmer about eleven cents. I would encourage the building of greater handling facilities at that port in order that the farmers can perhaps save a little more with respect to the cost of moving their wheat.
I think the government should be commended for the great effort made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in selling our wheat. It has played quite a large part in removing the surplus in western Canada. Right now the wheat board says that the grain bins will be nearly empty, and I think that is true. This has a two-fold effect. With the grain bins empty there will be no market for bootleg wheat and that will encourage those people who have gone into the contract feeding of livestock to get out of
Supply-Agriculture
that sort of business when they cannot purchase wheat at far below the cost of producing it.
I commend the government for the recent trade agreement with Russia and the export of wheat to Russia and Poland. I want to deal for a minute with tariffs. We heard a lot about tariffs from the farm delegation and it is true that the farmer pays the extra cost brought about by many tariffs. That being so, I think it is only right that the people of Canada should pay more for the wheat they consume in Canada. In other words, the farmer should have a little protection too.
A great deal has been said about what this would cost the consumer. I got figures from a well known baker. I am not going to go into the bakers' set-up at this time. This baker explained to me, by taking the number of bushels required to make a barrel of flour and the number of loaves in a barrel of flour, that the price of wheat could go up almost 60 cents before the price of a loaf of bread went up one cent. I think we should have $1 a bushel more for wheat consumed in Canada. This would raise the price of a loaf of bread by two cents. We must remember that the labourer today has never worked such a short period of time-


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to finish the last sentence.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to point out that never before in history has the labourer worked such a short period of time to earn his food requirements.


Mr. Boulanger:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


Samuel Boulanger: The hon. member who has resumed his seat seemed to attach more importance to the price of farm machinery than to the selling price of farm produce. Which one of these two situations does he consider as having the greatest influence on the present farm situation?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I referred to an example using wheat pool figures in that regard. The price of wheat had an effect of 500 bushels on the cost and labour and management had an effect of 1,600 bushels. I would not base my own opinion on those exact figures. In my opinion they are both equal.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, the intervention in this debate by other non-farmers and nonexperts has encouraged me also to make a few observations about the agricultural industry. Personally I am not a farmer and there are only three or four small subsistence farmers in my riding and very few farmers in my province generally. The only personal connection I have ever had with farming was when I used to have to look for the cows and drive them home before going to school in the morning and then deliver the milk after school in the evening.
But there are several reasons why I should like to say a few words about this subject. In the first place I am deeply interested in the farmer as a human being and I also recognize the importance of the agricultural industry to our national economy. I am also deeply conscious of the deep similarity of the problems of the farmer and the problems of the fishermen who are my constituents. For example, both the farmers and the fishermen are primary producers. In both cases their production is affected by factors largely beyond their control. Both also are victims of the cost-price squeeze. Both are largely dependent on external markets and conditions.
In the case of the Newfoundland fishermen, practically all our fish is sold in foreign markets and in that respect we are even worse off than the farmers because our fish are sold to countries which have state purchasing agencies, which fact prevents the ordinary law of supply and demand becoming operative. Although we may have low production of fish in one year, the price does not go up because of the extra demand largely on account of the restrictions imposed by the state agencies which purchase fish in our foreign markets.
I think there is another similarity between fishermen and farmers and that is in their working conditions. Both farmers and fishermen work from dawn until dusk, but there is still a difference in favour of the farmer because in most cases the farmer can be home all the time with his family, whereas a fisherman has to stay out on the seas sometimes as long as two weeks.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I must mention to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo that this is vote No. 1 on agriculture. I think I have been quite lenient in allowing the odd comparison between farmers and fishermen, but I must ask the hon. member to bring his remarks back to agriculture.


Chesley William Carter: I was just pointing up the similarity of the problems faced by the farmer and those faced by the fisherman.

I am convinced that a solution of the agricultural problem is essential to the welfare of the economy as a whole. My final reason for entering this debate was that I thought members would be interested in knowing how farm problems appear to one who has no personal experience with them, and who has had to build up his picture from information received from various sources, including hon. members in this house. For 10 years now I have listened very patiently to hon. members tell this house about farm problems. I have read a great many of the briefs which have been presented to us by farm bodies. I have honestly tried to understand the problems and assess them in relation to the efforts that have been put forth toward a solution.
I should like to tell my farmer colleagues that this has not always been easy because the farm industry has been speaking, at least so it appeared to me, with two voices. I think there is a passage in the scripture which says that if the bugle makes an uncertain sound, who is going to get ready for battle? Well, there have been uncertain sounds from the agriculture industry. Farmers will tell us one story about blue ruin and the minister will get up and give us figures to indicate that things are a little better than they were last year. Certainly it is difficult not to be confused when you hear conflicting reports of that kind.
I think it should be pointed out that farm bodies who have presented briefs have painted their picture as representing the industry as a whole, and the minister too has spoken in terms of the industry as a whole without distinguishing between the component parts. We get two opposite and conflicting pictures and, therefore, we are reduced to the point of trying to put two and two together. Putting two and two together, it seems to me we must conclude that there is a group of farmers who are very poorly off; there is another group of farmers who are fairly well off; and in between the two there is another group who are perhaps just managing to keep their heads above water. What we do not know is the relative size or different categories of these groups. Neither do we know the relative causes for these different conditions. We do not know, for example, how many of the farmers who are in the poor group are there because of poor management or poor farm practices. We do not know how many are there because their farms are too small, and we do not know how many of them are trying to make a living from land which could be put to some better use.
I think this points out one of the weaknesses of the representations that have been made on behalf of farmers, and that is the absence of reliable statistics which break down the problem into its component parts. I am glad that

the farmers themselves have come to recognize this and have asked for research facilities. I would say the government should give them some help in acquiring these facilities. I think also the information should be gathered by the farmers themselves because they are in the best position to know exactly what information is required, and also in the best position to obtain it more quickly than could be done by a royal commission or some other agency set up for that purpose.
There seems to be no doubt that at the present time agriculture is undergoing a revolution, a revolution perhaps in many ways comparable to the industrial revolution that took place in Europe a century ago. While this revolution is going on the farmer is faced with three very serious problems, namely the cost-price squeeze; the problem of vertical integration, and the problem of surplus production. I think it is evident, too, that the measures which have been adopted in the past, as well as the measures which are in force now, have not been capable of solving these problems. I think it is safe to assume that in solving this problem, the measures we adopt will determine the future shape of the agricultural industry.
Since I am not an expert I am not qualified to make any recommendations of a technical nature, although I do not see why something could not be done toward remitting the sales tax on farm implements. It seems to me that the measures we have adopted so far have turned out to be merely stopgaps. What is required is a permanent solution. I believe that if a permanent solution is to be found, a whole new approach is required and a fresh start must be made. While I am not able to make technical suggestions, I should like to offer a few suggestions about the kind of approach I think is needed.
In the first place I think it must be a human approach. It is encouraging to find that the farmers themselves are coming around to that way of thinking. I was greatly encouraged by the brief which was submitted some time ago by the interprovincial farm union. That was the first time I have noticed an attempt to approach the farm problem in this way. The human approach requires a concept which takes into consideration the relationship of the farmer as a human being with other human beings and this approach requires the facing of certain facts.
The first of these facts is that price supports, deficiency payments and like measures have not proved to be a solution in the past and are not likely to be any more effective in the future and also that measures which are based on slogans such as parity,
Supply-A griculture
fair share of the national income and comparisons with tariff valuations, are in much the same category. All of these slogans mean different things to different people. Because of that fact they do not offer any basis for unity and unity is the first essential if we are to find the right solution.
The second fact that I think we must recognize is that whatever formulas are developed from the monetary standpoint they must of necessity be limited by what the national economy can support.
The next fact that farmers must face is that the government alone and the farmers alone cannot solve this problem. It is doubtful whether it can be solved by the farmers and the government working together. As I see it, the solution of this problem is going to require the co-operation not only of the government and the farmers but also of the consumers and, as the hon. member who preceded me in this debate pointed out, the co-operation of management and organized labour as well.
Another fact which I think farmers must consider, if they are going to get on the right track, is that there is no valid basis of comparison between the farming industry and the manufacturing industries in terms of monetary reward. There are basic conditions which must be taken into account. The farmer is obliged to work all hours from dawn to dusk while the factory worker works regular hours with a work week of 40-hours or whatever it may be. The factory worker is also more likely to receive higher pay for his services. It will not be possible to raise the farmer's income to a level that is comparable to the higher wage that is paid in industry. I think that fact must be accepted.
But the farmer has other compensations. He is engaged in a creative work, something which in itself must be extremely satisfying. It is a healthy work. He lives close to nature and close to his God. He enjoys a measure of independence which is not available in other forms of industry.
If the answer to this problem can be found only by the farmer, the government, management and labour all working together, then obviously this cannot be done without a basis of unity; and there must first of all be unity with regard to the goals and the objectives we want for the farming industry. This consideration raises the problem of vertical integration.
As I understand this problem, if vertical integration keeps on developing in the way it has started it will not be long before the only difference between our collectivized

Supp ly-A griculture
farms in Canada and those in Russia will be that collectivized farms in Russia will be run by the state and in Canada by big business. I think that is a serious trend. Even if it may produce some advantages in terms of higher production and lower cost, nevertheless we must consider whether or not that is too high a price to pay for that kind of end result.
Another essential in order to develop this unity is a recognition on the part of each party concerned that each has a responsibility to the other. Of course there must also be, in my opinion, a sense of mission. All industry has developed in response to human needs. The purpose of the farming industry is to feed hungry people. But if we are to develop the industry in the way in which its destiny requires, I think we must think of it not only in terms of a means of earning a livelihood but also in terms of something bigger, something which places the industry in proper relationship to other industries, and also in relationship to the world picture. What is needed then is a sense of purpose which will inspire in the farmer a sense of dedication which will largely tend to make up for any lack in monetary rewards. The working out of the solution between the parties concerned must take place around the conference table where each will be prepared to approach the problem honestly and fairly and in a spirit of what is best not only for the industry itself but for the country as a whole.
This will require some self examination on the part of the farmer himself. He will have to look back to see where he himself may have gone wrong in the past; whether he has exerted wrong pressures and whether he has been activated by wrong motives. In this way only can he discover to what extent he himself may be responsible for the condition of the industry today. This does not mean pointing the finger at one another, but it does mean an honest appraisal of the situation in order that we may not make the same mistakes as in the past. It is in this way that the farmer can make his best contribution toward a solution of the problems which face the industry and at the same time inspire the other parties upon whom he must depend to do the same.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer, and perhaps it affects government policy rather than the farmer himself. I refer to the need for a determination to use our agriculture industry strategically, as is done by the Soviet union. It seems to me that instead of giving cash handouts to the farm industry which may be paid for a limited period and then cut off, it would be much better if we could find some way of

expanding our markets. In Canada we have a very small domestic market of only 17 million people, but it should not be forgotten that Canada forms part of the commonwealth and that there are many countries in the world today which are potential markets for our wheat provided we go about the matter properly. In Africa, next year, Nigeria will become self-governing. Nigeria is a country with a population of 33 million, a very large potential market. Nigeria is one of the few countries in the world today which possess sound leadership and it is one of the countries which is going to determine whether the whole continent of Africa is to remain in the western camp or whether it will fall into the camp of Soviet Russia. We should seize every opportunity which presents itself to help Nigeria establish and strengthen her economy. I am told that in Nigeria a lot of the flour consumed is made from Canadian wheat milled in the United States. Why could we not establish Canadian mills in that country, either by private enterprise, or through the Colombo plan, and thus build up over the years an important market for our wheat? It is this type of assistance which will in the long run do more for the agriculture industry than any temporary expedients, however necessary these may be as short range measures.
In conclusion I should like to say a few words about the farm delegation which visited us a few days ago. This delegation focussed attention on the agricultural problem and deserves a great deal of commendation on the responsible manner in which its members presented their brief and also on the manner in which they conducted themselves throughout this visit. Not only did this delegation focus our attention on the farm problem but I think it served another and equally important purpose; it enabled us to meet a large number of farmers personally and thereby offered us the opportunity to know them as people and to appreciate their sterling qualities. The thought which has come to me since meeting some of these farmers-and I took the opportunity to meet as many of them as I could-was that the farmers may be the salvation of Canada, because it appears to me that they are the only group in Canada which has any vestige of a pioneering spirit. Some of us had feared that this spirit has deteriorated, but the personal contacts we had with these men showed, certainly in my case, that it is still alive. The farmers are one of the few remaining groups who are prepared to pioneer new territory and explore new trails even where it may have to be an act of faith. But the

farmers are tired of expedients. They want a permanent solution worked out around a conference table.


Charles Edward Rea: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Hicks:: Mr. Chairman, we in this group of 73 over here do like the opportunity to get on our feet and say a few words occasionally. I sometimes wonder what we are here for. I have mentioned on a few other occasions what Prime Minister Macmillan said when he was here. It was something to this effect-I am not quoting his words-that if one were to believe what the press says or what the opposition says or what the government backbenchers say one would think that the whole country was going to the bad. And I am just wondering if anyone in this house thinks that this rump over here is a sort of opposition to the government. If we were, I think we could move a little way further down the house and get more accomplished with less talk than some of the hon. members to our right have been able to do.
There is one thing I should like to see, and that is this division line between the parties, this alleyway here, straightened out. There are four sections in here, and if they were shoved down a piece, and if the division line were put through there, there would not be so much difference. From time to time a member of the government stands up over there and says: "Hon. members of the opposition opposite", and sometimes he looks right at us when he is saying it and I know half a dozen of us maybe think we are Liberals, although of course we are not. However, I do not want to squeeze this side down too far, because that might shove my old friend from Kootenay West clear out of the door, and I certainly would not want to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring a little more optimism into this chamber with respect to agriculture than I have been listening to on some occasions in the not too distant past. I wish first to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for the very fine summary of the work of his department he outlined as reported at page 254 of Hansard. The work to which I refer involved the expenditure of $186 million paid out by the Department of Agriculture as direct assistance to agriculture. This is no mean amount. This sum was expended in assisting in such projects as freight assistance on western grain, the payment of $1 per acre for agriculture which amounted to a total of $40 million-again no small amount-the payment of compensation for animal slaughter, the payment in the form of support prices on farm products, payments for grain
Supply-Agriculture
storage, P.F.R.A. payments, payments under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and other work.
I wish also to congratulate the deputy minister and the entire staff of the Department of Agriculture. I know something of the hours these men put in after work, particularly the employees of the experimental farm. It is my observation that they are a fine group of conscientious, hardworking men. I say this because I know something about the subject of agriculture. I was born on a farm in southwestern Manitoba and several years ago graduated from the University of Manitoba. Following this I worked at experimental farms at Lacombe and Brandon and after a very active life I retired for a few years. I then came to the House of Commons to rest and I find that just cannot be done.
There have been great strides made in agricultural research during all these years. It is a delight to me personally to know that the science services and the experimental farm services will be combined again in one complete unit. I feel that is a far more efficient way of operating these services. There was not very much duplication of effort under the previous setup but there certainly will be less now that their efforts will be united.
When I am on the subject of duplication of work may I say I think there is a little feeling among the people of Canada that there still is a duplication of effort as between the federal Department of Agriculture and the provincial departments of agriculture. I can assure hon. members this is not the case in British Columbia. There we have the university agricultural department, the provincial agricultural department and the federal agricultural department and far from there being a duplication of work there is a high degree of co-operation among these splendid groups of hard-working people. As I said before, I know whereof I speak.
No sooner is one problem solved in agriculture these days than a dozen new problems arise demanding solutions. Things are moving very quickly and so the world today is the product of what we believed yesterday just as tomorrow's world will be the product of what we believe right now. I feel that if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past, men of good will such as you and I, members of this parliament, regardless of which side of the house we are on, have a wonderful and challenging job to do. We must find the kind of leadership that will instil in the hearts and minds of Canadians the concept of true citizenship.

Supply-Agriculture
There is one other matter which I have contemplated mentioning but I do not know whether or not I should speak of it. I am going to mention it, Mr. Chairman, and leave it to you to decide whether or not I should have mentioned this point. It is evident that some hon. members in their speeches are talking to people at home having in mind the next election. I feel that by this time with the results of the last election well known we can surely forget considerations of this kind for a year or two and get down to the business we were sent here to conduct and stop talking about the past. After having said that and as I look around me I feel maybe I am talking to the people at home because there are not many hon. members present in the chamber to listen to me and I see many empty seats.


An hon. Member:: They are worthy
characters.


William Harold Hicks: Yes.


Frank Howard: Only four cabinet ministers.


William Harold Hicks: I think it is a waste of time to rehash political issues in this chamber when we know that the people of Canada would welcome the news of our putting our minds to the task of finding constructive solutions to their problems and getting on with the business at hand. I should like to quote from the Canada Year Book, 1957-58, page 119, with respect to agriculture in British Columbia:
The traditional movement of population on the North American continent from east to west has not been apparent in Canadian statistics in recent years. The most spectacular changes are shown in the prairie provinces and in British Columbia. While the three prairie provinces lost by migration about 250,000 persons between 1931 and 1941 and somewhat more from 1941 to 1951, they gained in the period 1951-56.
British Columbia gained at the rate of about 8,000 persons a year during the 1930's, about 23,000 a year during the 1940's and about 27,000 a year in the first half of the 1950's. On an absolute basis Ontario received more people than did British Columbia but, in relation to its larger population, this growth was only about one-third as important.
The importance of British Columbia's agriculture reveals some illuminating facts to which I should like to draw attention. Less than 2 per cent of the total area of the province of British Columbia is potential agricultural land and approximately only .5 per cent of this total area is now producing agriculturally. Less than one crop acre per person is produced in British Columbia. This is only about half enough which means that approximately half the food consumed in the province must be imported. Between 25 and 27 per cent of all agricultural land in the province must be irrigated. Agriculture in

the province is very diversified and any crops that will grow anywhere else in Canada will grow in British Columbia. In addition British Columbia can produce some crops that cannot be produced elsewhere in the nation.
The Fraser valley is one of the most important agricultural areas in the province. I do not refer specifically to my own constituency but to that area extending from Hope to the coast which is about 100 miles in distance. Thirty miles of this district in the upper end are not particularly agricultural but in the area that is approximately 15 miles wide and 75 miles long, 48 per cent of the agricultural wealth of the province is produced. Thirty-nine per cent of the farmers of the province dwell in this area and
38.5	per cent of all British Columbia farms are located there. The remaining 52 per cent of British Columbia's agricultural wealth is produced in nine other regions. The greatest of these is the Okanagan valley that produces about 18 per cent or a little less than one-third of the output of the Fraser valley. Next is Vancouver island with 10 per cent and the remaining seven regions with 25 per cent.
There is a substantial food processing industry in the Fraser valley. It is not generally known that in greater Vancouver food processing is second only to wood production in the number of employees it engages. The Fraser valley contributes substantially to this secondary industry. The Fraser valley produces 85 per cent of the total of the small fruits; 59 per cent of the provincial vegetables and potatoes, and so forth; 65 per cent of the special horticultural crops such as bulbs, flowers, holly, nuts, nursery stock, and so forth. So far as livestock are concerned, 66 per cent of the dairy production, 66 per cent of poultry and 61 per cent of turkeys are produced in the Fraser valley. According to the 1956 census, the value of the lower Fraser valley production amounted to $49,338,000. The amount for the other areas was $54,618,000, or a grand total of $103,956,000. These are 1956 census figures and are taken from the extension service bulletin published by the provincial department of agriculture.
I should like to say just a word about Chilliwack but I do not want to say anything against the rest of the towns and villages within my territory. Chilliwack, of course, is the centre of the area. There are 7,300 people in the city and there are 17,000 in the municipalities. Within a radius of nine miles of the centre of Chilliwack there are 25,000 people. In terms of retail trade, Chilliwack is British Columbia's fifth largest city. Three miles from the centre of the city is located one of the large Fraser valley milk producing

co-operative plants. The Fraser valley milk producers have 6,000 members. The plant nearest to Chilliwack is one of the largest on the North American continent. There they accept, in the rush season of the year, half a million pounds of milk per day.
I see my time is going very quickly and I know there are other members who wish to speak, but there are just a few things I would like to say at this time about British Columbia agriculture. I should like to take a few minutes to say something about some of the most serious problems in our area. Before I do that I wish to say that the dairy business in the Fraser valley of British Columbia is in a very satisfactory position at the present time. I should like to mention the raspberry growers. Those of you who heard me speak about raspberries a year ago will, I am sure, be glad to know that some of the growers out there are looking forward to a better year than they had last year. You will recall that last year berries were offered at six cents a pound. We had a nine cent floor put under them which saved the crop. I could quote some letters of appreciation for what the government did for the farmers. Strawberries are also a problem, not in their production but in getting a suitable price to the producer for his product. This should be in the neighbourhood of 17 cents a pound. Our poultrymen are also in a little trouble. Those of you who heard the minister speak some time ago heard him mention broilers. In 1953 I think some 30 million pounds were produced; in 1958, 180 millions pounds were produced, or six times as much. With such a large production the price is bound to go down. One of the things that is disturbing some of the growers in the Fraser valley at the present time is the frozen pea problem in relation to the entire crop.
I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying a word about the artificial insemination unit in the Fraser valley. By the way, this is just outside of my constituency but it is something that I helped to organize and I am very proud of the results. The first cow was inseminated on February 1, 1945. Two people were employed at that time; at the present time they have 27 employees and after 13 years there are 6,000 members within this association. In 1958, 31,803 cows were inseminated in the Fraser valley. In the Okanagan, 2,022 cows were inseminated; in other subunits in British Columbia, 4,619 cows were inseminated; and in the province of Alberta, if you please, 13,269 cows were inseminated from the unit in the Fraser valley. They have equipment and modern barns; they have a good office and they have good storage facilities there. Most important of all, they are using real top, high-class sires.
Supply-Agriculture
I should like to mention one other item before I close, Mr. Chairman, and that is the Canadian writers federation which met at the recent Royal Winter Fair. This is the occasion on which awards to press, radio and television are given. Three British Columbia writers won first prize in that competition. I take off my hat to and congratulate Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Leach and Mr. McPherson on the great work they did.
What about crop insurance? I know there is a difference of opinion about crop insurance. I think I know the minister's attitude and stand in connection with crop insurance. I have made a little study of this problem during the last couple of weeks and I have not changed my mind too much on the subject. Those of you who were in the chamber when the hon. member for York-Humber spoke about unemployment insurance will recall that she mentioned the fact that you did not insure your house against fire today and expect it to burn tomorrow; you did not insure your life today and expect to be killed tomorrow; you did not insure your car today and expect to dump it in the ditch tomorrow. You did insure your employment hoping, I presume, to be employed whenever you wanted to but, if not, you received unemployment insurance. Personally, I think unemployment insurance is overdone a little because I personally have offered unemployed men work and they would not take a job because they were getting unemployment insurance. I wonder whether the statement that Abraham Lincoln made at one time has any relationship to this? Abraham Lincoln said that you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
I have another item on old age pensions which I would like to apply to old age farm people. I do not know whether I should take the time to do it but I should like to say that on our farms there are a great many elderly people, some of whom cannot work. I should like to see put into effect in this Canada of ours some scheme by which people living under certain conditions could apply personally to spend their security cheques outside of the country. This would be based upon financial reasons. They might want to go to live with a relative outside of the country. It might have something to do with domestic incompatibility; it might have something to do with health. I believe these people could be far healthier living in another country. I simply close by saying that I feel something should be done under certain conditions for our older people, if they make personal application to those in authority, to allow them to live in another country, spend

Supply-Agriculture
their money there and receive their cheques there because there are other people coming into this country who certainly do that and live here.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to what the member for Fraser Valley had to say, particularly in view of the contribution he has made to the development of agriculture in British Columbia as superintendent for many years of the Agassiz experimental station. On his retirement from that position his services to agriculture in British Columbia were acknowledged by farmers' organizations, by all sections of the communities with which he was associated and by farm and other newspapers of British Columbia. I am sure that the name of the member for Fraser Valley will be included in the roll of those who have accomplished much on behalf of the farmers of British Columbia, including such men as the late Professor Sadler of the University of British Columbia, the late Professor Boving, whom the hon. gentleman knew quite well, and Dean Clement.
Before proceeding with my few remarks I want to support the hon. member's representations on behalf of farmers in receipt of old age security payments that the government should give consideration to these people having the opportunity, along with others in receipt of similar payments, to spend their cheques in other countries. Very often when they reach the age of retirement it is necessary that they do so for health reasons and certainly for their greater enjoyment during the winter months in Canada. Having overheard the minister's loudly whispered remark, I wondered whether he was going to call me out of order for referring to old age security.
I rise to say a few words on these estimates as a socialist who realizes the need of long term economic and social planning with respect to agricultural policies in Canada. I am not one who underestimates the difficulties in connection with such an approach to agricultural problems or suggests that all our problems can be solved overnight. I am one who has a great interest in the maintenance of the economic family farm because I believe we should maintain the values that it has preserved in Canadian society and the diversification which is so necessary for the maintenance of a sound democracy.
I am going to illustrate my points from my experience at one time as a peasant farmer in the Kootenays and with long knowledge of the situation there. Agriculture in the Kootenay district commenced about 60 years ago. It was largely promoted by the needs and requirements of the small communities, mining camps, lumber camps and the stern

wheeler steamers that operated on the lakes. I knew most of the old timers who located on various relatively small patches of ground, cleared the forest and sold their supplies directly to the customers I have mentioned. I am one who remembers the clearing of almost the first acres of land for agricultural production, and it was no easy job. As a matter of fact, I represent a type of farmer who is more acquainted with the axe, the crosscut saw, now replaced to some extent by the power saw, and the walking plow than with large equipment although owing to the circumstances under which we live there is an increase in the degree of mechanization even on the smaller farms in my constituency.
If we provide the proper circumstances and the proper marketing facilities at a satisfactory price there is a great opportunity for agricultural development in the constituency I have the honour to represent. There is an opportunity for considerable extension of general farming and some stock farming. We talk about developing the north and the hinterland of Canada but we fail to realize what large areas of land we have in this country relatively close to transportation. I can take hon. members to one valley in my constituency where you can stand on a knoll and look at 10,000 acres of black, alluvial soil that only requires draining and transportation facilities. It is 25 miles from the nearest transportation.
There is opportunity for dairy farming to supply the growing cities and for extension of poultry farming and new efforts in fruit farming, having particular regard to the suitability of our district to the growing of a limited variety of apples, of cherries and pears particularly, and small fruit.
There is also opportunity for considerable extension of part-time farming allied to the forestry industry-I am very keen on that- and allied to the tourist industry. We have these opportunities in our district because we have the land, and provided we have correct land utilization these opportunities can be taken advantage of. In our opinion there is a necessity in Canada generally, not only in the constituency I have the honour to represent, for a land use survey conducted as a result of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. As a result of such a survey there should be a planned and systematic movement of farmers from marginal land. There are persons in my constituency farming marginal land cleared years ago which should have been left in timber, and I am sure the same is true of other hon. members. There should be assistance toward the location of these farmers on suitable land which they can farm to their profit and

advantage. There should be a program of reforestation of submarginal lands. That would mean close co-operation between the federal and provincial governments.
To illustrate the opportunities at the present time, let me describe the Slocan valley. It is 30 miles long and contains thousands of acres of fertile bottom land. It has a paved highway throughout its whole length, power throughout its whole length and a river possibly an eighth of a mile wide in places flowing throughout the whole length. You have all the basic requirements of satisfactory agriculture. Yet this valley is largely undeveloped. It is inhabited at the present time by some of that well-known sect, the Sons of Freedom, and a few survivors of the pioneers who have stuck it out. I have written the minister about that problem, and something could be done about it if there was co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. A very large acreage could be brought into production quite close to the major cities in our community. I might say that at the present time we are only producing about 25 per cent of the farm production requirements of the people in our district.
Then there is the Lardeau valley with
16,000	acres of almost undeveloped land which only requires draining in some cases and clearing in others. We also have the Inonoak-lin valley, some 15 miles long. All that is lacking is transportation to markets and roads. It is simply a question of economic and social planning and co-operation between the federal and provincial governments to bring this land into satisfactory production, and it requires the co-operation of the local farmers' organizations, chambers of commerce and women's institutes.
So far as my constituency is concerned, all these organizations have full knowledge of what I am referring to today, are interested in the developments and are willing to cooperate with the federal and provincial governments to develop the areas I have mentioned. Now, in so far as land problems are concerned, we have still an abundance of land if we bring into production the areas now lying idle.
The next need is long term loans at low interest rates. Under present circumstances it is impossible for young people to go on the land, clear it and develop it or build the buildings without the capital. This capital can only be provided through long term loans at low interest rates through federal or provincial governments. In this connection, I should like to quote from the report of the royal commission on the tree fruit industry of British Columbia, written by Dean E. D. MacPhee, M.M., M.A., B.Ed., C.A., LL.D.
Supp ly-A griculture
Before doing so, I want to say that in my experience this report is the most able and comprehensive report made to date in the history of British Columbia with respect to all the circumstances surrounding the tree fruit industry. It costs $7, but it would be a good investment, particularly for any member from British Columbia, because it is historical, factual and the recommendations were made after a serious study of the whole question. In connection with what is required with respect to supplying capital, I want to quote from page 798 of the report. This is what the commissioner has to say:
Financial Assistance
In the light of these factors, what recommendations should be made?
1.	I believe that the fruit-growing industry should be maintained, and that the needed assistance requires action by both the provincial and federal governments if suitable conditions can be defined. From the standpoint of both governments, it provides the most profitable return available to the residents of these areas.
He is referring to the fruit-growing areas of the interior.
-Despite the fact that land values have risen in some areas to quite unreasonable levels, one cannot envisage any acceptable plan to make other use of much of this land at anything approximating these values-approximating the investments growers have made. Despite the long history of the withdrawal of farmers in other areas of British Columbia from fruit-growing, I am convinced that it is in the interests of the province and the dominion to keep this industry alive in at least parts of the Okanagan, the Similkameen, and in the Creston valleys.
2.	Federal program-Fruit-growing is an expensive business per acre in comparison with other forms of farming.
I have had some personal experience in that respect. We were a green English family when we planted the orchard, and my father ordered 25 varieties. Then, we had to regraft the whole lot.
The investment in land and real estate is unusually high, as is shown in table 9. The nature of the operation requires a high expenditure for labour; the amount of equipment required by even the most conservative managers is substantial; the period of waiting before a crop is obtained is unusually long, especially for the production of apples and pears; and the possibility of mixed agriculture is relatively remote. Assistance, to be of value, must therefore be long-term assistance, covering a period of at least 30 years, or the working lifetime of a grower. It must be at rates and under conditions which are better than those available through banks and mortgage companies.
Long-term loans by farm loan boards-Mortgage companies are not a major factor in providing long-term loans in the valleys, nor do I believe that it is to be expected that the chartered banks of Canada will relax their arrangements and terms sufficiently to provide the necessary capital for the rehabilitation of the farms. Short-term loans, whatever their value for growers of annual crops, are of little significance in an industry

Supp ly-A gricu Iture
where the product requires a decade to develop. If the growers who qualify on other scores are to be assisted, and I believe they should be, and must be, the funds that are needed are long-term loans.
I believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to reorganize the farm loan board and to redefine its policies in such a way that these growers are able to undertake the re-establishment of their orchards without placing them under the annual pressures that follow from shortterm loans.
The conditions under which, in my opinion, long-term loans should be given are:
This is the part in which I am particularly interested, and I support the commissioner's recommendations wholeheartedly, as a result of my own experience and knowledge of the circumstances.
(a)	The farm should not be less than 10 bearing acres, on soils and with climatic conditions that give a grower a reasonable chance of profitability. (In every area, however, there are planted acreages which never have, and never will, qualify under these terms.)
Those are the acreages that are planted on the marginal lands to which I referred.
(b)	Loans should be made only to those who have demonstrated managerial capacity better than the average of their district.
(c)	Loans should be made for specified purposes, each one of which can be identified and valued:
(i)	Replacement of dead and damaged trees.
(ii)	Top-working of trees to change a variety of low market value to more market-acceptable varieties.
(iii)	Replacement of obsolete varieties.
(iv)	Purchase of orchard land.
(v)	The purchase of special orchard equipment, including trucks (not automobiles).
(vi)	Land rehabilitation.
(d)	Supervision and guidance, such as has been provided by the Veterans' Land Act, should be made available, especially for young growers.
The commissioner makes that recommendation without doubt as a result of his inquiry and in ascertaining the numbers of people in the fruit-growing areas who have succeeded under the V.L.A. to a greater extent than they might have succeeded had no supervision been given under the V.L.A.
The provision of some supervision and guidance to young growers is important, and may be critical, and the combination of the V.L.A. service with that of the provincial horticulturists will solve some of the problems. The amount of equity presently required by the farm loan board before a loan will be advanced (35 per cent) is excessive. particularly in the Okanagan valley, where property values are high. If the proposals of the federation of agriculture were carried out and care taken in the selection of growers, I hope that the farm loan board would be prepared to increase the maximum percentage loan to 75 or 80 per cent.
I have examined the statement of policy on farm credit issued by the Canadian federation of agriculture, and believe that they have substantially indicated the changes required in the Farm Loan Board Act and its operations to make this useful to the fruit-growers of these valleys.

Mr. Chairman, the same applies to those who wish to engage in small general farming, livestock farming, small fruit growing and poultry farming in my district. I see that my time is going, so I shall hurry along.
After having provided the land and made capital available, in order to assure sufficient production, in addition to the type of supervision which is suggested by the commissioner, I suggest that very close co-operation is required between the federal and provincial departments of agriculture and the experimental farms. In British Columbia that cooperation has been quite good, as mentioned by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. However, in other circumstances, I understand there has been some overlapping. There is a necessity, in our district particularly, for a general soil analysis survey, owing to changing conditions of the soil. Even in the area in which I live you find climatic and soil conditions change in very short distances. There is not very much information with respect to some of the areas I am discussing now.
We could do with an illustration station. While the experimental station at Agassiz serves the Fraser valley and the experimental station at Summerland serves the Okanagan, our conditions in the Kootenays are very different. I am not suggesting the establishment of an experimental station, but I do suggest we should have an illustration station for the assistance of farmers. These stations would give some leadership and guidance with respect to breeds of cattle, with respect to varieties of fruit which would avoid wastage in unnecessary plantings and things of that sort, and with respect to plant diseases.
I want to have a word or two to say about marketing. I might say that the commissioner wholeheartedly endorses the marketing scheme of Tree Fruits Limited in British Columbia which comes under provincial legislation. After a most exhaustive inquiry and the hearing of witnesses in all parts of the interior of British Columbia where tree fruits are grown he supports the present plan for the marketing of fruit and makes some recommendations for improvement in its operation here and there. But I want to deal with one recommendation he makes with reference to marketing. As found at page 790 of this report he recommends as follows:
That the provincial government request an amendment by the governor in council to the federal order in council under the "Agricultural Products Marketing Act" of Canada to give the fruit board powers similar to those given it by the lieutenant governor in council in the province of British Columbia, and in addition the powers to pool and equalize returns on tree fruits sold in interprovincial and export trade. No change in

the federal act would be needed because it already authorizes the delegation of the widest powers to the fruit board.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that if we could get some planned over-all agricultural policy in Canada there is an opportunity in our district for the development of processing plants such as jam factories, canning plants and cold storage plants for the storage of livestock, dairy and poultry products. In British Columbia in my constituency we used to ship out some of the finest jam in Canada. There is a large market for jam in Canada. We have the soil; we have the young people and we have the ability but it is going to take some planning and some co-operation.
In conclusion, may I say this. I have hurried along in order to complete my remarks by five o'clock. I think it is necessary that some careful reseach be done in order to obtain accurate figures as to the costs of production of crops and livestock in various regions in Canada. We have the bureau of statistics figures. We had the figures given to us by the minister from his point of view. We have the figures provided by growers organizations or farmers organizations which on occasion make representations to the federal and provincial governments. I think it is necessary that we have some research done in this connection so that we may have figures which are acceptable to governments and to the agricultural producers as a sound basis for the operation of the farm prices stabilization act. In our opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is only by this form of economic and social planning in relation to agriculture that the future of the family farm can be assured.
I have hurried through my remarks, but I am firmly of the opinion that we are not going to solve this problem until it is approached from a completely non-partisan point of view. In my opinion, the objective is very much worth while. When one goes through the prairies and sees, shall I say, the ruin of the countryside by the development of these large industrial farms-the small rural communities being decimated, the country church and the country amenities being destroyed by this development-I think it is up to all of us, regardless of party, to use our influence in this parliament, in the legislatures of this country and in the various organizations to which we belong, working toward what I consider to be an extremely worth while objective, namely the maintenance and improvement of the economic family farm in Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Dorion:: You will allow me, Mr. Chairman, before beginning my remarks, to commend all those who up to now have taken
Supply-Agriculture
part in this discussion. Their sincere and objective attitude proves how much importance they attach to the problem of agriculture in this country.
Being myself the representative of an entirely agricultural riding, which has no urban centre, it is proper that I should, in my turn, express the feelings, views and claims of the constituency of Bellechasse, of the province of Quebec and of the country as a whole, with regard to improving the position of a class which is absolutely essential to the economy of this country.
At the very outset of my remarks, I want to say a word about the issue raised by the hon. members for Beauce (Mr. Racine) and Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) in respect of the producing and marketing of pulpwood in the province of Quebec, in Ontario and New Brunswick. It has been rightly stated that the corporations which develop our forest resources for the purpose of making paper are probably the first to blame for the bad marketing conditions which affect our farmers, not only in Quebec but also in Ontario and New Brunswick.
The other day, following a question I had directed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), we learned that 17 of these companies have been prosecuted for infringement of the Combines Investigation Act while shamefully, deliberately and systematically exploiting-I have to use this word-the isolated small producers in our rural areas. Those punitive measures will not of course settle the problem. However, in taking this action according to law and within its constitutional responsibilities, the present government has shown a fairness and a sense of justice which deserve commendation.
In this respect, I entirely approve the remarks made more particularly by the hon. member for Charlevoix. And following the suggestions he made, may I be allowed-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
1950	HOUSE OF
Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of items under this heading, is it the wish of the house to have the group of divorce bills standing for second reading taken up under one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Very well, by unanimous consent.
Bill SD-106, for the relief of Morris Gordon. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-107, for the relief of Maurice Castonguay.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-108, for the relief of Rita Lucia Palmieri Bellefleur.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-109, for the relief of Alex Groot.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-110, for the relief of Gustave Rene Gosselin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-111, for the relief of Marie Berthe Jeannine Quesnel Patenaude.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-112, for the relief of Wauneta Langill Bourque.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-113, for the relief of Pierrette Bertrand Suchereault, otherwise known as Pierrette Bertrand Chussereault.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-114, for the relief of Yolande Bosse Murphy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-115, for the relief of Joseph Rolland Wright.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-116, for the relief of Rosalie Jakes Reisinger.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-117, for the relief of Jacqueline Ann Rosenfeld Bernstein.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-118, for the relief of Margit Elizabeth Mary Temke Malcolm.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-119, for the relief of Celia Claire Kanigsberg Dickman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-120, for the relief of Constantin Deacur.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-121, for the relief of Bernard Fourcade.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-122, for the relief of Sylvia Mary Mefrige Makad.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-123, for the relief of Marjorie Seymour Hammond Pearson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-124, for the relief of Helene Dagenais Roy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-125, for the relief of Violet Win-nifred Kean Newton Armstrong.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-126, for the relief of Marlene Marie Korn.-Mr. McCleave.


Bill SD-127, for the relief of Elaine Shirley Dorfman Moscovitch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-128, for the relief of Eric Alexander McConnell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-129, for the relief of Etta Rose Palevsky Lerman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-130, for the relief of Edward Bruce Bonneville.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-131, for the relief of Pamela Margaret Clark Creber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-132, for the relief of June Bernice Rath O'Hanley.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-133, for the relief of Michael Zuk. *-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-134, for the relief of George Frederick Davies.-Mr. McCleave.
Motion agreed to on division, bills read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-9, respecting the printing of negotiable instruments in the English and the French languages.
(Translation):
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, for several months now, I have been meeting my distinguished colleagues from the other provinces-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member wishes to move second reading of the bill which stands on the order paper as item No. 14.
I have given considerable thought to the propriety of permitting a debate on this bill and on a further bill which stands on the order paper as No. 16, having regard to the fact that the house is already debating the second reading of a bill which for all practical purposes is identical in substance. Indeed, two of the bills are identical in wording. I think this is a situation which is without precedent in our house and I first considered whether the motions should be accepted to stand on the order paper at the same time. I am satisfied that this was quite in order, but I came to the conclusion that it would be quite improper to permit a second debate on identically the same subject matter as the subject matter of a debate which was already proceeding. In other words, the house is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course. Thus

I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills for the simple reason that the house would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.
That is the conclusion I have reached. If there is any disagreement with this view I should be glad to hear briefly what it is.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
your remarks, but I felt that the wording of this bill was more specific than that of the other bills suggested, and put greater emphasis on the principle of bilingualism. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the honour and pleasure of dealing with this bill.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member to say that there is a differentiation between the two bills. However, I have taken the trouble to go into the subject matter very carefully, and I must say that unless I can be shown in some more detail what this difference is, I must adhere to the ruling I have just made. I must say that I cannot see any distinction.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No doubt Your Honour has fully investigated this matter, but I should like to draw your attention to citation No. 373 to be found at page 273 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which says, in section (2):
There is no rule which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject and containing similar provisions.
It may be that Your Honour feels that this does not apply in the case of provisions which are identical, but the citation does appear to allow debate on similar bills provided there has been no decision on second reading either accepting or rejecting such bills.


Mr. Speaker:: That citation is, in my view, not applicable in this case because it refers to bills dealing with a similar subject matter. The hon. member will recall that we had an instance last session of a public bill and a government bill, both of which dealt with the same subject matter, proceeding at the same time without restriction. But they were not identical bills. The citation also refers, as the Clerk reminds me, to the presentation of the bills. No objection was taken to the
Financial Administration Act presentation of these bills. It was only when they reached the stage of second reading that I found it necessary to intervene.
I refer the house to just one authority. Bourinot, fourth edition at page 329, states as a principle that unless this rule were in existence the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature, and contradictory decisions would sometimes be arrived at in the course of the same session.
Accordingly, I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed with his motion.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Now that a decision has been made, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order or, possibly a question of privilege. I feel that this is one of the rare occasions where it may be both. I feel I should raise a point of order and request that standing order 19(2) be adhered to by this house. We should afford all hon. members the privilege of being able to vote on the motion of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) that is coming up.
For the assistance of hon. members I shall read standing order 19 to which reference was made last Tuesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is raising a point of order. There is no subject matter before the house at the moment and I fail to see how he could take up a point of order. He did indicate there might be a question of privilege. Unless the house has something before it I think he himself is out of order in speaking. We had better proceed to the next item. I will have the Clerk read the next item and then I shall hear the hon. member.




[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act-Mr. Ricard.
Mr. Speaker:: The ruling I made with respect to the bill in the name of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), item No. 14, applies also to this one. I cannot allow it to proceed to debate on second reading.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, standing order 19 reads as follows:
19. (1) Questions put by members and notices of motions, not taken up when called may (upon the request of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence; otherwise they will disappear from the order paper. They may, however, be renewed.

Financial Administration Act
The second portion ol this standing order has more direct application. It reads as follows:
(2) Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand retaining their precedence; otherwise they shall be dropped and be placed on the order paper for the next sitting after those of the same class at a similar stage.
I realize I am a new member and perhaps not well versed in these matters. It has been the practice of this house to permit a member on his own to stand a bill or order for second reading without adhering to the rule and shifting the item to its proper place in accordance with the standing order. This is a privilege all hon. members have. I feel it would be very wrong to continue the procedure whereby an hon. member can remove the privilege of another hon. member. I realize I may be subject to being overruled by a member of the cabinet or by the house itself. If we allow a practice under which one hon. member may take away the right of another with respect to a bill which he feels is important and should move up in the order of business we will be adhering to a bad principle.
Your Honour has indicated that this is possibly the first time in the history of this parliament that bills had to stand in this fashion.	I felt this was an opportune
moment for me to indicate that the rule should apply to these bills when an objection is made by an hon. member and they should take the position which the standing order of this house requires them to take. If the rule had been applied, item No. 1 on the order paper today would be item No. 19 and the bills in question would appear immediately after item 28 on the order paper.
I submit that if an hon. member requests the privilege of having the rules adhered to that privilege should not be taken away from him by any hon. member of this house and that the government as stated in the rule on the proper occasions could make the request for retaining precedence.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member has a point. Our practice in this house as long as I have been here undoubtedly has been to allow an order to stand under this heading of public bills and orders if the hon. member in whose name it appears requests that it stand. It is true that the rule says that it may stand upon the request of the government. Rationalizing our practice with the rule as closely as we can I believe that we have assumed that if the government did not object to the hon. member's request to have his order stood and no objection was made it was assumed that the government had requested

it to stand and the item was allowed to stand, the order was retained and the order paper was printed in the same order as it had been printed before.
All of us in this house have been accustomed to seeing a great number of items under this heading allowed to stand one after another and appear again and perhaps allowed to stand a second day and again a third day and then come back and be dealt with in the same order in which they were originally placed.
If strictly applied the rule would require the leader of the house to say he had no objection to the item standing but I think we have fallen into the careless practice of assuming that he says that when he does not say anything. That is my interpretation of what has developed as our practice. Perhaps the more correct way would be for an hon. member who wishes his bill to stand to rise in his place and say, "With the leave of the government I wish this item to stand," and that would put the house leader under the necessity of saying "Yes" or "No" and the matter could be dealt with in that way.
As we have followed the practice to which I referred as careless, perhaps we should consider whether in the future we might be more careful of what the rule says. Because we have followed that practice I do not see how I can interfere with the order paper as it stands today. However, I will take the hon. member's point under advisement and proceed accordingly.
The hon. member has asked that item 16 stand.


An hon. Member:: Has it?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure.


Mr. Green:: Stand.
(Translation):
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefte-L'Assompiion-
Montcalm): Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad if my bill were allowed to remain in the order in which it is now.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The rule says that upon the request of the government it may stand. I understand the house leader has asked that it stand.


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, I declare that this item stands.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, to come back to my bill, I note that it is not altogether identical with the others which have been proposed. For instance, part of the explanatory notes of Bill No. C-4 read as follows:

-it is enacted . . . that the notes payable to bearer on demand and intended for circulation in Canada issued by the bank, shall be printed in both the official languages-[DOT]
Whereas Bill C-9 says:
-shall be printed in both-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order!
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -official languages at the same time.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order!
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is a difference.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member is attempting to revert to business which has already been disposed of and that we cannot do.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-14, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.-Mr. Fisher.
Frank Howard: I would like to request the house leader to give permission to allow it to stand.


Howard Charles Green: I do not want to be accused of being a dictator. However, following up the regular practice, I would ask that this stand.


William Moore Benidickson: You must be consistent.


Mr. Speaker:: The bill stands.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill C-17, to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses).
He said: The purpose of this bill is indicated in the explanatory notes and was also indicated during the last session. It is to have apply the same principle that applies to candidates and contributions to candidates to the contributions to political parties themselves and to require that political parties, like candidates in an election, file a statement respecting the contributions that have been made to them and the source and the amount of the expenditures.
During the last session the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had a number of comments to make on this bill and on rereading his remarks of last year I was pleased to see that he indicated he
Canada Elections Act
would endorse it this session. He will now be able to deal with it.
We find that when it comes to election expenses the larger the country grows, the more wealth it has and the larger its population, the more money there is around and the more money is spent for election purposes by political parties. Some millions and millions of dollars have been spent in recent years. It is estimated that some $7 million to $8 million was spent by the Conservatives alone during the last election, and we are of the opinion that the general public is entitled to know what elements of society, if any, are attempting to subvert political parties.
A candidate must disclose the source of contributions made toward his election expenses. That being so, we feel that the same principle should extend to a political party itself. We all know the axiom that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I think the public is entitled to know who is paying the piper with respect to parties as well as with respect to candidates.
I do not intend to go into too much detail or make too extensive remarks on moving the second reading of this bill. The bill was dealt with to a degree during the last session and undoubtedly, as the hon. member for Edmonton West indicated at the last session, he will support it now in order to get it in the hands of the privileges and elections committee this year where we can go into it in great detail.
In years past there has been an unsavory history of contributions to political parties. We know that in some instances people who make contributions get the spoils, or get on the gravy train, if there are any spoils or any gravy trains involved. I would like to put it this way. I should like to point out what the application of the present act means and how it is complied with or not complied with, as the case may be. I should like to do that by making reference to the returns which were filed by some of the candidates in the province of British Columbia and then pose the question whether we should not have a little closer look at contributions which are made to political parties.
My good friend from British Columbia, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), filed a statement or his official agent did on his behalf. We find an item in the return having to do with contributions to the candidate's fund in that constituency, or toward the Conservative candidate who is the Minister of Public Works, by a Mr. Frederick Field. His address is listed as 675 West Hastings, Vancouver. He made a contribution of $5,000, which is a pretty substantial amount of money. We find that the same individual,

Canada Elections Act
Mr. Frederick Field, at the same address in Vancouver, made a contribution toward the expenses of the candidate who is now the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) in the amount of $7,675.88, which is a pretty hefty amount of money to put into a campaign. We find that this same individual, Mr. Frederick Field, paid to the tune of $5,000 toward the campaign expenses of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson). My good friend, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) also was earmarked for a contribution. He did not fare so well as the other three individuals; he got only $3,000 from Frederick Field. Here we find one individual in Vancouver who, from the returns that I have -they may not be all complete; he may have had made other contributions to other candidates-contributed over $20,000 toward the campaign funds or the campaign expenses of the four individuals I have mentioned who now sit in this house.
As one can appreciate, this is a pretty hefty amount of money. Where did it come from? We do not know whether he was handling it in transit from somebody else. Whether it came from other sources is far beyond my knowledge. Whether some consideration was given to Mr. Field himself at a later stage by this government remains to be appreciated by each individual in his own light, but we find surprisingly enough that Mr. Field who dished out these 20,000 bucks at least ended up on December 1, 1958, by being appointed as a director of the Bank of Canada and the industrial development bank on a temporary basis. He was appointed for a three-year term on the first day of March.
There are other items listed, large amounts of money, in the thousands of dollars, for other candidates. The attempt is made by candidates to list the total amount of their expense contributions as coming from one organization, from a constituency organization of a political party or from the provincial headquarters of a political party. The point is that the present provisions of the act requiring the candidate to file his expenses are not complied with. The intent of the provisions is not complied with. The individual candidate can list that he received $6,000, $7,000, $8,000 or $10,000 from a political organization and there is no indication as to the people who contributed toward that lump sum.
The intent of the act in the first instance was to require the candidate to file his election expenses and show who made contributions to his election fund. This has been overcome by candidates filing a report indicating that they got their money only from one source, that source being, as I said, the constituency association or the provincial

organization or the national organization of the particular party. The source might also be some other organization or individual whose sole duty was merely to handle campaign fund contributions from the central party and distribute them to the particular candidates.
The intent of the bill is to attempt to meet the requirement set out in the act at the present time that the public are entitled to know the source of campaign fund contributions. We will then not have in the future such cases as I have just mentioned where one individual can be listed by four separate candidates as having contributed $20,000 with the result that people wonder later, after that individual is appointed by the government as a director of a couple of organizations, whether or not there is some nefarious intent involved. I am not suggesting that there was but I am saying that people would probably ask themselves this question if they had known of the situation. It is something that we should attempt to overcome. We should attempt to maintain the greatest possible degree of morality with regard to political contributions.


Mr. Lambert:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he place in the same category the appointment by the Saskatchewan government of certain people, formerly colleagues of his in the house, to positions under the Saskatchewan government?


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the hon. member is not going to answer the question so I should like to proceed with the debate that has been initiated on this bill. The subject matter of course, is of very vital and deep interest to all hon. members because it involves a proposed amendment to the Canada Elections Act and each member of the house is very much interested in the contents of the Canada Elections Act as well as the operation of the statute because it is by means of that machinery that we have all found our way to this chamber as members thereof. The bill deals with one of the most vexing problems confronting any Canadian citizen who offers himself for office on the federal level, namely the processes whereby he obtains the funds necessary to run his political campaign. These funds are popularly known, of course, as the sinews of war.
As I listened to the hon. member explain the bill it seemed to me that he has a very dark and suspicious outlook with regard to the level of public morality in this country. No doubt he was speaking for himself and he is entitled to do so, but in participating in this debate I want to deal with my understanding of the bill before the house from my own experience as a candidate in several elections since 1951. Before the hon. member

spoke I had given him the benefit of the doubt and had suspected that he might be preoccupied with the problem confronting every member resulting from the rising cost of conducting election campaigns. I had thought that the amendment that he proposed to the act perhaps would make some small contribution toward reducing the ceiling on the costs of running an election campaign. However, in listening to his remarks I found that this idea did not enter into his interpretation of the amendment.
In a democratic society such funds must be raised from private sources. We have no access whatsoever to public funds in obtaining the necessary finances to carry on our election campaigns. All of these funds are provided through voluntary support. From my experience I have found that there are at least four major categories into which we can divide the sources of the funds obtained by the local committee, the provincial committee or the national campaign committee. First of all, some of these funds are obtained from large business corporations. Second, smaller business firms in the local communities make their contributions, usually on the level of the local campaign committees. Again, with the development of modern society and the emergence of other organized groups, labour unions have made substantial contributions to political campaigns. In Canada there is a tendency for this source of voluntary contributions to support one particular political group. However, from personal experience I find that the most important source of election campaign funds is contributions made by supporters of the party within the constituency, by donors who anonymously contribute to a particular individual's election campaign.
In addition, and I doubt whether this practice prevails in the larger urban areas, in rural western constituencies particularly it has become almost an accepted practice to help to defray election expenses by the old fashioned method of passing the hat or taking up a collection. By that means expenses arising from renting a hall are covered at the local community level. I know that in my constituency organization we try to make every poll in the district responsible for the expenses arising from the carrying on of the campaign in that particular section of the constituency. From my experience in several elections those are the main sources of campaign funds. As I examine the sources of the funds, I see no reason to be unduly suspicious that the contributions made are designed to subvert the true processes of our democratic society.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, I am speaking from my personal experience.
Canada Elections Act
However, if it is true that funds from these various sources are used as suggested by the sponsor of this bill for subversive purposes, it suggests an unfortunate level of political morality in this country, which I trust does not operate too generally or in too many constituencies. I have never observed that tendency myself, and therefore I have the feeling that the introduction, the interjection, the emphasis or the underscoring of this particular aspect of the problem of raising funds is a tendency toward projection on the part of the hon. member concerned.
I would have one very strong objection to supporting the amendment as it is outlined in the bill. The essence of our democratic system is the secret ballot. I think if there is any subversion involved at all in the situation, that subversion would occur as a result of the amendment. There would be a tendency to violate the principle of the secret ballot because there would be widespread knowledge as to the support of the private citizen, the business corporation or other groups I mentioned, given to particular political parties by the donors concerned.


Frank Howard: That exists right now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: To a very minor extent.


Frank Howard: To a very major extent.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the more we can preserve the secret ballot, the healthier our democratic system will be.


Frank Howard: Certainly, but it has nothing to do with the secret ballot.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Although the hon. member did not mention this particular aspect of the problem, if the hon. member is concerned about the rising costs of conducting an election campaign I think there are other ways of dealing with the problem than the one outlined in the bill before the house. I am going to refer to the systems that are followed in the United States and the United Kingdom. A ceiling is placed on the moneys that can be expended by each of the major groups. Whether or not there is adherence to this ceiling, I do not know, but the ceiling is set at the sum of $3 million. In the United Kingdom, they have provided more direct control over expenditures. Expenditures are limited to so much per voter in each riding, plus a flat sum that is allowed for the national campaign.
These are attempts to cope with this problem by legislative means. In the United States, perhaps, the legislative approach has not been too successful. In the United Kingdom, I understand that the legislation is effective in imposing a ceiling. I would suggest

Canada Elections Act
that a much better, a much more democratic approach to this problem, is to operate a legitimate campaign. The old days of vote buying and other devices that used to be resorted to in the elementary stage of the development of our democratic processes, I feel sure are now past. We can further reduce the expenditure ceiling by encouraging voluntary workers, by resorting to old fashioned techniques of economy, by having the campaign conducted on a voluntary basis, party workers volunteering their services in all respects, the scrutineers manning the polls and so forth, which tends to be one of the major items of expenditure.
I think that rather than endeavouring to impose morality by legislative means upon the body politic, we would be making a much more substantial contribution to our electoral processes if we worked toward raising the level of political morality generally. It is well-known truism that stateways do not make folkways. You cannot impose morality upon the public by legislative means. If there is larceny in the soul, it will burst out regardless of how many legislative prohibitions are imposed. If my hon. friend is concerned about the tendency toward subversion of our democratic processes by means of the financial control exercised through voluntary contributions, I think he would be making a more positive contribution toward the solution of this problem if he campaigned on behalf of raising the level of public morality generally; that should be part of our election campaign in a democratic society. After all, those things that broaden the values, ideas and morals are not going to be controlled from without, but control must come from within.


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, time will not permit a very long debate tonight because we had such difficulty in deciding which public bill would be under debate. However, for the few moments at my disposal I should like to discuss generally what is intended by the bill introduced by the sponsor of Bill C-17. In the first place, I think I had better explain to the house that, generally, I am opposed to the legislation because, in my opinion, there have been too many attempts within the short time I have been here to make piecemeal amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
A brief review of the session just concluded will indicate to the house that last year there were five bills introduced, bills C-8, C-15, C-18, C-19 and C-23. The same bills have been re-introduced during this session. They are identical in form, and in fact they have the same sponsors as the bills that were unsuccessful in 1958. I am also of the firm
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
opinion that amendments to the Canada Elections Act are most important and should only be introduced after serious and careful study by the committee of the house which is responsible for that type of legislation, and after the advice of experts who are available to assist such a committee.
Another principle to which I am opposed, and which appears in this bill, is the infringement upon basic freedom. In the first place, the bill makes it mandatory that the return be filed within four months. If it must be filed, then it follows that it must be accurate. When filed it automatically becomes a public document. There are thousands of electors in Canada who make voluntary contributions of small amounts to political parties of their choice. I know that there are many thousands of supporters in the country who make personal contributions to the party which the mover represents. Equally, there are as many or more who make voluntary contributions to the party which I have the honour to represent. These people make these contributions on one understanding, namely that their names will remain secret.
As soon as a person runs for office he is marked and tabbed for life as a supporter of a certain political party. The same thing will apply if photostatic copies of the contribution list were made public in each and every individual riding. That is something that could well result if the central committee were obligated to make public its contribution list. In fact, in my opinion, this bill, if passed, might do more to take away our freedom than any bill introduced in recent years.
I know that the mover last year referred to the fact that similar legislation was in existence in the province of British Columbia. That may be so, Mr. Speaker. However, that does not mean that it would be good legislation for Canada as a whole. As the hon. member who preceded me said, the most important thing in a democracy is to make certain that the ballot remains secret as it is today. Otherwise we might end up with a one-party system in Canada as we see it, unfortunately, in too many communist countries.


Frank Howard: We are very close to it here.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: If it were mandatory that the individual donor to a national political party have his name made public, he would automatically be marked, tabbed and accepted as a supporter of that party. There are today in Canada not only individuals but many companies, both large and small, which make voluntary contributions to election campaigns. Many of them, including individuals, make contributions to more than one party. In fact,

I think the major source of campaign funds is the money that is collected voluntarily on the local level. This bill does not try to find out the source of that contribution unless the contribution finds its way into central headquarters.


Frank Howard: That provision is in the act already.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: Central headquarters is the hub of any political party. Are we to be obligated by this bill to separate what national headquarters might spend during the time of an election. How do we designate what it spends for ordinary day to day expenses? I do not think any hon. member present will disagree with me when I make the statement that, in order for a party to remain national, it is necessary to maintain at all times active national headquarters. It is necessary to have a permanent staff. I believe that all parties represented here have such a staff. Staffs must be paid salaries. Headquarters must be provided for them. There is also the matter of the publication of literature. In my opinion it would be absolutely impossible for any national headquarters to separate what is actually spent on elections. In the party which I represent an election campaign goes on continuously.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that there are other hon. members who wish to take part in this debate. In conclusion I wish only to state that I am opposed to the legislation principally because of the fact, as I said originally, that I do not like to see such an important act being amended piecemeal from session to session without the research and study to which it is entitled. In the second place, I am opposed to the principle of making it necessary for a donor to have his name filed in a public document and advertised throughout the country.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Erik Nielsen: It is hardly worth while, Mr. Speaker, in the short time that is available to me now, to make a start on the rather lengthy remarks I have to make in connection with this bill. However, there are two points which I perhaps might be able to make in the two minutes that are left to me. The first is with regard to the declaration of election expenses by a central committee. Apart from the fact
Business of the House
that it is rather difficult to define just what the bill means by a central committee-and I think this point was raised by the hon. member from Edmonton who spoke on the bill last year-whether it is the national central committee or the central committee of the province or of a local association, there is this difficulty and I fail to see how the bill gets around it.
I am not suggesting for a moment that what I am about to say will actually come about, but let us suppose that the Canadian Labour Congress determines, as a matter of policy, to support a particular political party. As I say, I am not suggesting that it is the case but am just assuming it for the purpose of making this point. Suppose this policy was written into their constitution. Suppose that policy and that constitution required the contribution by various labour unions across the country for the specific purpose of earmarking funds to support political campaigns of a particular political party, and I mention no party by a name. Then suppose it comes campaign time and the election is over and the requirement exists that the particular political party which I am assuming the C.L.C. is supporting must file a return under this amendment. All the particular political party would have to do, and still be fully within the terms of this particular amendment, would be to state that the source of their funds was the C.L.C. How does this amendment, in the light of the point I have just made, assist in designating individuals or concerns from whom these funds are made available to political parties?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the
business is for Monday and Tuesday, and perhaps the leader of the house would project his mind a little bit further into next week.


Howard Charles Green: As I announced last night, Mr. Speaker, there will be a supply motion on Monday. On Tuesday we are asking for interim supply.


Lionel Chevrier: On Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: On Wednesday. I think there will also be supplementary estimates. I cannot as yet say what particular legislation we will take up after that on Wednesday, but I will let the hon. member know.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
66968-9-124
[Stage Direction]
Questions